COPPER CREEK PROPERTY MINERAL RESOURCE · 2018-12-13 · The mineral resource presented in the June...

COPPER CREEK DECEMBER 2012 MINERAL RESOURCE

PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, USA TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared For

Redhawk Resources, Inc.

Prepared By

INDEPENDENT MINING CONSULTANTS, INC.

January 31, 2013

Herbert E. Welhener SME RM 3434330


Redhawk Copper, Inc. Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource

December 2012

COPPER CREEK DECEMBER 2012 MINERAL RESOURCE

COPPER CREEK PROPERTY TECHNICAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 Property Description . . . . . . 1-2 1.2 History and Background . . . . . 1-2 1.3 Deposit Description . . . . . . 1-2 1.4 Drill Hole Data . . . . . . 1-3 1.5 Mineral Resource . . . . . . 1-6 1.6 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . 1-8

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE 3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS - DISCLAIMER 4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 4.1 Location . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 Land and Tenure and Property Agreements . . . 4-4 5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE

AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 6.0 HISTORY 6.1 The Early Years . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 The Modern Era . . . . . . 6-2 6.3 Work at Copper Creek by AMT (USA) Inc. . . . 6-5 6.4 Redhawk Resources . . . . . . 6-8 7.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND MINERALIZATION 7.1 Regional Geology . . . . . . 7-1 7.2 Copper Creek Geology . . . . . 7-1 7.3 Mineralization . . . . . . 7-4 8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES 9.0 EXPLORATION 10.0 DRILLING



December 2012

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY 11.1 Prior to Redhawk . . . . . . 11-1 11.2 Redhawk Sample Handling Procedures . . . 11-1 11.3 Current Sample Preparation Procedure . . . 11-2 11.4 Assay Procedure . . . . . . 11-3 12.0 DATA VERIFICATION 12.1 Pre-2010 Drilling . . . . . . 12-1 12.2 2010 – 2012 Redhawk Drilling – Summary . . . 12-1 12.3 Assays on Standards . . . . . . 12-2 12.4 Check Assay Comparisons . . . . . 12-9 13.0 METALLURGICAL TESTING 13.1 Bulk Copper Molybdenum Flotation Test Program . . 13-1 13.2 Copper Molybdenum Separation Test Program . . 13-5 13.3 Bond Grinding Work Index . . . . . 13-6 13.4 Mineralogical Studies . . . . . . 13-7 13.5 Current Metallurgical Study . . . . . 13-10 13.5.1 Sample Preparation and Head Assay . . . 13-10 13.5.2 Open Cycle Cu-Mo 2nd Cleaner Flotation Testing On Composite Samples . . . . . 13-12 14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE 14.1 Summary . . . . . . . 14-1 14.2 Drilling and Assaying . . . . . . 14-3 14.3 Compositing, Grade Statistics . . . . . 14-5 14.4 Variograms, Distribution of Mineralization . . 14-8 14.5 Grade Estimation . . . . . . 14-13 14.5.1 Selection of Grade Estimation Operator . . 14-13 14.5.2 Internal Boundaries and Grade Estimation Searches . 14-14 14.5.3 Treatment of Unassayed Intervals . . . 14-15 14.5.4 Model Results . . . . . . 14-16 14.5.5 Resources Classification . . . . 14-22 14.6 2008 Breccia Resource Models. . . . . 14-29 14.7 Mineral Resource . . . . . . 14-29 14.8 Uncertainties . . . . . . . 14-33 15.0 MINERAL RESERVES 16.0 MINING METHODS 17.0 RECOVERY METHODS 18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE 19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS



December 2012

20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL IMPACT. 21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES 24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION 25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION 26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 27.0 REFERENCES 28.0 DATE AND CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR APPENDIX A – COPPER CREEK CLAIMS



