Faraday Copper Corp. press release

Faraday Copper Announces Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Copper Creek Project in Arizona; Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources Exceed 3.9 Billion Pounds of Copper

2022-07-06

TSX - Toronto Stock Exchange · Copper · Molybdenum · Silver · Gold · Canada · Resource Estimate

VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / July 6, 2022 / Faraday Copper Corp. ("Faraday" or the "Company") (CSE:FDY) is pleased to announce an updated Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE") for the Copper Creek project, located in Arizona, U.S. ("Copper Creek"). The MRE was prepared by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. ("SRK") in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ("CIM") Definition Standards and National Instrument 43-101 - _Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects_("NI 43-101").

Paul Harbidge, President and CEO, commented "The delivery of the first combined open pit and underground resource for Copper Creek marks another key milestone in the advancement of the project. With over 355 million tonnes of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, the project has the potential to provide a U.S. domestic supply of copper for decades, supporting the decarbonization of the global economy."

"The geological model, completed earlier this year, provided the foundation to accurately segregate and estimate the updated resources. The deposit remains open along strike and at depth. With the recent completion of the 6,000 metre Phase I drilling program, which was not included in this MRE, there exists the potential for an increase to the resources as part of the technical work for the upcoming Copper Creek Preliminary Economic Assessment, expected to be issued in Q2 2023."

Mineral Resource Estimate Highlights

Measured Mineral Resources: 65.1 million tonnes ("Mt") at a grade of 0.61% copper, 0.011% molybdenum and 1.7 g/t silver containing 872.9 million pounds ("Mlbs") of copper, 15.7 Mlbs of molybdenum, and 3.5 million ounces ("Moz") of silver, or 927.3 Mlbs copper equivalent ("CuEq")1, including open pit resources of 38.9 Mt at a grade of 0.72% CuEq; Indicated Mineral Resources: 290.0 Mt at a grade of 0.47% copper, 0.007% molybdenum and 1.2 g/t silver containing 3,034.2 Mlbs of copper, 47.2 Mlbs of molybdenum, and 11.0 Moz of silver, or 3,199.0 Mlbs CuEq, including open pit resources of 45.7 Mt at a grade of 0.46% CuEq; Inferred Mineral Resources: 75.0 Mt at a grade of 0.38% copper, 0.007% molybdenum and 0.8 g/t silver containing 634.9 Mlbs of copper, 12.0 Mlbs of molybdenum, and 2.0 Moz of silver, or 673.5 Mlbs CuEq, including open pit resources of 29.3 Mt at a grade of 0.36% CuEq; For the combined resource, 82.6% of the tonnage is within the Measured and Indicated category; Amenable to a combination of open pit and bulk underground extraction methods; and This MRE, together with the pending results of the 2022 Phase I drill program, will form the basis for the Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") expected by the end of Q2 2023.

1See Notes to Table 1 (Mineral Resources Estimate) in this news release for the calculation of copper equivalency.

Mineral Resource Estimate

This MRE for Copper Creek is based on data with a cut-off date of April 30, 2022 and excludes the majority of drill results currently pending from the Phase 1 drill program. This MRE is reported with an effective date of July 6, 2022, in Table 1.

Table 1: Combined Open Pit and Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, Copper Creek Project

