VANCOUVER, Aug. 4, 2015 /CNW/ - Corvus Gold Inc. ("Corvus"
or the "Company") - (TSX: KOR, OTCQX: CORVF) announces the filing
of an independent NI 43-101 technical report and preliminary
economic assessment ("PEA") for its 100% owned North Bullfrog
Project, Nevada to support the
Company's announcement on June 16,
2015 of the results of the PEA. There are no material
differences between the June 16, 2015
news release and the technical report filed on July 31, 2015.
This summary of the PEA, which has already been disclosed via
the June 16, 2015 news release, is
being included here for informational purposes only and
incorporates drilling conducted in 2014 used to calculate a new
resource for the high-grade gold-silver Yellowjacket deposit.
The base case PEA assumed a conceptual WhittleTM pit
shell and would be scheduled for processing as defined at a US
$900 gold price. Highlights of
the PEA (in constant 2015 USD)
include:
- Pre-Tax Total Cash Flow: $479M at
$1,200 gold, IRR of 53%
- NPV(5% post-tax): $246M at $1,200
gold, IRR of 38%
- NPV(5% post-tax): $103M at $1,000
gold, IRR of 20.5%
- Projected average annual production: 149 k ounces gold per year
for first 6 years dropping to 68.5 k ounces gold per year for the
remaining 4 years
- Projected silver production of 2.49 M ounces Life of Mine
(LOM)
- Cash Cost per gold ounce: $635
- Project Total Capital Cost per gold ounce: $206
- Initial Capex: $175M (LOM
sustaining Capital $83M)
- Strip ratio of 0.6-1 (waste to ore)
- Gold recoveries of 87% mill and 74% heap leach
- Mill resource grade increase of +100% to 2.1g/t gold
- YellowJacket/mill resource confidence increased significantly
with 91% in Measured & Indicated category up from <20% in
2014 resource
Jeff Pontius Corvus Gold CEO states, "The results from this
initial analysis of the North Bullfrog deposits have clearly
illustrated the economic potential of this new and emerging Nevada
Gold District. The project's strong performance with low
development capital and low operating costs has formed a unique
asset that could be ready for development even in the current gold
price environment. In addition, Corvus Gold is currently
engaged in a multi-phase exploration drilling program targeting a
number of high potential, high-grade vein system targets which
could host significant new large discoveries. When we link
the current existing North Bullfrog project value with the
Districts exceptional exploration potential, we believe the Corvus
Gold investment opportunity shines very bright."
The PEA is based on the North Bullfrog resource model (as
at June 16, 2015) which consists of material in the measured,
indicated and inferred classifications. Inferred mineral
resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the
economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to
be categorized as mineral reserves and there is no certainty that
the PEA will be realized.
Table 1
North Bullfrog Project - PEA
SummaryResults
(values in
2015 US$ based on $1,200 gold price, mining recoverable resources
defined by pit shells
and 0.52 g/t gold mill breakeven grade and 0.15 g/t gold heap
leach breakeven grade)
Parameter
|
Summary
Data
|
Mineral resource -
Measured Au and Ag
|
4.04 M t at 2.43 g/t
Au for 316.2 kozs and at 18.89 g/t Ag for 2.46
Mozs
|
Mineral resource -
Indicated Au and Ag
|
22.14 M t at 0.41 g/t
Au for 289.6 kozs and at 1.18 g/t Ag for 0.84 Mozs
|
Mineral resource -
Inferred Au and Ag
|
137.09 M t at 0.21
g/t Au for 926.2 kozs and at 0.75 g/t Ag for 3.32
Mozs
|
Pre-Tax Total Cash
Flow; IRR at US$ 1,200* per Au oz
|
US$ 479 M;
53%
|
Post-Tax NPV(5%) ;
IRR at US$ 1,200* per Au oz
|
US$ 246 M;
38%
|
Overall Strip
Ratio
|
0.6 to 1 (overburden
to mined mineral resource)
|
Average Annual Gold
Production Years 1-6*
|
154 k Au Eq
oz/year
|
Average Annual Gold
Production Years 7-10*
|
69 k Au Eq
oz/year
|
Average Gold Recovery
- Mill
|
86.8%
|
Average Gold
Recovery – Heap Leach
|
73.9%
|
Average Cash
Cost
|
US$ 635/Au
oz
|
Average Silver
Recovery - Mill
|
71.4%
|
Average Silver
Recovery – Heap Leach
|
6%
|
Average Total Mining
Rate
|
69.7 k
tonne/day
|
Average Mineralized
Material Mining Rate
|
44.4 k
tonne/day
|
* - Silver:Gold price ratio = 73.7
Table 2
Base Case Gold Price Sensitivity Analysis – North Bullfrog
Project
(cash basis, all values in constant
2015 US$)
Gold Price
($/Oz)
|
Pre-Tax
Total Cash Flow
($M)
|
NPV5% ($M)
Post-Tax*
|
IRR
(%)
|
Payback
(yrs)
|
$1,000
|
234.7
|
$102.9
|
20.5
|
3.0
|
$1,100
|
356.7
|
$174.9
|
29.6
|
2.5
|
$1,200
|
478.7
|
$245.9
|
37.9
|
2.2
|
$1,300
|
600.8
|
$317.4
|
45.8
|
1.9
|
$1,400
|
722.8
|
$387.6
|
53.2
|
1.8
|