December 2012

LIST OF TABLES

1-1 Drilling Statistics by Mineralized Area . . . . 1-4 1-2 Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource Estimate . . 1-7 10-1 Drill Hole Statistics by Company . . . . . 10-1 10-2 Drilling Statistics by Drilling Type . . . . . 10-2 10-3 Drilling Statistics by Mineralized Area . . . . 10-2 12-1 Assays on Copper Standards . . . . . . 12-2 12-2 Assays on Molybdenum Standards . . . . . 12-3 12-3 ALS Database Assays (on Jacobs Pulps) Versus Check Assays for Copper 12-9 12-4 ALS Database Assays (on Jacobs Pulps) Versus Check Assays,

Molybdenum . . . . . . . . 12-10 12-5 ALS Database Assays (on Jacobs Pulps) Versus Check Assays, Silver 12-11 13-1 Effect of Grind on Copper and Molybdenum Recovery in MSRDI Tests 13-2 13-2 MSRDI Concentrate Cleaning Summary . . . . 13-2 13-3 MSRDI Locked Cycle Test Results . . . . . 13-3 13-4 METCON Composite Test Head Analysis . . . . 13-4 13-5 METCON Rougher Flotation Test Results . . . . 13-4 13-6 Summary Results of Copper-Moly Separation . . . 13-5 13-7 METCON Copper – Molybdenum Separation Test Results . . 13-6 13-8 Concentrate Analysis . . . . . . . 13-9 13-9 Head Assays – Summary of Results . . . . . 13-11 13-10 Cu-Mo 2nd Cleaner Flotation on Composite Samples –

Summary of Results . . . . . . . 13-12 14-1 Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Estimate . . . 14-2 14-2 Drilling and Assaying Statistics, All Data . . . . 14-3 14-3 Drilling Statistics by Mineralized Area . . . . 14-3 14-4 Composite Statistics by Ore Zone Boundaries . . . 14-5 14-5 Assay and 20ft Bench Composite Statistics, All Data. . . 14-5 14-6 20ft Bench Composites by Grade Zones . . . . 14-6 14-7 Covariance Copper Variograms, 20ft Composites . . . 14-9 14-8 Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource Estimate. . . 14-30 14-9 Individual Breccia Deposits at 0.75% CuEq Cutoff . . . 14-31 14-10 Keel – American Eagle Mineral Resource by Cutoff Grade . . 14-32 14-11 Acid Soluble to Total Copper Ratio, Assays,

Total Copper Greater Than 0.10% . . . . . 14-33 20-1 Environmental Permitting Analysis for Copper Creek Project . 20-1 25-1 Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource . . . . 25-2



December 2012

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1 Drillhole Locations . . . . . . . 1-5 4-1 Location Map . . . . . . . . 4-2 4-2 Arizona Copper Infrastructure . . . . . 4-3 4-3 Copper Creek Project – Mineral Claim Status . . . 4-5 7-1 Regional Geology Map . . . . . . 7-2 7-2 Local Geology – Mapped Lithologies . . . . 7-3 10-1 Drill Hole Locations . . . . . . . 10-3 12-1 Standard 1, Copper Expected Value 0.042% . . . . 12-4 12-2 Standard 2, Copper, Expected Value 0.969% . . . . 12-4 12-3 Standard 3, Copper, Expected Value 0.555% . . . . 12-5 12-4 Standard 4, Copper, Expected Value 5.678% . . . . 12-5 12-5 Standard 5, Copper, Expected Value 0.014% . . . . 12-6 12-6 Standard 1, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0030% . . . 12-7 12-7 Standard 2, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0075% . . . 12-7 12-8 Standard 3, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0092% . . . 12-8 12-9 Standard 4, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0010% . . . 12-8 12-10 Standard 5, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0003% . . . 12-9 12-11 ALS Database Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Copper . 12-12 12-12 ALS Database Assays vs. ALS Assays on Second Pulp, Copper . 12-13 12-13 ALS Database Assays vs. METCON AA Check Assays, Copper . 12-14 12-14 ALS Database Assays vs. METCON AA2 Check Assays, Copper . 12-15 12-15 ALS Database Assays vs. METCON ICP Check Assays, Copper . 12-16 12-16 ALS Database Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Copper QQ-Plot, 99.8% of Data . . . . . . 12-17 12-17 ALS Database Assays vs. ALS Assays on Second Pulp, Copper QQ-Plot, 99.5% of Data . . . . . . 12-18 12-18 ALS Database Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Molybdenum 12-19 12-19 ALS Database Assays vs. ALS Duplicate Assays, Molybdenum . 12-20 12-20 ALS Database Assays vs. METCON AA Check Assays, Molybdenum 12-21 12-21 ALS Database Assays vs. METCON AA2 Check Assays, Molybdenum 12-22 12-22 ALS Database Assays vs. METCON ICP Check Assays, Molybdenum 12-23 12-23 ALS Database Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Silver . 12-24 12-24 ALS Database Assays vs. ALS Assays on Second Pulp, Silver . 12-25 12-25 ALS Database Assays vs. METCON Check Assays, Silver . . 12-26 13-1 MSRDI Rougher Flotation Kinetics . . . . . 13-3 13-2 2007 Drill Program – Arsenic Concentration Versus Drill Hole . 13-9



