|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 1, 2024 18:21:59 GMT
@snidely The one I love is this baseless "smearing" attack. Is it really "smearing" when the company is very clear in their NRs to indicate the exact length of the super high-grade interval down to 1/3 of a meter? As long as there is relatively consistent mineralization in the full interval above cut-off (which I think is 1 g/t over 2m), then you list it as a composite interval. Every NR with results will give you the exact formula for determining composite intervals. That is not smearing in the way that the term is derogatorily used - it is only smearing if they didn't give the smaller sub-intervals or listed them out in much bigger sizes (instead of .3m, putting the high-grade as 200 g/t over 3m) which is not the case with NFG. 4 36 minutes ago
@snidely The sad part is that I think that Matthew with Crux usually does a pretty good interview with the exploration companies and I have seen many times when he really does ask the questions that need to be asked. So I do appreciate that. In terms of Crux's analysis and picks... I have no use for that and my gut sense is that is based more on a self-serving interest in collecting checks from their picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 13, 2024 16:41:33 GMT
@snidely Depends what steepness you are talking about. There is the steepness that the formation dives. For example, look at the cross-section of Keats vs Iceberg in the last NR. You can see how Keats has like a 50-55º dive on its bottom, while Iceberg is not as defined and what definition the bottom of the structure has is not nearly as steep. On the other hand, you have the tilt in the orientation of the specific veining itself. It is slight, but the true width estimates on 1120 and 1210 was 60-90%, but the true width estimate on 1820 was 70-95%. Doesn't look like much on its face, but I think it is significant. So my two theories are that they are trying to validate their modeling to see if they have the orientation of the vein structure figured out. Or the other possibility is that they were "aiming" for this specific zone and coming in at a 55º because that is what it took to hit that zone from where their drill pad was. Could be completely off, but that is what I am thinking.1 Share Manage Bookmark Moderate Flag Ignore Block 34 minutes ago @snidely This is the bonanza pocket I was talking about:  |
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 14, 2024 17:35:10 GMT
@snidely A good example of where the seismic would have come in handy (and the kind of situations it will in the future) was in Melissa Render’s recent presentation about how they “lost” the trend at Keats North and it took a while to figure out how the Keats-Baseline FZ caused the splay off into Iceberg. Rather than having the seismic tell NFG where to drill for gold, I think its primary value will be to help show the overall structure so that the exploration team doesn’t have to piece it together one drill hole at a time. Having that information should allow NFG to have larger steps out in areas that the seismic indicates strong structural trends, which will speed up new discoveries. But I really do think this idea of the seismic results as a secret treasure map that tells you where all the gold is not realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 18, 2024 1:30:55 GMT
@snidely There are several things going on here and it seems the messages keep getting jumbled up. I don’t always agree with QH, but in this interview, I think he is correct and on point. There does comes a point where you need to say enough is enough and move a project forward. You don’t want to become another Windfall project where you drill 1.8million meters and just continue to keep trying to build these monster 10+ million oz resources - but never seem to have a finish line in sight. At some point, you get to a “good enough to move ahead” stage. At the same time, if you are looking at selling to a major, then you want to make sure you have a reasonably complete understanding of what you have+ 355 more words. Click to expand 3 about 4 hours ago @benedict @snidely Windfall- since you brought it up (is a poor comparison I might add) - Did what John B wanted to do with Canadian Malartic (keep 50%) and are now debt free and carried to production...meanwhile they keep exploring at GFI's expense. In OSK I trust  Just look at that core and those thick thick veins www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P6OlhveQMI+ I as an OSK shareholder am exceedingly pleased they did not sell out (see video) - generational mine (and I spoke to John about it 7 years ago for an hour and he never let me down 0 about 4 hours ago @snidely I want to be clear, I am not bagging on the quality of the deposit at the Windfall project. It is world-class. But where I apparently differ with you is that I don’t think the endless drilling strategy (over 1.8 million meters and growing) was the best route to maximize shareholder value. I think so many juniors sell out too early without drilling enough, but I am of the opinion that Windfall gets to the point on the other side of the scale. How much more exploration needs to be done there? 2 about 3 hours ago |
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 24, 2024 23:41:35 GMT