* - considers production royalties, Nevada mineral net proceeds and US Federal
Income Tax
PEA Results
The PEA assumes development of a conventional drill and blast,
surface mine using haul trucks and front end loaders, milling of
higher grade mineralization with gravity-cyanide leaching, of the
YellowJacket mineral resource, and heap leach processing of low
grade mineralized material from the Sierra Blanca, Jolly Jane, and
Mayflower mineral resources . Mineralized material from the
YellowJacket vein and stockwork mineral resource would be delivered
to a processing plant incorporating a gravity concentration circuit
with intense cyanide leaching of the gravity concentrate followed
by cyanide leaching of the gravity tail product. Tail materials
would be stored in a conventional, lined tailing storage facility
(TSF). Lower grade disseminated mineralization would be processed
by heap leaching of run of mine (ROM) material. Ultra-high
intensity blasting would be performed to minimize particle size for
enhanced heap leach recoveries and would allow transport and
stacking on a heap leach pad using a feeder/conveyor/stacker
system. Gold and Silver in leachate solutions would be
recovered from carbon from both process plants and a doré would be
produced in a refinery located in the Mill. Sensitivity of
the projected financial performance of the North Bullfrog project
is listed around the Base Case assumption of a constant gold price
of US $1,200 per ounce in Table
2.
The PEA uses gold and silver recoveries for a gravity-cyanide
leach mill that are estimated from two sets of metallurgical
composite samples developed from PQ core materials generated in
YellowJacket drilling programs during 2013 and 2014. Gravity
concentrate samples were developed using a KnelsonTM
concentrator. The KnelsonTM feed was ground to P80
-0.21mm (-65 mesh). The produced gravity concentrate was then
re-ground to P80 -0.044mm (-325 mesh), and subjected to intense
cyanide leaching. The leached concentrate was then re-combined with
the gravity tail product and ground to P80 -0.074mm (-200 mesh)
before the final cyanide leach to maximize gold and silver
recovery. Average recoveries of 86.8% for gold and 71.4% for silver
were assumed for the mill process plant.
Heap leach metallurgical recovery estimates are based on column
leach testing data for composite samples constructed from
Mayflower, Jolly Jane, and Sierra Blanca 2012 PQ core drilling. A
total of 23 column leach tests have been run at McClelland
Laboratories at a particle size of 80% passing -19 mm (-3/4 inch)
for the four resource areas. The process recovery assumptions
reflect consideration of particle size resulting from ultra-high
intensity blasting with a particle size of P80 -84mm (-3.3 inch),
similar to a primary crushing product, scaling for the effects of
vertical lift heights of > 10m (30 ft) and a leach time of 1000
days. The leach pad production model predicts an average gold
recovery of 74%, and an average silver recovery of 6% of the fire
assay grade.
A summary of the PEA results for the base case gold price
assumption of US $1,200 is listed in
Table 3. Working capital and initial fills, which are recovered at
the end of year 1 and at the end of the project respectively, were
estimated to be US $16.4 M.
Operating costs included in the PEA were based on mining,
processing, administration and reclamation, and are listed in Table
4, where they are normalized to process tonnage and recovered gold
ounces. Total LOM cash operating costs are projected to be US
$635 / produced Au oz and LOM capital
cost (adjusted for recovery of pre-strip mining, working capital
recovery and initial fills recovery) was estimated to be an
additional US $206 / produced Au
oz.
The Company cautions that the PEA is preliminary in nature,
and is based on technical and economic assumptions which will be
further evaluated in more advanced studies. The PEA is based
on the North Bullfrog resource model (as at June 16, 2015) which consists of material in the
measured, indicated and inferred classifications. Inferred
mineral resources are considered too speculative geologically to
have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable
them to be categorized as mineral reserves. The current basis
of project information is not sufficient to convert the mineral
resources to mineral reserves, and mineral resources that are not
mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Accordingly, there can be no certainty that the results estimated
in this PEA will be realized. The PEA results are only
intended as an initial, first-pass review of the potential project
economics based on preliminary information.