December 2012

14-1 Drill Hole Locations . . . . . . . 14-4 14-2 20ft Composite Cumulative Frequency, Copper and

Molybdenum, All Data . . . . . . 14-6 14-3 20ft Composite Cumulative Frequency, Copper, by Zone . . 14-7 14-4 20ft Composite Cumulative Frequency, Molybdenum, by Zone . 14-8 14-5 Omnidirectional Covariance Copper Variogram, 20ft Copper Composites – All Zones . . . . . . 14-10 14-6 20ft Composite Copper Grade, Section 635000N . . . 14-11 14-7 20ft Composite Copper Grade, Section 636500N . . . 14-12 14-8 Model Block Grade Distributions . . . . . 14-14 14-9 Grade Zone Boundaries With Composites on the 1980 Bench . 14-15 14-10 Copper Block Grade, East-West Section at 635000N . . 14-17 14-11 Copper Block Grade, East-West Section at 636500N . . 14-18 14-12 Copper Block Grades, Bench 1980 . . . . . 14-19 14-13 Grade-Thickness Copper in Model Blocks, Feet x Percent, Copper . 14-20 14-14 Grade-Thickness Molybdenum in Model Blocks, Feet x Percent, Copper 14-21 14-15 Kriging Variance vs. Number of Holes in Search Ellipsoid . . 14-22 14-16 Resource Classification, Section 635500N . . . . 14-25 14-17 Resource Classification, Section 636500N . . . . 14-26 14-18 Grade-Thickness, Feet-Percent, Measured & Indicated Blocks . 14-27 14-19 Grade-Thickness Copper, Feet-Percent, Inferred Blocks . . 14-28


Redhawk Copper, Inc. 1-1 Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource

