Quantcast

Corvus Gold Files NI 43-101 Technical Report for its North Bullfrog Project, Nevada

April 2, 2014

TSX: KOR OTCQX: CORVF

VANCOUVER, April 2, 2014 /PRNewswire/ – Corvus Gold Inc. (“Corvus” or the
“Company”) – (TSX: KOR, OTCQX: CORVF) announces the filing of an
independent NI-43-101 technical report on the new resource calculation
for its 100% owned North Bullfrog Project, Nevada. This independent
resource calculation incorporates new drilling conducted in 2012 and
2013 which was used to calculate a new mineralization inventory for the
Yellowjacket and Sierra Blanca portions of the project. However, in
the technical report the entire project Mineral Resource estimate has
been updated (Table 1) using Corvus Gold’s new reporting criteria which
only reflects that portion of the mineralization inventory which falls
within a conceptual Whittle(TM) pit shell and would be scheduled for processing as defined at a US
$1300 gold price. The Whittle(TM) pit optimization process is not a full economic analysis but it does
indicate what portions of the mineralization inventory might have
reasonable prospects for economic extraction by open pit mining given
assumed mining, processing, administrative costs and metal recovery at
a specific gold price (Table 2).

In comparison to the estimated resource at 0.3 g/t Au cut-off grade
announced on February 25, 2014 (NR14-07), the Table 1 Yellowjacket
Indicated Mineral Resource has 6% higher Au grade and 2% less contained
gold and the Inferred Mineral Resource has 34% higher grade and 30%
less contained gold. The Table 1 Disseminated Indicated Mineral
Resource at 0.1 g/t has 12% higher grade and 22% less contained gold,
and the change in Inferred Mineral Resource is 6% higher grade and 17%
less contained gold. The differences arise from the use by the Company
of a more rigorous approach to determining reasonable prospects for
economic extraction, which has resulted in an estimated mineral
resource that the Company believes better reflects the potential of the
North Bullfrog Project compared to the less constrained method utilized
in the past. The Company believes that the parameters used in the
Whittle(TM) pit optimization process (Table 2) are realistic and reasonable based
on comparisons with similar projects in the area.

Table 1

Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for North Bullfrog
including the Yellowjacket Vein/Stockwork Deposit and All Disseminated
Oxide Deposits

     _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
    |                 |    Yellowjacket (milling)  |  Disseminated (heap leach) |                         |
    |_________________|____________________________|____________________________|_________________________|
    |Whittle|         |        |      |     |      |        |      |     |      |     |  Total  |  Total  |
    |  Pit  |         |Cutoff**|      |     |      |Cutoff**|      |     |      |     |Contained|Contained|
    | Gold  |Resources| (Gold  |Tonnes|Gold |Silver| (Gold  |Tonnes|Gold |Silver|Strip|   Au    |   Ag    |
    |Price* |Category |  g/t)  | (Mt) |(g/t)|(g/t) |  g/t)  | (Mt) |(g/t)|(g/t) |Ratio|   Ozs   |   Ozs   |
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|
    | $1300 |Indicated|        | 3.69 |1.03 | 5.52 |        |25.72 |0.29 | 0.45 |     | 358,500 |1,027,600|
    |_______|_________|   0.29 |______|_____|______|   0.13 |______|_____|______|0.72 |_________|_________|
    |       |Inferred |        |18.40 |0.94 | 6.16 |        |185.99|0.19 | 0.64 |     |1,674,700|7,740,200|
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|

* – Analysis assumes a fixed ratio of the gold to silver prices of 59

**-Breakeven grade derived from Whittle input parameters at US$1,300/oz
gold price and Silver:Gold ratio of 59

To illustrate the sensitivity of the estimated resource to changes in
the gold and silver price, Table 3 shows the portions of the
mineralization inventory falling within Whittle(TM) pit shells that would be scheduled for processing at various gold
prices from US $700 to US $1,500. Of note is that, given a US $900 per
ounce gold price, the Yellowjacket deposit (milling) has an estimated
Indicated Mineral resource of 1.99 Mt at an average Au grade of 1.53
g/t for 98,000 contained Au ounces, and an estimated Inferred Mineral
resource of 8.82 Mt at an average Au grade of 1.39 g/t for 394,000
contained Au ounces (both at a 0.38 g/t Au cutoff), and the
disseminated deposits (heap leach) have an estimated Indicated Mineral
Resource of 15.07 Mt at an average Au grade of 0.32 g/t for 155,000
contained Au ounces and an estimated Inferred Mineral Resource of 91.09
Mt at an average Au grade of 0.22 g/t for 644,000 contained Au ounces,
both at a 0.18 g/t Au cutoff).