Table 3
PEA Key Physical Data - North Bullfrog Mill & Heap Leach
Project
Key Physical
Data
|
Units
|
Value
|
Heap Leach Feed
Mined
|
M
tonnes
|
156.8
|
Mill Feed
Mined
|
M
tonnes
|
7.1
|
Overburden
Mined
|
M
tonnes
|
95.8
|
Total Material
Mined
|
M
tonnes
|
259.7
|
Mine
Life*
|
Years
|
10
|
Contained
Gold
|
Mozs
|
1.53
|
Recovered
Gold
|
Mozs
|
1.19
|
Contained
Silver
|
Mozs
|
6.61
|
Recovered
Silver
|
Mozs
|
2.49
|
Average Strip
Ratio
|
Overburden/Process
Feed
|
0.60
|
Average Diluted
Gold Grade Heap Leach
|
g/t
|
0.22
|
Average Diluted
Gold Grade Mill
|
g/t
|
1.92
|
Average Gold
Recovery
|
%
|
78%
|
Annual Process
Feed Mined
|
M
tonnes/yr
|
16.2
|
Average Annual
Gold Produced
|
Au
kozs/yr
|
117.0
|
*-excludes leach pad rinse period at end of mine life
Table 4
Operating Costs - North Bullfrog Mill & Heap Leach
Project
Cost
|
Cost per Process
tonne ($/tonne)
|
Cost/Recovered
Gold Oz ($/Oz)
|
Mining
|
$2.41
|
$332
|
Processing
|
$1.65
|
$227
|
Administration
|
$0.43
|
$ 60
|
Reclamation
|
$0.12
|
$17
|
Total Operating
Cost
|
$4.62
|
$635
|
Estimated capital costs are listed in Table 5, where they are
divided between initial and sustaining capital. The initial
capital is estimated to be US $175.4M
which includes equipment and construction, EPCM and Contingency.
Sustaining capital includes leach pad expansions, mobile equipment
purchases and rebuilds. Life of mine sustaining capital is
estimated to be US $83.3 M.
Table 5
PEA Initial Capital Estimate - North Bullfrog Project
Capital
Area
|
Estimated
Capital Cost (US $M)
|
Initial
Capital
|
$129.8M
|
EPCM
|
$19.1M
|
Contingency
|
$26.5
M
|
Total Initial
Capital Cost
|
$175.4M
|
|
|
Sustaining
Capital
|
83.3
M
|
Total LOM
Capital Cost
|
258.7M
|
Scheduled resource and mining geometries for the PEA were
defined by Lerch Grossman
optimization using a US $900 gold
price, current prevailing mining costs, and the latest
metallurgical data for the project.
Cash Flow Model Inputs and Assumptions
Mineral Resources - The analysis included
measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources in the mining
and economic study. Measured and indicated mineral resources
make up 91% of the mill gold production plan and 17% of the heap
leach production plan with the remainder being inferred mineral
resource.
Project Schedule- The project schedule assumed a
one (1) year period for construction of the mine infrastructure,
and the initiation of mining at the YellowJacket and Sierra Blanca
mineral resources. Mining was assumed to start at Mayflower in year
4 and at Jolly Jane in year 7. Production from the four
mineral resources was blended to level the required number of haul
trucks with a peak mining rate of 89,300 tonnes per day.
Mining Method - A standard surface mine using a
drill, blast, load, and haul mining plan was used for the study,
assuming a 50 degree pit slope. The mine volume was defined
by Lerchs-Grossman optimization methods and the resulting mining
volumes were used to develop a production plan that would be robust
in a declining price market. Heap leach mineralization was assumed
to be blasting using new, ultra-high intensity blasting to improve
fragmentation for higher ROM leach recoveries without crushing.
Within the mining shapes indicated by the WhittleTM
analyses, a processing cut-off grade of 0.1 g/t gold was used for
selection of mineralized material to be sent to the heap leach
processing facility and 0.372 g/t for mineralized material to be
sent to the mill processing facility. Conceptual locations
for the crusher, heap leach feeder/conveyor, and overburden dumps
were used to estimate truck haulage cycles, and the production
schedule was constrained by the truck fleet capacity.
Processing Methods - A conceptual heap leach model
was developed for the northern area of North Bullfrog to be
operated at a peak placement rate of 58,000 tonnes (average rate of
44,400 tonnes) of mineralized material per day, with all material
assumed to be blasted to 80% - 84mm (-3.3 inch), and transported
and placed by a conveyor/stacker system. The higher grade,
YellowJacket vein and stockwork mineralization was assumed to be
crushed and milled at a rate of 3,000 tonnes/day with a final grind
size of 80% -0.074mm (-200 mesh). Gold would be recovered by
intense cyanide leaching of a gravity concentrate and a final
cyanide leaching of tail products. Both of these processing
approaches are supported by metallurgical test data.