December 2012

1.0 SUMMARY Redhawk Resource, Inc. and Redhawk Copper, Inc. (Redhawk) requested Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) to develop a resource estimate for the breccia and porphyry deposits which lie within Redhawk’s Copper Creek Property in Pinal County, Arizona, USA. These deposits contain copper mineralization with associated molybdenum (moly), gold and silver, in potentially economic concentrations. The current mineral resource is an update to the one reported by IMC in June 2012 and documented in its report “Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Update – Pinal Country, Arizona, USA – Technical Report”, dated June 25, 2012 (filed on SEDAR). The June 2012 mineral resource was based on data through the end of March and the current resource included data through September 2012. In March 2010, a scoping study for a selective underground mining project was prepared by K D Engineering Co., Inc., “Redhawk Copper, Inc. Copper Creek Project – 2,500 – 10,000 tpd Scoping Study”. This targeted a small underground mining approach based on the mineral resource estimate developed in October 2008. The resource has increased since that study and the development approach has shifted to a large bulk mining method either by open pit or underground. The results of the March 2010 scoping study do not apply to the current thinking for the development of the 2012 mineral resource. The scoping study has been referenced, but its conclusions and financial results no longer apply to Redhawk’s management direction for the project. The mineral resource presented in the June 2012 technical report assumed an open pit approach to the mining method at Copper Creek, thus the June 2012 mineral resource was constrained by pit shell geometry and tabulated at a 0.20% copper equivalent cutoff grade. Subsequent to the announcement of the June 2012 mineral resource, work has progressed in evaluating an underground mining approach for the development of Copper Creek. A resource model has been developed for an underground mining approach. This model includes drill hole data added since the cutoff date for the June 2012 mineral resource estimate and additional geologic knowledge gained by the Redhawk staff. The mineral resource for the continued evaluation of an underground mining approach was announced in the December 19, 2012 press release and is documented in this report. The December 2012 mineral resource is a combination of the re-statement of the October 2008 mineral resource for the five breccia deposits (Old Reliable, Copper Prince, Globe, Childs-Aldwinkle and Mammoth) and the re-estimation of the Keel – American Eagle porphyry deposit. No new drilling has been done in the breccias so the October 2008 resource models are used with the resources updated to reflect a new calculation of the copper equivalent and that the Old Reliable would be mined by open pit methods, while the remaining breccias are underground mining targets. The Keel – American Eagle deposit has been re-estimated to include the additional drilling results since June 2012 and to model the deposit for a potential underground mining approach.



December 2012

1.1 Property Description The Copper Creek property is located in Pinal County, Arizona on the east flank of the Galiuro Mountains. The property is approximately 75 miles (120.7 km) northeast of Tucson, Arizona and 15 miles (24.1 km) from San Manuel, Arizona. The property includes all or portions of sections 35 and 36 T6S R17E, sections 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, T7S R17E, sections 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 T7S R18E, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 T8S R18E G&SRB&M. The property ownership is comprised of approximately 1150.161 acres (465.46 hectares) of Patented Federal Mining claims, 15 Arizona State Prospecting Permits totaling 6050.25 acres (2448.5 hectares), 754 unpatented Federal Lode Mining claims owned by Redhawk and four unpatented Federal Lode Mining claims under lease purchase agreement to Redhawk totaling 14,456.83 acres (5,850.6 hectares), and 779 acres (315.26 hectares) of private lands. The total acreage controlled by Redhawk on the Copper Creek property is more than 22,436 acres (9,079 hectares). The property is situated in the Bunker Hill Mining District. The Copper Creek property is located in Pinal County, Arizona on the east flank of the Galiuro Mountains. Figure 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the property location and Figure 4-3 shows the distribution and status of the mining claims. 1.2 History and Background Mining activity in the Copper Creek district is reported to have started in 1863. During the 1880s there was mining of silver and in the early 1900s interest began in the high grade breccia pipes. During the period of 1950s through 1990s, various companies explored at Copper Creek, each building on the knowledge of the previous companies. Between 1960 and 1995, 77 deep holes were drilled to try and understand the source of the mineralization for the breccia deposits and determine if there was a large porphyry style deposit at depth. In 1995, AMT (USA), Inc. acquired the property and focused on the Old Reliable and some of the near surface breccia deposits for its exploration work. Redhawk took over the property in 2004 and started its drilling program in 2006. Redhawk has spent a great deal of time organizing the information and drill core developed by the previous companies. Redhawk has drilled 78 holes (190,388 feet) since it took over the property, primarily focusing on the definition of the Keel - American Eagle porphyry deposit and step out exploration drilling. 1.3 Deposit Description The Copper Creek Property lies in the porphyry copper metallogenic province of the southwestern United States of America. The Copper Creek Property lies at the intersection of an ENE-trending belt of porphyry copper deposits, which include Lakeshore, Silverbell, San Manuel/Kalamazoo, Safford and Morenci, and a NNW-trending belt that includes Superior (Resolution), Christmas and Miami-Inspiration (Marsh, 2001).