Table 2

Whittle(TM) Input Parameters used for the North Bullfrog Resource Estimation

     ________________________________________________________________
    |   Parameter  |   Unit  |Mayflower*|Jolly|Sierra |Yellowjacket**|
    |              |         |          |Jane*|Blanca*|              |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |  Mining Cost |US$/tonne|    1.64  |1.42 |  1.42 |       1.42   |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |Au Cut-Off*** | g/tonne |    0.20  |0.15 |  0.12 |       0.29   |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |   Processing |US$/tonne|    1.72  |1.72 |  1.72 |       9.00   |
    |      Cost    |         |          |     |       |              |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |  Au Recovery |      %  |    85.1  |72.0 |  80.0 |       84.0   |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |  Ag Recovery |      %  |     8.0  | 8.0 |   8.0 |       72.0   |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |Administrative|US$/tonne|    0.50  |0.50 |  0.50 |       0.50   |
    |     Cost     |         |          |     |       |              |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |   Refining & |US$/Au oz|    5.00  |5.00 |  5.00 |       5.00   |
    |     Sales    |         |          |     |       |              |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |   Au Selling |  US$/oz |   1,300  |1,300| 1,300 |      1,300   |
    |     Price    |         |          |     |       |              |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |  Ag:Au Price |      -  |      59  |  59 |   59  |         59   |
    |     ratio    |         |          |     |       |              |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|
    |  Slope Angle | Degrees |      50  |  50 |   50  |         50   |
    |______________|_________|__________|_____|_______|______________|

* – assumes heap leach processing of disseminated mineralization

** – assumes CIL mill processing of Yellowjacket mineralization

*** – break-even grade derived from Whittle input parameters at US$1,300
per ounce gold price, and Silver:Gold ratio of 59

Jeff Pontius, Corvus CEO, stated “The new initial Yellowjacket resource
linked with our ongoing exploration success on new high-grade vein
system discoveries indicates that there is significant potential to
grow this deposit. Our initial drilling focus remains on the continued
expansion of the Yellowjacket Deposit along strike and at depth as well
as other new parallel and internal systems like the West Vein. In
addition, we plan to drill other new, large untested systems to the
west of Yellowjacket and in the District as a whole in the coming
months with the aim of further unlocking the potential of this new
Nevada high-grade gold-silver discovery.”

Table 3

Analysis of the sensitivity to gold price of the North Bullfrog
mineralization inventory


(Tonnes and grade indicate the portions of the mineralization inventory
estimated to fall within the Whittle(TM) pit and be scheduled to processing at various gold prices)

     _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
    |                 |    Yellowjacket (milling)  |  Disseminated (heap leach) |
    |_________________|____________________________|____________________________|
    |Whittle|         |        |      |     |      |        |      |     |      |     |         |         |
    |  Pit  |Resources|Cutoff**|      |     |      |Cutoff**|      |     |      |     |  Total  |  Total  |
    | Gold  |Category | (Gold  |Tonnes|Gold |Silver| (Gold  |Tonnes|Gold |Silver|Strip|Contained|Contained|
    |Price* |         |  g/t)  | (Mt) |(g/t)|(g/t) |  g/t)  | (Mt) |(g/t)|(g/t) |Ratio| Au kOzs | Ag kOzs |
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|
    |  $700 |Indicated|        | 1.14 |1.97 |13.01 |        | 6.72 |0.41 | 0.52 |     |    162  |    592  |
    |_______|_________|   0.57 |______|_____|______|   0.24 |______|_____|______|0.73 |_________|_________|
    |       |Inferred |        | 7.02 |1.55 |11.52 |        |37.94 |0.26 | 0.85 |     |    662  |   3,640 |
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|
    |  $900 |Indicated|        | 1.99 |1.53 | 9.05 |        |15.07 |0.32 | 0.47 |     |    255  |    808  |
    |_______|_________|   0.38 |______|_____|______|   0.18 |______|_____|______|0.62 |_________|_________|
    |       |Inferred |        | 8.82 |1.39 |10.01 |        |91.09 |0.22 | 0.73 |     |   1,043 |   4,981 |
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|
    | $1100 |Indicated|        | 2.84 |1.23 | 6.80 |        |22.64 |0.30 | 0.46 |     |    327  |    956  |
    |_______|_________|   0.32 |______|_____|______|   0.15 |______|_____|______|0.64 |_________|_________|
    |       |Inferred |        |12.42 |1.17 | 8.06 |        |152.74|0.20 | 0.71 |     |   1,435 |   6,716 |
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|
    | $1300 |Indicated|        | 3.69 |1.03 | 5.52 |        |25.77 |0.29 | 0.45 |     |    359  |   1,028 |
    |_______|_________|   0.29 |______|_____|______|   0.13 |______|_____|______|0.72 |_________|_________|
    |       |Inferred |        |18.40 |0.94 | 6.16 |        |185.99|0.19 | 0.68 |     |   1,675 |   7,740 |
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|
    | $1500 |Indicated|        | 3.88 |1.00 | 5.30 |        |29.38 |0.28 | 0.43 |     |    386  |   1,071 |
    |_______|_________|   0.25 |______|_____|______|   0.11 |______|_____|______|0.84 |_________|_________|
    |       |Inferred |        |21.77 |0.86 | 5.47 |        |217.79|0.18 | 0.67 |     |   1,863 |   8,506 |
    |_______|_________|________|______|_____|______|________|______|_____|______|_____|_________|_________|