Gold Recovery Model - Mill process recoveries were
estimated from metallurgical testing of gravity concentration,
intense cyanide leaching of the gravity concentrate, and final
cyanide leaching of the tail products. A total of six different
sample composites were created from PQ core developed in 2013 and
2014 drilling programs, and were tested to characterize the
variation of vein and vein stockwork materials. Heap leach process
recoveries were estimated based on the results of column leach
testing of composite samples created from the 2012 PQ core
metallurgical drilling program. A total of 23 sample
composites from the 3 current resource areas were prepared from
2012 PQ core and used to create duplicate column tests at a nominal
crushed size of 80% -19 mm (-3/4 inch). The column leach test
data was used with recovery models that simulated the ROM particle
size gradation, the effects of time for 1000 days leaching and
leach pad loading geometry to project the produced gold and silver.
The recovery model predicted LOM average gold recovery to be 74% of
contained gold content and 6% of contained silver content.
Operating and Capital Cost Estimates - Preliminary
capital and operating costs were developed using information
available from other Nevada
milling and heap leach operations, a commercially available mining
and development cost database, plus all available project technical
data and metallurgical/process related test work. Detailed
design work, used to assess the potential for a smaller scale start
up mine, has been used to refine the capital cost estimate.
Preliminary configurations of the site infrastructure alternatives
(mill, heap leach pad, tailing storage facility, overburden storage
facility, roads, shops, offices, etc.) have been evaluated and an
arrangement was defined as the basis of capital cost
estimates. Capital costs were developed based on a nominal
mining rate of 44,400 tonnes of mineralized material per day. Total
processed material would be 163.7 M tonnes. Major mobile
equipment was assumed to be financed over the first five years of
life. All costs are in constant US$ from Q2 2015. No
escalation was applied in the financial model.
Taxes and Royalties - Taxes and royalty charges
were included in this PEA. Taxes included the Nevada Mineral
Net Profit tax at the maximum rate of 5% of cash flow net of
operating costs, depletion and depreciation of capital costs. US
Federal taxes were 26% of cash flow net of operating costs,
depletion and depreciation of capital costs. Net smelter return
(NSR) royalties apply to about 15% of the projected gold production
with a 4% NSR on the Mayflower production and a 1-4% NSR on a
portion of the Jolly Jane production (the Company has buy-out
rights on all royalties).
Revenue - Revenue was determined in the base case
financial model assuming a constant US $1,200 per gold ounce gold price. All
sensitivities to gold price assumptions were assessed using
constant US$ prices.
New Resource Calculation
The new mineral resource calculation reflects the benefits of
the detailed 2014 infill drilling program leading to better defined
vein/stockwork zone (Table 6 & 7). The high average grade
of the YellowJacket deposits along with its simple, oxide, high
gold silver recoveries and open pit mining potential has produced
an attractive near-term mining target. In addition the new
mineral resource has been calculated at a lower base case resource
price of US $1,200 (April 1, 2014 resource used US $1,300 gold price), which has produced a more
robust project. The insight gained from the new detailed
drilling of YellowJacket has been instrumental in defining and
prioritizing Corvus' 2015 new discovery high-grade vein system
exploration targets where drilling will begin this month.
Table 6
Measured, Indicated, and Inferred
Mineral Resource Estimate for the North Bullfrog Project Defined by
Whittle TM pit volumes, including both the YellowJacket
Vein/Stockwork and Disseminated Oxide Mineralization at
$1,200 Gold Price
|
Yellowjacket
(milling)
|
Disseminated (heap
leach)
|
Total
|
WhittleTM
Pit Gold Price*
|
Resources
Category
|
Cutoff** (Gold
g/t)
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Gold (g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Cutoff** (Gold
g/t)
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Gold (g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Strip
Ratio
|
Contained Au
kozs
|
Contained Ag
kozs
|
$1,200
|
Measured
|
0.52
|
3.86
|
2.55
|
19.70
|
0.15
|
0.30
|
0.25
|
2.76
|
0.70
|
318.9
|
2,471.5
|
Indicated
|
1.81
|
1.53
|
10.20
|
22.86
|
0.30
|
0.43
|
308.9
|
911.1
|
Total M &
I
|
5.67
|
2.22
|
16.67
|
23.15
|
0.30
|
0.46
|
627.7
|
3,382.6
|
Inferred
|
1.48
|
0.83
|
4.26
|
176.35
|
0.19
|
0.67
|
1,132.2
|
4,005.0
|
*
|
- Analysis assumes
a fixed ratio of the gold to silver prices of 73.7
|
**
|
-Breakeven grade
derived from Whittle input parameters at US$1,200/oz gold price and
Gold:Silver price ratio of 73.7
|
***
|
- See Cautionary Note
to US Investors below on page 11
|
****
|
-The Mineral
Resources above are effective as of June 16, 2015.
|
*****
|
-Mineral Resources
that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic
viability.
|
The Resource estimation is based on 280 drill holes with 41,314
gold composites. Geologic volumes were defined and used to
constrain the estimation. Heap leach resources were estimated by
regular Kriging. The YellowJacket vein and stockwork were estimated
using Inverse Distance Cubed calculations. To define the
reasonable prospect of economic extraction, Metal Mining
Consultants Inc. confined the resources to mining volumes defined
by Whittle TM analysis. There are no known legal,
political or environmental risks that could materially affect the
potential development of the mineral resources.