| Category | Tonnes (Mt) | Grade | Contained Metal | | | | | | | | Cu | Mo | Ag | CuEq | Cu | Mo | Ag | CuEq | | | | (%) | (%) | (g/t) | (%) | (Mlbs) | (Mlbs) | (Moz) | (Mlbs) | | | | Open Pit (OP) | | | | | | | | | | | Measured | 38.9 | 0.68 | 0.010 | 1.8 | 0.72 | 584.2 | 8.7 | 2.2 | 614.6 | | Indicated | 45.7 | 0.44 | 0.007 | 0.9 | 0.46 | 446.4 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 467.8 | | M&I | 84.6 | 0.55 | 0.009 | 1.3 | 0.58 | 1,030.6 | 16.0 | 3.6 | 1,082.5 | | Inferred | 29.3 | 0.35 | 0.004 | 0.8 | 0.36 | 224.6 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 233.0 | | Underground (UG) | | | | | | | | | | | Measured | 26.1 | 0.50 | 0.012 | 1.5 | 0.54 | 288.7 | 7.0 | 1.3 | 312.7 | | Indicated | 244.4 | 0.48 | 0.007 | 1.2 | 0.51 | 2,587.8 | 39.9 | 9.7 | 2,731.1 | | M&I | 270.5 | 0.48 | 0.008 | 1.3 | 0.51 | 2,876.5 | 46.9 | 11.0 | 3,043.8 | | Inferred | 45.6 | 0.41 | 0.009 | 0.9 | 0.44 | 410.3 | 9.2 | 1.3 | 440.5 | | Total (OP + UG) | | | | | | | | | | | Measured | 65.1 | 0.61 | 0.011 | 1.7 | 0.65 | 872.9 | 15.7 | 3.5 | 927.3 | | Indicated | 290.0 | 0.47 | 0.007 | 1.2 | 0.50 | 3,034.2 | 47.2 | 11.0 | 3,199.0 | | M&I | 355.1 | 0.50 | 0.008 | 1.3 | 0.53 | 3,907.1 | 62.9 | 14.5 | 4,126.3 | | Inferred | 75.0 | 0.38 | 0.007 | 0.8 | 0.41 | 634.9 | 12.0 | 2.0 | 673.5 |

Notes to Table 1:

The Mineral Resources in this estimate were calculated using the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines (CIM, 2014) prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council. All dollar amounts are presented in U.S. dollars. Pit shell constrained resources with reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction ("RPEEE") are stated as contained within estimation domains above 0.23% CuEq cut-off grade. Pit shells are based on an assumed copper price of $3.80/lb, assumed molybdenum price of $13.00/lb, assumed silver price of $20.00/oz and overall slope angle of 47 degrees based on preliminary geotechnical data. Operating cost assumptions include mining cost of $2.25/tonne ("t"), processing cost of $7.95/t, General & Administrative ("G&A") costs of $1.25/t, and Treatment Charges and Refining Charges ("TCRC") and Freight costs of $6.50/t. Underground constrained resources with RPEEE are stated as contained within estimation domains above 0.31% CuEq cut-off grade. Underground bulk mining footprints are based on an assumed copper price of $3.80/lb, assumed molybdenum price of $13.00/lb, assumed silver price of $20.00/oz, underground mining cost of $9.25/t, processing cost of $7.00/t, G&A costs of $1.25/t, and TCRC and Freight costs of $6.50/t. Average bulk density assigned by domain: 2.33 g/cm3for all near-surface breccias; 2.40 g/cm3for the Mammoth breccia; 2.56 g/cm3for the Keel breccia, porphyry mineralization and all other areas outside of breccias. Variable metallurgical recovery by metal and domain are considered for CuEq, as follows: copper recovery of 92%, 85% and 60% within sulphide, transitional and oxide material, respectively; molybdenum recovery of 78% and 68% for sulphide and transitional material, respectively; silver recovery of 50% and 40% for sulphide and transitional material, respectively. _CuEq is calculated by domain based on the above variable recovery. For example, sulphide CuEq = [(Cu grade/100 *0.92 Cu recovery *2204.62 *3.8 Cu price) + (Mo grade/100 *0.78 Mo recovery *2204.62 *13 Mo price) + (Ag grade*0.50 Ag recovery*20 Ag price/31.10348)] / (0.92 Cu recovery *2204.62 *3.8)*100._ Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resources will be converted into Mineral Reserves in the future. The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing or other relevant issues. All quantities are rounded to the appropriate number of significant figures; consequently, sums may not add up due to rounding.

The near-surface mineralized breccias were subjected to partial in-situ oxidization that transformed part of the sulphides into secondary copper oxides. Three domains are recognized within the open pit resource, referred to as Oxide, Mixed, and Sulphide. The underground resources stated in Table 1 are comprised of only sulphide mineralization. The Copper Creek open pit Mineral Resources are reported by domain in Table 2.