*Analysis assumes a fixed ratio of the gold to silver prices of 59

** Breakeven grade derived from Whittle(TM) input parameters

March 2014 North Bullfrog Resource – Technical Report

Mr. Scott Wilson of Metal Mining Consultants, Inc., Mr. Gary Giroux of
Giroux Consultants Ltd. and Mr. Herbert Osborne of H. C., Osborne &
Associates were retained by Corvus to prepare a new mineral resource
estimate for the North Bullfrog Project. The new resource estimate,
which has an effective date of March 25, 2014, is contained in a NI
43-101 technical report dated April 1, 2014 entitled “Technical Report
– The North Bullfrog Project, Bullfrog Mining District, Nye County,
Nevada” and filed on SEDAR on April 2, 2014 (the “Report”).

Corvus Gold and its independent qualified persons (QP’s) as defined by
NI 43-101 have taken a new approach to their estimate of the mineral
resource at North Bullfrog with the publication of the Report. This
new standard limits the estimated mineral resource to that portion of
the geostatistically modeled mineralization inventory which is
contained within a conceptual Whittle(TM) pit and scheduled to processing at a US $1,300 gold price. The Whittle(TM) optimization process considers three parameters simultaneously, which
are: the value of recoverable metal in each block in the mineral
inventory; the costs of mining, processing and administration for that
block; and the realistic geometrical development of the open pit. If
the value exceeds the costs and the integrity of the pit is maintained
then each block within the pit shell is scheduled either to the process
stream or to waste.

Mr. Giroux produced the updated estimate of the North Bullfrog
mineralization inventory (effective as at March 25, 2014), based on
resource drilling in the Sierra Blanca and Yellowjacket areas of the
North Bullfrog Project that occurred in 2012 and 2013 (Figure 1). The
new mineral inventory calculation includes an additional 16,209 samples
derived from 111 holes totalling 23,020 metres with an average depth of
207 metres. The inventory also incorporates an updated geologic model
and additional rock density data. Previous mineralization inventory
estimates from the Jolly Jane, and Mayflower deposits were not updated
because no additional drilling has been conducted in those areas
(Figure 1).

To estimate the mineral resource for North Bullfrog, Mr. Wilson utilized
the block models of mineralization prepared by Mr. Giroux as part of
the input data for his estimation of that portion of the mineral
inventory that was contained within the US $1300 open pit shell defined
by the Lerchs-Grossman algorithm used in the Whittle(TM) Program, and which would be scheduled to be sent to a processing
facility.

Constraints on the Revised Mineral Inventory and Resource

The structurally controlled mineralization in the Yellowjacket Zone was
modelled separately in several geologically defined domains to prevent
smearing of high-grade mineralization into the surrounding blocks. For
the purposes of estimating the mineral resource, the different
Yellowjacket domains have been combined because of the geological
similarities. Based on the current 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 Whittle(TM) 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 Corvus’ current metallurgy for
heap leach processing with each block 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 North Bullfrog project mineralization inventory now includes five
deposit areas: Yellowjacket, Sierra Blanca, Air Track West, Jolly Jane
and Mayflower (Figure 1). Mineralization occurs in two primary forms:
(1) broad stratabound bulk-tonnage gold zones such as the Sierra Blanca
and Jolly Jane systems; and (2) moderately thick zones of high-grade
gold and silver mineralization hosted by structural zones with breccias
and quartz-sulphide vein stockworks such as the Yellowjacket and
Mayflower targets. The Yellowjacket, Sierra Blanca and Jolly Jane
deposits remain open and are current exploration targets for the
Company in 2014.