YellowJacket High-Grade Resource
The YellowJacket mineral resource area is immediately east of
the Sierra Blanca deposit and was modeled as a specific zone within
the greater Sierra Blanca open pit deposit. The zone has a
North-Northwest trend and is currently defined by the Josh Vein on
the west and the Liberator Fault on the east. This zone includes
vein and stockwork vein type mineralization which remains open
along strike and at depth. In addition the 2014 drilling
found several parallel, splay veins to the main Josh Vein which
needs further drilling to assess their potential to expand the
YellowJacket deposit. Follow-up resource expansion drilling
on the YellowJacket deposit is scheduled to follow the first two
phases of District "new discovery" exploration drilling.
Exploration Implications of the New YellowJacket
Model
The new YellowJacket mineral resource model and its exceptional
continuity and structural association is an important "proof of
concept" for the occurrence of other large, high-grade, vein
systems in the North Bullfrog project area. This new detailed
understanding of the deposit has formed the basis for an expanded
new discovery exploration initiative in the District which started
in May of this year. One of the fundamental
understandings gained for the 2014 infill drilling of the
YellowJacket has been the timing and orientation of structural
activity that created openings for high-grade vein/stockwork
formation. This knowledge linked with new property wide,
detailed mapping, and age dating information has outlined a number
of similar settings to the YellowJacket deposit which hold promise
for other future high-grade discoveries. Corvus' 2015
District–wide exploration drilling program is focused on testing up
to 10, new high priority, high-grade vein targets this year in its
effort to discover a new Bullfrog or YellowJacket type
deposit.
Mineral Resource Modeling Results
The North Bullfrog district-wide mineralization inventory
includes four deposit areas, YellowJacket, Sierra Blanca, Jolly
Jane, and Mayflower (Figure 1). Mineralization occurs in two
primary forms: (1) broad stratabound bulk-tonnage gold zones such
as the Sierra Blanca, Mayflower, and Jolly Jane systems; and (2)
moderately thick zones of high-grade gold and silver mineralization
hosted by vein and stockwork vein zones dominantly at the
YellowJacket deposit.
Table 7
North Bullfrog Mineral Resource
at $1,200 Gold Price and Sensitivity
of Mineral Inventory to Gold Prices for YellowJacket Vein/Stockwork
and Disseminated Oxide Mineralization
|
YellowJacket
(milling)
|
Disseminated (heap
leach)
|
Total
|
WhittleTM Pit Gold
Price*
|
Resources
Category
|
Cutoff** (Gold
g/t)
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Gold
(g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Cutoff** (Gold
g/t)
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Gold
(g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Strip
Ratio
|
Contained Au
kozs
|
Contained Ag
kozs
|
$1,000
|
Measured
|
0.67
|
3.81
|
2.57
|
19.88
|
0.18
|
0.29
|
0.25
|
2.74
|
0.63
|
317.7
|
2,464.6
|
Indicated
|
1.72
|
1.58
|
10.57
|
18.02
|
0.31
|
0.42
|
266,.6
|
824.6
|
Total M &
I
|
5.53
|
2.26
|
16.99
|
18.32
|
0.31
|
0.45
|
584.3
|
3,289.2
|
Inferred
|
1.38
|
0.86
|
4.44
|
155.29
|
0.20
|
0.70
|
1,025.4
|
3,716.0
|
$1,200
|
Measured
|
0.52
|
3.86
|
2.55
|
19.70
|
0.15
|
0.30
|
0.25
|
2.76
|
0.70
|
318.9
|
2,471.5
|
Indicated
|
1.81
|
1.53
|
10.20
|
22.86
|
0.30
|
0.43
|
308.9
|
911.1
|
Total M &
I
|
5.67
|
2.22
|
16.67
|
23.15
|
0.30
|
0.46
|
627.7
|
3,382.6
|
Inferred
|
1.48
|
0.83
|
4.26
|
176.35
|
0.19
|
0.67
|
1,132.2
|
4,005.0
|
$1,400
|
Measured
|
0.48
|
3.88
|
2.54
|
19.62
|
0.13
|
0.30
|
0.25
|
2.76
|
0.77
|
319.4
|
2,475.0
|
Indicated
|
1.86
|
1.51
|
10.01
|
25.82
|
0.30
|
0.44
|
335.9
|
962.0
|
Total M &
I
|
5.75
|
2.20
|
16.50
|
26.12
|
0.30
|
0.46
|
655.3
|
3,347.5
|
Inferred
|
1.53
|
0.84
|
4.19
|
189.5
|
0.19
|
0.66
|
1,194.5
|
4,216.2
|
*
|
- Analysis assumes
a fixed ratio of the gold to silver prices of 73.7
|
**
|
-Breakeven grade
derived from Whittle input parameters and Silver:Gold ratio of
73.7
|
***
|
-The Mineral
Resources above are effective as of June 16, 2015.