December 2012

The Copper Creek district is centered on the Copper Creek granodiorite, the central of three Laramide granodiorite intrusions forming a northwest-oriented cluster on the west side of the Galiuro Mountains. The district is marked by over 400 hydrothermal breccia bodies, ranging from a few feet to several hundred feet across, which (like the porphyry bodies) are concentrated in two northwest-trending belts. The Copper Creek mineralization consists of chalcopyrite, bornite, and chalcocite. Copper oxide minerals locally replace sulphides in the near surface supergene weathering environment. A chalcocite enriched, supergene zone forms the principal part of the Old Reliable deposit above the water table. Molybdenite occurs in sufficient amounts in the Childs-Aldwinkle breccia, the Old Reliable breccia, the Keel, and the American Eagle to be of economic interest. Gold and silver occur but have not been systematically assayed by previous owners. Redhawk has re-assayed individual intervals to better understand the precious metal grade distribution where previous owners had assayed long composite runs. Silver appears to have a larger economic significance than gold and Redhawk routinely assays for silver. Near-surface mineralization at Copper Creek occurs predominately in the breccia bodies and to a lesser extent in high angle “early halo” veins. Sulfides are concentrated within the breccia matrix, and are dominated by chalcopyrite, bornite, and pyrite, with minor chalcocite in the upper parts of some pipes. High-grade mineralization in the breccias typically occurs as prominent masses and clots of copper minerals filling open spaces, or as sheeted veins along the edges of the pipes. Relative levels of copper, molybdenum, gold and silver vary considerably from breccia to breccia. Molybdenite Re-Os ages from the breccias yield mineralization ages between 62 and 57 million years. Recent drilling indicates that the deeper American Eagle and Keel porphyry-style resources are connected and form a single copper-mineralized body at least 5000 feet long northwest-southeast, which is open in most directions. Work by Redhawk since 2009 has resulted in determining that the Copper Creek mineralization system is an “early halo” style characterized by a large percentage of “early dark micaceous” (EDM) and later “D” type veining hosting the vast majority of copper and molybdenum values in the “porphyry” mineralization. The abundant breccia bodies appear to be a late phase of mineralization. The EDM and D style veins are identifiable in road cuts, drainages, and sometimes in outcrops. The EDM and D style veins are being mapped on the surface and show a strong correlation with the “footprint” of the porphyry mineralization area. Zones of more intense EDM and D veining on the surface are most commonly ENE trending and have very steep to vertical dips and are target areas for developing open pit mineable grades above the more massive zones of porphyry mineralization at deeper levels. The deeper porphyry mineralization is dominated by the EDM and D veining but dips of the veining is strongly sub-horizontal to moderate angles rather than the steep to vertical dips at shallower levels. 1.4 Drill Hole Data Exploration drilling has been conducted by most of the previous owners of the Copper Creek property, and Redhawk commenced drilling during the fourth quarter 2006. For the 2012



December 2012

underground mineral resource, the data base consists of 551 holes for a total of 659,521 feet of drilling. Since it took over the property and started drilling in 2006, Redhawk has drilled 78 holes totaling 190,388 feet. Of the 78 holes drilled by Redhawk, 42 were included in the 2008 mineral resource, 30 holes (115,334 feet) were added for the June 2012 mineral resource and another 6 holes (26,861) have been added for the December 2012 mineral resource. Redhawk has continued to assay intervals for previous drilling which was not assayed when drilled (including intervals from both Redhawk and previous owners). There are six mineralized areas which are of interest at Copper Creek and are the combinations of the breccia zones (Globe, Copper Prince, Old Reliable, Childs-Aldwinkle, and the Mammoth) with the deeper porphyry mineralization (Keel, which is below the Mammoth breccia and the American Eagle, to the southeast of the Keel). Figure 1-1 shows the drill holes and the limits of the mineralized areas. Table 1-1 summarizes the number of holes, footage and number intervals plus intervals with assays for copper, moly, and silver within each of the mineralized area limits shown on the map. The total number of holes on this table exceeds the 551 total because some holes cross from one area to another.