Yellowjacket High-Grade Resource

The Yellowjacket estimated resource area is immediately east of the
Sierra Blanca deposit and was modeled as a specific zone within the
greater Sierra Blanca 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 controlled by the interaction of the two structures.
While the main vein drilled to date has a NNW trend, the step over
structures between the main faults appears to have a north-easterly
trend. Although the bulk of the indicated mineralization within the
current resource estimate is hosted by one vein system, other veins
have been intersected by the drilling and will be further explored with
the ongoing exploration program.

About the North Bullfrog Project, Nevada

Corvus controls 100% of its North Bullfrog Project, which covers
approximately 68 km² in southern Nevada just north of the historic
Bullfrog gold mine formerly operated by Barrick Gold Corp. The
property package, shown in Figure 2, is made up of a number of private
mineral leases of patented federal lode mining claims and 758 federal
unpatented lode mining claims. The Project has excellent
infrastructure, being adjacent to a major highway and power corridor.

Qualified Person and Quality Control/Quality Assurance

The work program at North Bullfrog was designed and supervised by
Russell Myers (CPG 11433), President of Corvus, and Mark Reischman,
Corvus Nevada Exploration Manager, who are 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.

Jeffrey A. Pontius (CPG 11044), a qualified person as defined by
National Instrument 43-101, has supervised the preparation of the
scientific and technical information that form the basis for this news
release and has approved the disclosure herein. Mr. Pontius is not
independent of Corvus, as he is the CEO and holds common shares and
incentive stock options.

Mr. Scott E. Wilson, SME, 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
specifically for the Mineral Resource Estimate (other than the estimate
of the North Bullfrog mineralization inventory). Mr. Wilson has over
23 years experience in surface mining and is a Registered Member of the
Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. Mr. Wilson and Metal
Mining Consultants, Inc. are independent of the Company under NI
43-101.

Mr. Gary Giroux, M.Sc., P. Eng (B.C.), a consulting geological engineer
employed by Giroux Consultants Ltd., has acted as the Qualified Person,
as defined in NI 43-101, for the estimate of the North Bullfrog
mineralization inventory. He has over 30 years of experience in all
stages of mineral exploration, development and production. Mr. Giroux
specializes in computer applications in ore reserve estimation, and has
consulted both nationally and internationally in this field. He has
authored many papers on geostatistics and ore reserve estimation and
has practiced as a Geological Engineer since 1970 and provided
geostatistical services to the industry since 1976. Both Mr. Giroux
and Giroux Consultants Ltd. are independent of the Company under NI
43-101.

Mr. Herbert Osborne, SME, a consulting metallurgist, has acted as the
Qualified Person, as defined by NI 43-101, for evaluation of the
metallurgical testing data. He has over 50 years of experience in
mineral process design and operations. He is a registered Member of the
Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME Member No. 2430050
RM). Mr. Osborne is independent of the Company under NI 43-101.

About Corvus Gold Inc.

Corvus Gold Inc. is a North American gold exploration company, which is
focused on advancing its 100% controlled Nevada, North Bullfrog project
towards a potential development decision. 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 leveraging noncore assets via partner funded exploration
work into carried and or royalty interests that provide shareholders
with exposure to gold production.

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. All statements, other than statements of
historical fact, included herein including, without limitation,
statements regarding 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 develop multiple Yellowjacket style high-grade zones, the
Company’s belief that the parameters used in the Whittle(TM) pit optimization process are realistic and reasonable, the potential to
discover additional high grade veins or additional deposits, the
potential to expand the existing estimated resource at the North
Bullfrog project, the potential for any mining or production at North
Bullfrog, 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. Information concerning mineral
resource estimates may be deemed to be forward-looking statements in
that it reflects a prediction of the mineralization that would be
encountered if a mineral deposit were developed and mined. Although
the Company believes that such statements are reasonable, it can give
no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.
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. 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 2013 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 readers are urged to review these materials, including the technical
reports filed with respect to the Company’s mineral properties.

Cautionary Note Regarding References to Resources and Reserves

National Instrument 43 101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects (“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 shareholders 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.

Caution Regarding Adjacent or Similar Mineral Properties

This news release contains information with respect to adjacent or
similar mineral properties in respect of which the Company has no
interest or rights to explore or mine. The Company advises US
investors that the mining guidelines of the US Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “SEC”) set forth in the SEC’s Industry Guide 7 (“SEC
Industry Guide 7″) strictly prohibit information of this type in
documents filed with the SEC. Readers are cautioned that the Company
has no interest in or right to acquire any interest in any such
properties, and that mineral deposits on adjacent or similar
properties, and any production therefrom or economics with respect
thereto, are not indicative of mineral deposits on the Company’s
properties or the potential production from, or cost or economics of,
any future mining of any of the Company’s mineral properties.

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.


Source: PR Newswire



comments powered by Disqus