|
****
|
-Mineral Resources
that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic
viability.
|
Table 8
WhittleTM Input Parameters
used for the North Bullfrog Mineral Resource Estimation
Parameter
|
Unit
|
Mayflower*
|
Jolly
Jane*
|
Sierra
Blanca*
|
YellowJacket**
|
Mining
Cost
|
US$/total
tonne
|
1.64
|
1.42
|
1.62
|
1.62
|
Au
Cut-Off***
|
g/tonne
|
0.20
|
0.15
|
0.15
|
0.56
|
Processing
Cost
|
US$/ process
tonne
|
1.72
|
1.72
|
1.27
|
11.57
|
Au
Recovery
|
%
|
70.0
|
72.0
|
74.0
|
86.8
|
Ag
Recovery
|
%
|
8.0
|
8.0
|
0
|
71.4
|
Administrative
Cost
|
US$/process
tonne
|
0.50
|
0.50
|
0.40
|
0.40
|
Refining &
Sales
|
US$/tonne
|
0.07
|
0.04
|
0.02
|
0.11
|
Au Selling
Price
|
US$/oz
|
1,200
|
1,200
|
1,200
|
1,200
|
Slope
Angle
|
Degrees
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
*
|
- assumes heap leach
processing of disseminated mineralization
|
**
|
- assumes
Gravity - CIL mill processing of YellowJacket
mineralization
|
***
|
- break-even grade
derived from Whittle input parameters at US$1,200 per ounce gold
price, and Gold:Silver price ratio of 59.2 for Mayflower and Jolly
Jane, and of 73.7 for Sierra Blanca and YellowJacket
|
The structurally controlled vein and stockwork mineralization in
the YellowJacket Deposit was modelled separately to prevent
smearing of high-grade mineralization into the surrounding blocks.
Based on the metallurgical data on YellowJacket mineralization, it
has been assumed that this material will be processed through a
separate milling circuit and thus carries different processing
costs and recoveries, resulting in cut-off grades different than
the heap leach processing. These additional costs and
recoveries have been accounted for in the WhittleTM pit
analysis.
The disseminated mineralization at Sierra Blanca was also
modeled in a series of discrete volumes to prevent grade smearing
across certain important grade-controlling faults. The disseminated
oxide mineralization has been modeled based on our current
metallurgy for run of mine heap leach processing with each resource
area having an estimated heap leach recovery. The heap leach
feed then carries the costs associated with heap leach processing
as reflected by the cut-off grade.
The Company has filed a National Instrument 43-101 –
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101")
technical report (the "Report") prepared by independent qualified
persons, which includes the results of the mineral resource update
and PEA discussed herein, on SEDAR, and investors are urged to
review the Report in its entirety.
About the North Bullfrog Project, Nevada
Corvus controls 100% of its North Bullfrog Project, which covers
approximately 72 km² in southern Nevada. The property package is made up
of a number of private mineral leases of patented federal mining
claims and 865 federal unpatented mining claims. The project
has excellent infrastructure, being adjacent to a major highway and
power corridor as well as a large water right.
The North Bullfrog project includes numerous prospective gold
targets at various stages of exploration with four having NI 43-101
compliant mineral resources (Sierra Blanca, Jolly Jane, Mayflower
and YellowJacket). The project contains a measured
mineral resource of 3.86 Mt at an average grade of 2.55 g/t gold
and 19.70 g/t silver, containing 316.5k ounces of gold and 2,445k
ounces of silver, an indicated mineral resource of 1.81 Mt at an
average grade of 1.53 g/t gold, and 10.20 g/t silver, containing
89.1k ounces of gold and 593.6k ounces of silver and an inferred
resource of 1.48 Mt at an average grade of 0.83 g/t gold and 4.26
g/t silver, containing 39.5k ounces of gold and 202.7k ounces of
silver for oxide mill processing. The mineral resource for
the mill process was defined by WhittleTM optimization
using all cost and recovery data and a breakeven cut-off grade of
0.52 g/t gold. In addition, the project contains a measured mineral
resource of 0.3 Mt at an average grade of 0.25 g/t gold and
2.76 g/t silver, containing 2.4k ounces of gold and 26.6k ounces of
silver, an indicated mineral resource of 22.86 Mt at an average
grade of 0.30 g/t gold and 0.43 g/t silver, containing 220.5k
ounces of gold and 316.1k ounces of silver and an inferred mineral
resource of 176.3 Mt at an average grade of 0.19 g/t gold and 0.67
g/t silver, containing 1,077.4k ounces of gold and 3,799.2k ounces
of silver for oxide, heap leach processing. The mineral resource
for heap leach processing was defined by WhittleTM
optimization using all cost and recovery data and a breakeven
cut-off grade of 0.15 g/t.