Table 1-1 Drilling Statistics by Mineralized Area

Mineralized Area Number of Holes

Total Drilling,

feet

Number of

Intervals

Intervals Assayed

for Copper

Intervals Assayed for Moly

Intervals Assayed for Silver

Globe 35 28,198 2,145 2,085 1,101 582 Copper Prince 71 40,062 3,770 3,704 1,248 394 Old Reliable 141 42,417 4,780 4,623 2,198 302 Childs-Aldwinkle 86 78,950 4,103 3,886 3,125 1,032 Mammoth-Keel 85 141,860 11,636 11,392 11,151 5,854 American Eagle 94 242,688 22,851 22,552 17,483 11,294 Outside 85 85,347 7,942 7,854 5,261 4,254 Total 659,521 57,227 56,096 41,567 23,712



December 2012

Figure 1-1 Drillhole Locations Mineralized Areas 1 = Globe 2 = Copper Prince 3 = Old Reliable 4 = Chiles-Aldwinkle 5 = Mammoth – Keel 6 = American Eagle

N

5

1

6

3

4

2



December 2012

1.5 Mineral Resource In the Copper Creek 43-101 Technical Report, dated October 28, 2008, individual models were constructed by IMC for each of the seven Copper Creek deposits (Copper Prince, Globe, Old Reliable, Childs-Aldwinkle, Mammoth, Keel and American Eagle) and resources were reported separately for each deposit. These models were designed to evaluate a selective, underground mining approach. The resources reported in June 2012 were obtained from a single model that covers the entire Copper Creek area and which is designed to investigate bulk mining potential. The December 2012 mineral resource is a combination of the re-statement of the October 2008 mineral resource for the five breccia deposits and the re-estimation of the Keel – American Eagle porphyry deposit. No new drilling has been done in the breccias so the October 2008 resource models are used with the resources updated to reflect a new calculation of the copper equivalent. The Old Reliable is reported separate from the other breccia deposits because it is anticipated to be mined by an open pit method, while the remaining breccia deposits would be mined underground. The Keel – American Eagle deposit has been re-estimated to include the additional drilling results since June 2012 and to model the deposit for a potential underground mining approach. The five breccia models used the outlines of the breccia bodies as limits to the grade estimates. There is isolated mineralization to the exterior of the breccia bodies and the estimate of grade of this mineralization was made using a polygonal estimation with a limited search distance. The Childs-Aldwinkle and Mammoth grade models were estimated using indicator kriging and the Old Reliable, Globe and Copper Prince grade models used ordinary kriging. The Keel – American Eagle model used grade shell outlines at copper grades of 0.50% and greater, 0.40% and 0.30% as limits to the grade estimation procedures. The grade shells were developed by the Redhawk geologists on level plans of 20ft vertical drill hole composites. The outlines were digitized and provided to IMC for assignment to the block model. The grade interpolation method was an ID4 operator using a maximum search of 350 by 350 feet horizontal and 275 ft vertical. The mineral resource in Table 1-2 is tabulated at different copper equivalent (CuEq) cutoffs for each of three areas:

• The near surface Old Reliable breccia is tabulated using a 0.40% CuEq cutoff to reflect a potential open pit resource.

• The breccia deposits of Globe, Copper Prince, Childs-Aldwinkle and Mammoth are tabulated using a 0.75% CuEq cutoff to reflect a selective, underground mining approach.