@snidely @aardvark The problem with your suggestion that NFG will cherry pick a great bulk sample is that the results aren’t just a question of saying that they did “a bulk sample of X number of tons and had an average recovered grade.” While that is probably how it will be reported and interpreted by many in the market, there will be way more going on behind the scenes. One of the “problems” with a deposit like Queensway is that when you are trying to calculate an MRE, there is a cap applied to drill results at a level like 30 g/t, even if the actual drill results were several times higher. The results of the bulk sample are what may allow that cap to be increased if the results show a high degree of consistency of mineralization across a broader zone instead of the drill results being a result of getting lucky with “nuggety” core sections. In the major zones, I think we are well past the point of thinking that there are just a few super high grade veins that we just happened to luckily stumble upon. But the market is still skeptical, and in all honesty, the entire junior investing space is plagued with casual investors who struggle with knowing how to extrapolate whether drill results actually lead to viable and economically feasible mining projects. Outside of the NR headline, it really doesn’t matter if the bulk sample is cherry picked or not, because what will actually matter from the bulk sample results is the ratio of anticipated recovery based on modeling of the ore body from drill results (where the cap would be applied) to what was actually recovered in that same area from the bulk sample. But once again, you correctly identify the tree, while entirely missing the forest. Better luck next time…12 Share Manage Bookmark Moderate Flag Ignore Block about 7 hours ago suregold Great post Snidely. 4 about 5 hours ago @nfg-long Snidely, thanks for your explanation and effort to help the board understand what NFG may do. But clearly Aardvark, Evenkeel and the Buccos are not interested in a legitimate conversation. Either they are not capable of interpreting what NFG has discovered, or they refuse to accept the facts about what NFG has uncovered during its drill program. Aardvark's posts are mostly nonsense or insincere and not worthy of a reply. 2 about 4 hours ago @nfg-long Aardvark, it's understandable as to your reason for picking your posting name. An aardvark is a silly or credulous person who is prone to mistakes or blunders. Now why would someone who owns a position in NFG and picked NFG-Long as his posting name, trouble you? it does seem to confirm your choice of using Aardvark. Why are you here? Are you trying to destroy this board, the way Evenkeel/Aardvark and Bucco have hurt the NFG Stcokhouse board? |
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 25, 2024 18:20:34 GMT
@snidely For the detractors, please illuminate us on what actions NFG management should be taking that they are not doing now? Through the doldrums in PM sector over the last 18 months, NFG has kept its foot on the gas the continued to forge ahead with the aggressive exploration of Queensway. I am sure that some might try to say that doing so was a mistake and that they should have gone into cash conserve mode - but the drill bit is the only way to move things forward in this space. If NFG had taken the "prudent" approach and backed off their drill program to 3-4 drills and delayed the Keats trenching and so on... everyone would be screaming that they were only doing so to make sure that they continued to collect their paychecks and they don't care about investors.
Now, I am not suggesting that NFG management is completely above reproach - for example, I was critical at the time for how they handled the QA/QC deal about 18 months ago. But that said, to suggest that management is treating NFG like a lifestyle company is a completely vacuous and inane criticism. Of the money NFG has raised (and the dilution has been substantial), almost all of those funds have gone into the ground, exactly where they should go. And isn't like they are drilling just for the sake of drilling - as they continue to discover new zones and substantial extensions of the known deposits. Are the detractors suggesting that NFG get a few drill results and just run off and take the best deal offered by a major? You need to know what you actually have before you sell. But that is the problem with the skeptics and critics... it is always easier to point out someone's deficiencies and then suggest some unrealistic hypothetical approach would be better.
@snidely As for the mega-bulls, how in the hell were you expecting this to go? If you want to claim the glory of riding from the bottom all the way to the top, you have to go through all the bumps and bruising along the way. Everyone wants to be the successful contrarian investor, but wants the title without earning it. The essential essence of a contrarian is that you go against the current and that you hold to your thesis when the skeptics and critics are having their day in the sun. If the critiques of aardvark (who is actually quite tame) throw you off your game, you might want to reexamine whether you have enough fortitude to keep a hold of the rope for as long as you are going to need to get to the final destination. I am a believer in NFG, and I honestly believe that it has all the makings to be a world-class gold mine in the future (as I think the mega bulls also believe), but it would be foolish to assume it is going to be an easy care-free path to that destination.
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 25, 2024 18:25:29 GMT
@snidely @longci54 The problem is that you didn't read the NR on the MAE deal. What was there to put to bed? They lent $2mil to MAE in exchange for (1) the right to do some due diligence on the possibility of toll mining at their mill; (2) exclusivity to negotiate with MAE during the due diligence period; and (3) warrants in MAE.
As for the bulk samples - there is far more going on here than you seem capable of comprehending. The trenching was done for multiple reasons, first and foremost was to expose the actual veining to see if when exposed that it lined up with the modeling that the geological team was doing from the drill results. It does take some time to do that. Unfortunately, during that period of time, the exposed area got covered in a pretty think blanket of snow. This is a little speculation on my part, but because of the nature of this deposit, I am guessing that the bulk sample is not just a random 5k tons of material in the general deposit zone. Instead, they will want a clear spatial zone for the bulk sample so that they can compare what the recovery results were from that section and how that compares to what the resource modeling (which has grade caps as I mentioned yesterday) yields.