Table 2: Open Pit Mineral Resource Estimate by Domain, Copper Creek Project

| Category | Domain | Tonnes (Mt) | Grade | Contained Metal | | | | | | | | Cu | Mo | Ag | CuEq | Cu | Mo | Ag | CuEq | | | | | (%) | (%) | (g/t) | (%) | (Mlbs) | (Mlbs) | (Moz) | (Mlbs) | | | | | Measured | Oxide | 2.5 | 0.51 | 0.005 | 1.38 | 0.51 | 28.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 28.0 | | Mixed | 5.8 | 0.59 | 0.005 | 1.24 | 0.61 | 75.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 77.3 | | | Sulphide | 30.7 | 0.71 | 0.012 | 1.93 | 0.75 | 481.0 | 7.9 | 1.9 | 509.3 | | | Total | 38.9 | 0.68 | 0.010 | 1.79 | 0.72 | 584.2 | 8.7 | 2.2 | 614.6 | | | Indicated | Oxide | 5.7 | 0.38 | 0.007 | 1.17 | 0.38 | 48.3 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 48.3 | | Mixed | 8.6 | 0.46 | 0.007 | 1.03 | 0.48 | 86.5 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 91.0 | | | Sulphide | 31.3 | 0.45 | 0.007 | 0.84 | 0.48 | 311.7 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 328.5 | | | Total | 45.7 | 0.44 | 0.007 | 0.91 | 0.46 | 446.4 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 467.8 | | | M&I | Oxide | 8.2 | 0.42 | 0.006 | 1.23 | 0.42 | 76.3 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 76.3 | | Mixed | 14.3 | 0.51 | 0.006 | 1.11 | 0.53 | 161.6 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 168.3 | | | Sulphide | 62.0 | 0.58 | 0.009 | 1.38 | 0.61 | 792.7 | 12.8 | 2.7 | 837.8 | | | Total | 84.6 | 0.55 | 0.009 | 1.32 | 0.58 | 1,030.6 | 16.0 | 3.6 | 1,082.5 | | | Inferred | Oxide | 5.6 | 0.29 | 0.004 | 0.73 | 0.29 | 35.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 35.5 | | Mixed | 8.3 | 0.31 | 0.005 | 0.82 | 0.33 | 57.1 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 59.9 | | | Sulphide | 15.5 | 0.39 | 0.004 | 0.86 | 0.40 | 132.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 137.6 | | | Total | 29.3 | 0.35 | 0.004 | 0.82 | 0.36 | 224.6 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 233.0 | |

Notes: Refer to the section titled "Notes to Table 1".

The RPEEE pit shells and underground shapes used to constrain the respective estimates, as well as grade distributions, are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1: RPEEE pit shells used to constrain the open pit MRE, and grade distribution above 0.2% CuEq grade

Figure 2: RPEEE underground shapes used to constrain the underground MRE, and grade distribution above 0.2% CuEq grade

Sensitivity Analysis

The results of grade sensitivity analysis are presented below to illustrate the continuity of the grade estimates at various cut-off increments and the sensitivity of the potentially minable resource to changes in cut-off grade. The reader is cautioned that figures in the following tables should not be misconstrued as Mineral Resource or confused with the Mineral Resource Statement reported above. These figures are only presented to show the sensitivitity of the block model estimated grades and tonnnages to the selection of cut-off grade. The sensitivity analysis for Measured and Indicated blocks have been separated from Inferred blocks for reporting. Combined material type (oxide, mixed, and sulphide) sensitivity results by classification category for the open pit Mineral Resource are shown in Figure 3 and Table 3.

The grade-tonnage data presented below for open pit sensitivity reports tonnes and grade of the pit constrained mineral resource at various cut-off increments.

Figure 3: Grade-tonnage curves for Open Pit Measured & Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources

Notes: See Notes to Table 1 (Mineral Resources Estimate) in this news release for the calculation of copper equivalency.