• The Keel – American Eagle porphyry is tabulated at a 0.50% CuEq cutoff to reflect a bulk underground mining approach.



December 2012

The copper equivalent grade is based on the metal prices and estimate of recoveries for copper, molybdenum, silver and gold (estimated in the breccia deposits only). Metal Price Recovery Copper $2.75/lb 90% Molybdenum $12.00/lb 80% Silver $20.00/oz 90% Gold $1100/oz 40% The copper equivalent calculations are: Keel – American Eagle: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag(opt) Breccia Deposits: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag(opt) + 8.89 x Au(opt) Tonnages were calculated assuming a constant density of 12.5 cu ft/ton (2.56 g/cc). Resources were classified as measured, indicated or inferred based on the number of holes within the search, kriging variance and estimation uncertainties introduced by the presence of holes with unassayed intervals. In preparing this estimate IMC has assumed that all of the data supplied to it, including assay and survey data, are correct to within normally-accepted limits of error.

Table 1-2 Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource Estimate

Deposit & CuEq Cutoff

Class Ktons Copper, %

Moly, %

Silver, opt

Gold, opt

CuEq, %

Old Reliable Breccia 0.40%

Measured 2,727 0.77 0.011 0.081 - 0.87 Indicated 255 0.60 0.008 0.034 - 0.65 M&I 2,982 0.75 0.011 0.077 - 0.85 Inferred 79 0.68 0.007 0.013 - 0.72

Breccia Deposits 0.75%

Measured 4,462 1.52 0.013 0.142 0.002 1.64 Indicated 1,272 1.86 0.035 0.111 0.003 2.07 M&I 5,734 1.60 0.018 0.135 0.002 1.74 Inferred 774 2.09 0.038 0.082 0.003 2.29

Keel – Am. Eagle

0.50%

Measured 29,765 0.79 0.020 0.100 - 0.90 Indicated 115,218 0.70 0.012 0.030 - 0.76 M&I 144,983 0.72 0.013 0.050 - 0.79 Inferred 85,841 0.68 0.014 0.040 - 0.75



December 2012

1.6 Conclusions and Recommendations It is the opinion of IMC that the mineral resource presented in Table 1-2 at the selected cutoff grades for the various deposits is a reasonable representation of the Copper Creek mineral resource based on the currently available data and understanding of the deposits. IMC recommends that work continue at Copper Creek in accordance with the proposed Redhawk work plan which is briefly summarized as:

• Based on the 2012 mineral resource, evaluate the best underground mining approach to develop the resource with the exception of the Old Reliable breccia which will be mined by open pit..

• Continue the assaying of older drill holes un-assayed intervals to fill in the drill hole data base.

• Continue with the metallurgical test work. • Continue with the evaluation of water sources. • Continue work on the geologic model of the deposits. • Evaluate locations for tailings and waste rock storage. • Define the next steps for underground mining.



December 2012

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE Redhawk Resource, Inc. and Redhawk Copper, Inc. (Redhawk) requested Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) to develop a resource estimate for the breccia and porphyry deposits which lie within Redhawk’s Copper Creek Property in Pinal County, Arizona, USA. These deposits contain copper mineralization with associated molybdenum (moly) and silver, in potentially economic concentrations. The current mineral resource is an update to the one reported by IMC in June 2012 and documented in its report “Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Update – Pinal Country, Arizona, USA – Technical Report”, dated June 25, 2012 (filed on SEDAR). In March 2010, a scoping study for a selective underground mining project was prepared by K D Engineering Co., Inc., “Redhawk Copper, Inc. Copper Creek Project – 2,500 – 10,000 tpd Scoping Study”. This targeted a small underground mining approach. The resource has increased since that study and the development approach has shifted to a large bulk mining method either by open pit or underground. The results of the March 2010 scoping study do not apply to the current thinking for the development of the 2012 mineral resource. The scoping study has been referenced, but its conclusions and financial results no longer apply to Redhawk’s management direction for the project. The mineral resource presented in the June 2012 technical report assumed an open pit approach to the mining method at Copper Creek, thus the June 2012 mineral resource was constrained by pit shell geometry. Subsequent to the announcement of the June 2012 mineral resource, work has progressed in evaluating an underground mining approach for the development of Copper Creek. A resource model has been developed for an underground mining approach. This model includes drill hole data added since the cutoff date for the June 2012 mineral resource estimate and additional geologic knowledge gained by the Redhawk staff. The mineral resource for the continued evaluation of an underground mining approach was announced in the December 19, 2012 press release and is documented in this report. The Qualified Person with IMC responsible for this report is Herb Welhener. Herb Welhener visited the Copper Creek site last on September 10, 2011. This report is in English units. Tons are short tons and ktons mean 1,000 short tons. Copper and molybdenum grades are in % per short ton (%) and silver and gold grades are in ounces per ton (opt). All tonnages reported in this document are in dry tons.