But you seem to want management to just produce news for the sake of news, which if NFG management did that, would cause the very harm to shareholders that you are bemoaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 26, 2024 13:26:30 GMT
@snidely So what amazing broad insights do you have for us based on your read of a few paragraphs in a news release? It looks like FireFly mainly got port access from MAE, and also the potential to use the processing facility. First of all, the MOU NFG signed with Maritime was to conduct feasibility work on the use of the facility for toll mining. It was not an offer to acquire the facility. FireFly may apparently also want to use the same facility for toll mining or otherwise. But you seem to assume that a company can only ever do toll mining for one company. Now, I guess if you were someone who was waiting with bated breath for the announcement that full scale toll mining operations were set to begin next week, you might be disappointed. I guess since I never put much value into the MAE deal, even if it went away (which I am not convinced that this constitutes the end of dealing with MAE), I fail to see how that fact moves the dial one way or the other. It isn't like share price moved up on the announcement of the Maritime MOU... why would be expect to see it move down if it fell through?
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 27, 2024 13:24:46 GMT
@snidely So what did Collin do to you to piss you off? Did he smash your girlfriend in high school or something and now you have some undying resentment against him? 3 about 12 hours ago
@snidely Oh, so you are upset that he lacks magical powers to do mineral exploration without actually drilling? Don't strain your back stretching so hard to find something to attack NFG with... 5 about 11 hours ago
@snidely And sorry about your girlfriend... probably wouldn't have worked out anyways.
@snidely Oh, the scathing judgment of @aardvark and @longci54 is more than I can bear... how will I ever continue on in the world knowing that I offended such delicate souls of those two stalwarts who come on here with no other motive other than to uplift, inspire and support all the poor helpless oppressed shareholders? Oh, what a pitiful person I have become...
Your hypocrisy is the only thing that exceeds your pompousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on Mar 27, 2024 16:03:57 GMT
@snidely @aardvark Have you ever read technical reports before? .64ppm (which 1 ppm is roughly 1 g/t) is the average for all drilling, not just the reported intervals. If you only look at mineralized sections that assayed over 1G/t, then it goes up to 14.78g/t. That is precisely why I have been saying multiple times that we should be looking for ~15g/t from the bulk sample. If you include all the overburden and non-mineralized parts, yes, average grade drops to .64g/t. You have to actually read the words and think about what they mean and what reasonable implications can be drawn from them. I know it is challenging for you to wrap your head around the idea that when you start mining, you only run just the ore through the mill, and not every bit of overburden and other non-mineralized dirt. Definitely brought your C game today… a little disappointed in you. I thought you had better trolling skills than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on May 9, 2024 15:29:38 GMT
@snidely The accuracy of an estimated resource varies depending on the type of deposit. I think one of the big problems with the process is that we are mixing disciplines. You start in a geology discipline where you are looking at geological structures, continuity, variability, and so on. Then you move into areas like metallurgy and mine engineering that need to determine whether the mineralization can be mined and extracted and what recovery looks like. Then if you proceed to feasibility studies, that data goes into a realm of economics and business operations that is looking at commodity markets, equipment requirements, transportation, labor, permitting, environmental, political risk, and so on. Seems way too complicated of a response what feels like a simple question of “How much gold is there on this project?”, but that is how it needs to be answered. 3 about an hour ago
@crenshaw cnn 0 about an hour ago
@jfan22 That's right snidely, but before engineering can really start you need to understand the geology and the deposit extents. When their step outs stop hitting and they find the depth extents will be the start of resource definition and infill drilling. GBR never got to show the definition at depth required to declare MRE. And now Kinross look like geniuses because they bought it before GBR had a chance to prove continuity. Look at Mark IKN on twitter, he had a recent update about it and has significant sway on Bay street apparently. NFG will have a bidding war on its hands if they hit grade at depth and validate the seismic survey. All the idiots on the main board whining about no MRE simply do not understand the context and haven't done their DD. NFG booth at PDAC told me what it would take for them to do a MRE in the first 30 seconds of conversation back in 2022, and it was essentially finding the mineralization extents. Every time I turn around their step outs are hitting at NFG and there's a new zone, so MRE never gonna happen. Kinross drilled like 500km to declare MRE on the depth portions of GBR, it is better for shareholders to simply not get diluted here and let the most optimistic bid have it. 3 about an hour ago