Qualified Person and Quality Control/Quality
Assurance
Jeffrey A. Pontius (CPG 11044), a
qualified person as defined by NI 43-101, has supervised the
preparation of the scientific and technical information that form
the basis for this news release and has reviewed and approved the
disclosure herein. Mr. Pontius is not independent of Corvus,
as he is the CEO and holds common shares and incentive stock
options.
Carl E. Brechtel, (Nevada PE
008744 and Registered Member 353000 of SME), a qualified person as
defined by NI 43-101, has coordinated execution of the work
outlined in this news release and has reviewed and approved the
disclosure herein. Mr. Brechtel is not independent of Corvus, as he
is the COO and holds common shares and incentive stock options.
The work program at North Bullfrog was designed and supervised
by Mark Reischman, Corvus' Nevada
Exploration Manager, who is responsible for all aspects of the
work, including the quality control/quality assurance
program. On-site personnel at the project log and track all
samples prior to sealing and shipping. Quality control is
monitored by the insertion of blind certified standard reference
materials and blanks into each sample shipment. All resource
sample shipments are sealed and shipped to ALS Chemex in
Reno, Nevada, for preparation and
then on to ALS Chemex in Reno,
Nevada, or Vancouver, B.C.,
for assaying. ALS Chemex's quality system complies with the
requirements for the International Standards ISO 9001:2000 and ISO
17025:1999. Analytical accuracy and precision are monitored
by the analysis of reagent blanks, reference material and replicate
samples. Finally, representative blind duplicate samples are
forwarded to ALS Chemex and an ISO compliant third party laboratory
for additional quality control.
Mr. Scott E. Wilson, CPG,
President of Metal Mining Consultants Inc., is an independent
consulting geologist specializing in Mineral Reserve and Resource
calculation reporting, mining project analysis and due diligence
evaluations. He is acting as the Qualified Person, as defined
in NI 43-101, for the overall technical report, and the Mineral
Resource estimate. Mr. Wilson has over 26 years' experience
in surface mining and is a Registered Member (#4025107RM) of
Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc. Mr.
Wilson and Metal Mining Consultants, Inc. are independent of the
Company under NI 43-101. Mr. Wilson visited the North Bullfrog site
during 2014 and 2015. Mr. Wilson has performed data verification by
examining core materials at the site, and has selected quarter core
samples to develop independent verifying assays of intervals by the
ALS Chemex laboratory in Reno, NV.
Geologic data development processes were reviewed and observed
during the site visit. All drilling geologic description, assaying
data and geochemical data have been provided in a database format
to Metal Mining Consultants Inc. for the purpose of estimating the
resource. Mr. Wilson reviewed the News Release and approved
of its publication.
About Corvus Gold Inc.
Corvus Gold Inc. is a North American gold exploration and
development company, focused on its near-term gold-silver mining
project at North Bullfrog, Nevada. In addition the Company
controls a number of other North American exploration properties
representing a spectrum of gold, silver and copper projects.
Corvus is committed to building shareholder value through new
discoveries and the expansion of those discoveries to maximize
share price leverage in a recovering gold and silver market.
On behalf of
Corvus Gold Inc.
(signed) Jeffrey A.
Pontius
Jeffrey A.
Pontius,
Chief Executive Officer
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking
Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements and
forward-looking information (collectively, "forward-looking
statements") within the meaning of applicable Canadian and US
securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are typically
identified by words such as: believe, expect, anticipate, intend,
estimate, postulate and similar expressions, or are those, which,
by their nature, refer to future events. All
statements, other than statements of historical fact, included
herein including, without limitation, statements regarding
projected economics of the mine plan contained in the PEA,
including mine development and operating costs and potential future
productions, estimates of mineral resources, the anticipated
content, commencement and cost of exploration programs, anticipated
exploration program results, the discovery and delineation of
mineral deposits/resources/reserves, the potential to expand the
existing estimated mineral resource at the North Bullfrog project,
the potential for the North Bullfrog system to continue to grow
and/or to develop into a major new higher-grade, bulk tonnage,
Nevada gold discovery, the
potential for any mining or production at North Bullfrog, the
potential for the identification of multiple deposits at North
Bullfrog, the potential for the existence or location of additional
high-grade veins, the potential for the Company to secure or
receive any royalties in the future, business and financing plans
and business trends, are forward-looking statements. Although
the Company believes that such statements are reasonable, it can
give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.