Table 3: Grade-tonnage for Open Pit Measured & Indicated Mineral Resource

| Open Pit Mineral Resources | | | | | | | | Measured and Indicated | Inferred | | | | | | | Cut-off Grade (CuEq %) | Tonnes (Mt) | CuEq Grade (CuEq %) | Contained Metal (CuEq Mlb) | Tonnes (Mt) | CuEq Grade (CuEq %) | Contained Metal (CuEq Mlb) | | 0.10 | 153.0 | 0.39 | 1,315.7 | 60.8 | 0.25 | 332.9 | | 0.20 | 94.1 | 0.54 | 1,127.6 | 32.9 | 0.34 | 249.8 | | 0.23 | 84.6 | 0.58 | 1,082.5 | 29.3 | 0.36 | 233.0 | | 0.30 | 63.4 | 0.69 | 958.7 | 14.5 | 0.46 | 146.7 | | 0.40 | 44.3 | 0.83 | 813.3 | 6.9 | 0.59 | 89.7 | | 0.50 | 32.6 | 0.97 | 697.5 | 3.4 | 0.75 | 55.2 | | 0.60 | 24.7 | 1.11 | 603.0 | 2.0 | 0.89 | 38.5 |

The underground resource has been constrained using commercial software packages to define the potential mineable limits (i.e. footprint volumes) applicable to the resource using defined economic assumptions. Multiple footprint volumes were optimized at different costs to approximate sensitivity of the resource to changes in CuEq cut-off grade. As bulk underground mining is not selective, all material within each of the underground block cave footprints are reported. Sensitivity results by classification category for the underground resource are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Grade-tonnage for Underground Measured & Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource

| Underground Mineral Resources | | | | | | | | Measured and Indicated | Inferred | | | | | | | Cut-off Grade (CuEq %) | Tonnes (Mt) | CuEq Grade (CuEq %) | Contained Metal (CuEq Mlb) | Tonnes (Mt) | CuEq Grade (CuEq %) | Contained Metal (CuEq Mlb) | | 0.20 | 737.8 | 0.37 | 5,981.9 | 618.5 | 0.28 | 3,802.2 | | 0.31 | 270.5 | 0.51 | 3,043.8 | 45.6 | 0.44 | 440.5 | | 0.40 | 148.4 | 0.61 | 1,987.7 | 3.6 | 0.50 | 42.3 | | 0.50 | 57.0 | 0.78 | 976.4 | 1.4 | 0.71 | 21.0 |

Copper Creek Project Overview

Copper Creek is a 100% owned project located ~120 road kilometres ("km") northeast of Tucson, Arizona, and ~24 km northeast of the town of San Manuel, Arizona. The current resource area is ~3 km in length and open in all directions. The property consists of ~41 square km of contiguous patented and unpatented mining claims and state prospecting permits. The area is in a mining friendly and politically stable jurisdiction with extensive infrastructure including power, rail, water, roads, and access to skilled personnel.

The property is in the prolific southwest porphyry copper region at the projected intersection of a major northwest belt of copper deposits (Ray, Miami/Globe, Superior/Resolution, Johnson Camp) and a major east-northeast belt of copper deposits (San Manuel/Kalamazoo, Silver Bell, Lakeshore, Safford, Morenci). The project hosts a porphyry copper deposit in addition to high-grade, near-surface, breccia mineralization. With over 200,000 m of historical drilling and modest past production, the Company believes significant exploration upside remains. There are over 400 known breccia occurrences mapped at surface, of which only 35 have been drilled and 14 are included in the MRE.

Geological Model

The geological model (see news release dated May 12, 2022) was used to constrain the mineralization in the MRE. The geological model is based on the relogging of approximately 15,000 metres ("m") of historical core, observations from new drilling, short wave infrared spectral data and multi-element geochemistry. This data was modeled in Seequent Leapfrog Geo™ to generate three-dimensional wireframe models. Moreover, the Copper Creek geological model and MRE are delineated at surface by newly acquired detailed one-metre contour topography.

The Copper Creek batholith intruded Paleocoene Glory Hole volcanics and Proterozoic to Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and is the main mineralization host. Some of the breccias also crosscut the Glory Hole volcanics. The batholith is compositionally zoned and contains a shallowly west dipping monzogranite domain at depth and a dioritic border phase with the bulk being granodioritic composition. Four main types of granodiorite to quartz diorite porphyry dykes and plugs have been recognized. These largely intruded as narrow steeply dipping dikes and plugs before and during mineralization.