@snidely As for deposit type, the professionals who do this are not promoters. They would rather miss low than miss high. So when you deal with deposits that are highly variable, where you see .3m of say 250 g/t followed by 2 meters of 10 g/t, then another super high grade and so forth… those little pockets of super high grade really matter. But, for resource calculation, they are systematically removed from the calculation because while those spots offer huge financial opportunity, they also introduce uncertainty. So, going back to the risk aversion of the professionals calculating the resource estimate, they will go in and put very conservative caps on high grade results to avoid a situation where they can be accused of juicing the numbers. And this makes sense if you think about it. No one Sue’s a company that prepared a resource estimate because it ended up being more productive and profitable than predicted. But if it is the other way around and the estimate overstates the resource or economics, then the cost of that mistake is a potential company-ender. All of this is part of the reason I have been saying that if NFG released a resource estimate, we would find it pretty disappointing because we would assume that the number given was actually accurate - but in a deposit like Queensway, there is going to be a substantial delta between the resource estimate vs actual gold recovered. 3 about an hour ago
@snidely @jfan22 I completely agree. Everyone wants to become the next Fosterville, but my position is that we first want to avoid becoming the next NewMarket that sold Fosterville to KL before truly understanding and appreciating the full extent of what they were selling. No question that the NewMarket guys didn’t do poorly in the deal, but part of that was that they got lucky because some of the assets KL brought to the table (like Macasa) were also grossly undervalued at the time. But there is no question that if the full extent of what was in the Swan Zone (not even thinking about the Herrier Zone) was known when the deal between NewMarket and KL was cut, NewMarket could have scored a better deal. So to the extent that the market allows it, keep exploring and trying to put a lasso around the extent of the deposit at Queensway. And I am not talking about the entire property, but NFG needs to be able to put a lasso around the deposits they
@snidely @fibonaccimike They don’t ignore them, what they do is cap them. So in my example where you have veining that is 250+ g/t, for purposes of resource calculation, they will say that any drill result above 35 g/t will be calculated as if the result was 35 g/t. That is what makes these folks who do the calculations so much different than us as investors. We look at the unknown as potential and opportunity, they look at it as risk.
As for your question about frequency, it is not frequency that is most important, it is consistency. The most effective way to help justify raising the grade caps on resource calculation is to do bulk sampling.
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on May 9, 2024 16:14:52 GMT
@snidely @fibonaccimike Answering your question is where I tend to draw some hate and jeers among the NFG bulls. While I believe I am very pro-NFG, my valuations for NFG tend to be more modest and conservative and do not line up with some of the expectations of others on here that think it will go up 10-20x over its current price. Based on what has been discovered to date, I think a market cap of $2.5B is not an unreasonable valuation target. I come to that number based on an assumption that the current drill results can support an estimate resource of 5 mil oz at an average grade in the range upwards of 20 g/t. I then use an average in-situ value of $400/oz and that gets me to $2B. I then put an estimated valuation on discovery potential of about $500 million. So that gets me to $2.5B as my baseline valuation where we stand today. Now, to the extent that we can continue to do exploration and turn "discovery potential" into in-situ ounces... I think that valuation goes up. The threshold question at this point is whether spending more money on exploration (while requiring dilution to fund it) generates more long-term value on a future acquisition - in my mind, the answer to that question is still yes. That may also change in the future, and when it does, that is the time that NFG needs to start looking at generating an initial resource. Until that time, they need to keep exploring and finding more deposits. 2 18 minutes ago
@snidely Obviously, a massive jump in the price of gold to something like $5,000/oz would do crazy things to NFG's valuation, but I don't consider that variable in my personal valuations because that effect would be seen across all gold companies and not limited to just the valuation of NFG. So if someone wants to say that my number is too low because gold is about to shoot to $5,000, fair enough, because I have purposely removed that consideration from my valuation calculations
|
|
|
|
Post by likeike on May 9, 2024 16:24:53 GMT
@snidely No. I am trying to answer the perpetual question of how much is an ounce of gold in the ground worth? The traditional rule of thumb in this sector is that an ounce in the ground are worth 5-10% of the spot price. The rule of thumb is based on looking at the historical prices that mining projects are acquired for vs the size of their resource. So that 5-10% range is the range of one standard deviation from the mean. So with that baseline model, we would be looking at $115-235/ounce. There are a few reasons that I use to justify pushing that number up to $400. While I think it costs a shit ton of capital to ramp up mining and milling operations on a project like this, compared to most other mining projects, Queensway is in a great jurisdiction and has outrageously good access to infrastructure (power, water, transport, labor markets, etc.). So the upfront capital will be substantial but still on the low side compared to so many other exploration projects. On top of that, I think an in-situ ounce that comes from 20 g/t ore is worth more because it can be recovered at a much lower ASIC. So that is why I give it a $400 per in-situ ounce valuation while acknowledging that doing so does put it about 3 standard deviations from the mean - but I have no issues justifying that due to the factors above.
|
|
Just look at that core and those thick thick veins