Certain material assumptions regarding such forward-looking
statements are discussed in this news release and the Company's
annual and quarterly management's discussion and analysis filed
at www.sedar.com. In addition to, and subject to,
such assumptions discussed in more detail elsewhere, the
forward-looking statements in this news release are also subject to
the following assumptions: (1) the price of gold and
silver being consistent with the prices used herein; (2) the
ability to develop the North Bullfrog project in accordance with
the terms of the PEA; (3) the timing of the receipt of
regulatory and governmental approvals, permits and authorizations
necessary to implement and carry on the Company's planned
exploration and potential development programs; (4) the Company's
ability to attract and retain key staff, (5) the timing of the
ability to commence and complete the planned work at the Company's
projects, and (6) the ongoing relations of the Company with its
underlying property lessors and the applicable regulatory
agencies. The Company cautions investors that any
forward-looking statements by the Company are not guarantees of
future results or performance, and that actual results may differ
materially from those in forward looking statements as a result of
various factors, including, but not limited to, variations in the
nature, quality and quantity of any mineral deposits that may be
located, variations in the market price of any mineral
products the Company may produce or plan to produce, the Company's
inability to obtain any necessary permits, consents or
authorizations required for its activities, the Company's inability
to produce minerals from its properties successfully or profitably,
to continue its projected growth, to raise the necessary capital or
to be fully able to implement its business strategies, and other
risks and uncertainties disclosed in the Company's 2014 Annual
Information Form and latest interim Management Discussion and
Analysis filed with certain securities commissions in Canada.
All of the Company's Canadian public disclosure filings may be
accessed via www.sedar.com and the Company's
United States public disclosure
filings may be access via www.sec.gov and readers are
urged to review these materials, including the technical reports
filed with respect to the Company's mineral properties.
Cautionary Note to US Investors
NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities
Administrators which establishes standards for all public
disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information
concerning mineral projects. Unless otherwise indicated, all
resource estimates contained in or incorporated by reference in
this press release have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101
and the guidelines set out in the Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum (the "CIM") Standards on Mineral Resource
and Mineral Reserves, adopted by the CIM Council on November 14, 2004 (the "CIM Standards") as they
may be amended from time to time by the CIM.
United States investors are
cautioned that the requirements and terminology of NI 43-101 and
the CIM Standards differ significantly from the requirements and
terminology of the SEC set forth in the SEC's Industry Guide 7
("SEC Industry Guide 7"). Accordingly, the Company's
disclosures regarding mineralization may not be comparable to
similar information disclosed by companies subject to SEC Industry
Guide 7. Without limiting the foregoing, while the terms
"mineral resources", "inferred mineral resources", "indicated
mineral resources" and "measured mineral resources" are recognized
and required by NI 43-101 and the CIM Standards, they are not
recognized by the SEC and are not permitted to be used in documents
filed with the SEC by companies subject to SEC Industry Guide
7. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not
have demonstrated economic viability, and US investors are
cautioned not to assume that all or any part of a mineral resource
will ever be converted into reserves. Further, inferred
resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence
and as to whether they can be mined legally or economically.
It cannot be assumed that all or any part of the inferred resources
will ever be upgraded to a higher resource category. Under
Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not
form the basis of a feasibility study or prefeasibility study,
except in rare cases. The SEC normally only permits issuers
to report mineralization that does not constitute SEC Industry
Guide 7 compliant "reserves" as in-place tonnage and grade without
reference to unit amounts. The term "contained ounces" is not
permitted under the rules of SEC Industry Guide 7. In
addition, the NI 43-101 and CIM Standards definition of a "reserve"
differs from the definition in SEC Industry Guide 7. In SEC
Industry Guide 7, a mineral reserve is defined as a part of a
mineral deposit which could be economically and legally extracted
or produced at the time the mineral reserve determination is made,
and a "final" or "bankable" feasibility study is required to report
reserves, the three-year historical price is used in any reserve or
cash flow analysis of designated reserves and the primary
environmental analysis or report must be filed with the appropriate
governmental authority. The mine economics presented herein and
derived from the PEA are preliminary in nature and may not be
realized. The PEA is not a feasibility study. U.S. investors are
urged to consider closely the disclosure in our latest reports and
registration statements filed with the SEC. You can review and
obtain copies of these filings at http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
U.S. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any defined
resource will ever be converted into SEC Industry Guide 7 compliant
reserves.
This press release is not, and is not to be construed in any
way as, an offer to buy or sell securities in the United States.
SOURCE Corvus Gold Inc.