The underground resource occurs largely in early halo porphyry style veins and magmatic cupola zones, while the open pit resource is dominantly hosted in magmatic-hydrothermal breccias. Hypogene copper is predominantly contained in chalcopyrite and bornite.

Data Verification

The data used in this MRE is supported by industry standard Quality Assurance and Quality Control ("QA/QC") procedures, such as the insertion of certified standards and blanks into the sample stream and the utilization of certified independent analytical laboratories for all assays. Historical QA/QC data and methodology on the project were reviewed and will be summarized in the NI 43-101 technical report. No significant QA/QC issues were discovered during review of the data.

All geological data used in the MRE was reviewed and verified by Berkley Tracy, PG, CPG, P.Geo, SRK Principal Consultant. Mr. Tracy visited the Copper Creek project from March 7 to 10, 2022. The site visit included:

Review of the geology, available outcrop exposures, and general geological understanding; Review of historical and recent drill core and procedures used to collect, record, store and analyze project exploration data; Independent audit of the drilling, logging and sampling techniques in practice during Faraday's Phase 1 drill campaign; and Observation of drill hole locations and an overview of claim/property boundaries in the field.

SRK compared a portion of the original laboratory data certificates, geological logs and downhole deviation surveys to entries in the Faraday database. The database subset was compared line-by-line to the fundamental data and no material errors were observed during the review. The verification data was chosen randomly and contained over 11,100 m of drilling in 13 drill holes, which represents approximately 5% of total drilling. Additional discussion on the data verification will be included in the NI 43-101 technical report for the MRE.

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology

Sixteen individual breccias were modeled in Leapfrog Geo™ software (version 2021.2.4) by Faraday and verified as suitable estimation domains by SRK. Fourteen of these breccias contained mineralization above cut-off grade and were included in the MRE. Samples were analyzed for potential outlier capping by metal on a global basis and no top cuts were applied. Historical sample collection was in imperial units and averaged 3.05 m per sample. Raw assay samples were averaged into 6.10 m composites broken on breccia domain boundaries with residual lengths up to 3.05 m added to the previous interval. Certain historical drill holes were selectively sampled within the breccias during previous drilling campaigns and any unsampled intervals were ignored during primary compositing.

The estimation was constrained within discrete breccia domains interpreted by Faraday based on geological logging and assay grades. Grade estimation was based on parent block dimensions of 20 m in X-Y-Z and sub-blocked along the domain boundaries to 1 m in X-Y-Z. The sub-blocked resource models and block grade estimates were created using Leapfrog Edge™ software (version 2021.2.4).

The resource was estimated for copper, molybdenum and silver using inverse distance weighting cubed and considering hard boundaries at the breccia unit outer contacts. The grade estimation evaluated all parent blocks with centroids within the estimation domains and sub-blocks are coded based on the parent block centroid. Estimation outside of the defined breccia units, within the deeper porphyry-style mineralization and "halo" zones around the near-surface breccias, considered a 5 m soft boundary with the breccia units. Bulk density was scripted by general domain, based on analysis of specific gravity measurements collected by Faraday and previous project operators.

A two-pass search was used to optimize block estimation, so that well-informed blocks are interpolated using a tighter search ellipse than less informed blocks. The estimation search neighborhood was defined for individual breccia units based on the copper data population, as the key economic variable. Estimation parameters for the minor elements were identical to copper. To assess the impact of missing data, additional copper variables were estimated using null and nominal assignments for unsampled data in separate composited data sets. Un-estimated blocks outside of the search neighborhood were scripted with null values equal to one-half of the lower limit of detection.

The selection criteria used for search ellipsoid size, number of samples and other conditions are derived based on data spacing to ensure appropriate interpolation, as well as visual and statistical evaluation, during iterative trial estimation runs. Across all breccias, the estimation is informed by an average of nine composites from at least two drill holes with average sample distance of 49 m, although this varies for individual estimation domains. Outside of the breccias, the estimation is informed by an average of 11 composites at average sample distance of 134 m.

Limited historical mining has occurred at Copper Creek, mainly in the Old Reliable and Childs-Aldwinkle breccias. Block grades were depleted in the model according to available records of historical mining, which have inherent limitations.