December 2012

3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS – DISCLAIMER IMC has relied on information provided by Redhawk, its consultants, and information provided in three previous reports on the property for the development of the current mineral resource estimate:

• “Redhawk Copper, Inc. – Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Update – Pinal County, Arizona, USA”, prepared by Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. dated June 25, 2012.

• “Redhawk Copper, Inc. – Copper Creek Project – 2,500 – 10,000 tpd Scoping Study”, prepared by K D Engineering, Co., Inc., dated 12 March 2010.

• “Copper Creek 2008 Mineral Resource – Pinal County, Arizona, USA – Technical Report”, prepared by Independent Mining Consultants, Inc., dated October 28, 2008.

Where possible, IMC has confirmed the information provided by comparison against other data sources. Where check and confirmation were not possible, IMC has assumed that all information supplied is complete and reliable within normally accepted limits of error. During the normal course of the review, IMC has not discovered any reason to doubt that assumption. IMC has not specifically reviewed or audited the property ownership, but has briefly reviewed the ownership and agreements between Redhawk and others concerning the rights of Redhawk to explore on the property. IMC has not field verified any of the claim or exploration permit boundaries. Information regarding the property situation at Copper Creek within this report has been produced by Redhawk as required under NI43-101. IMC has not reviewed the environmental situation at the property. IMC has assumed that any required permits for exploration are current. IMC had not field checked any of the drill hole locations, but has been informed that Redhawk has done this work as part of its due diligence when acquiring the property. IMC has not audited the proposed expenditure budgets of Redhawk and does not offer a professional opinion regarding the reliability of future Redhawk budgets. IMC has not audited the metallurgical test work and has relied on the review by K D Engineering, Co., Inc. (KDE), which has done this review. IMC has relied on cost estimates by KDE and Milne & Associates, Inc. (Milne), which is the underground consultant to Redhawk.



December 2012

4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The Copper Creek property is located in Pinal County, Arizona on the east flank of the Galiuro Mountains. The property is approximately 75 miles (120.7 km) northeast of Tucson, Arizona and 15 miles (24.1 km) from San Manuel, Arizona. The property includes all or portions of sections 35 and 36 T6S R17E, sections 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, T7S R17E, sections 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 T7S R18E, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 T8S R18E G&SRB&M. The property ownership is comprised of approximately 1150.161 acres (465.46 hectares) of Patented Federal Mining claims, 15 Arizona State Prospecting Permits totaling 6050.25 acres (2448.5 hectares), 754 unpatented Federal Lode Mining claims owned by Redhawk and four unpatented Federal Lode Mining claims under lease purchase agreement to Redhawk totaling 14,456.83 acres (5,850.6 hectares), and 779 acres (315.26 hectares) of private lands. The total acreage controlled by Redhawk on the Copper Creek property is more than 22,436 acres (9,079 hectares). The property is situated in the Bunker Hill Mining District. 4.1 Location The Copper Creek property consists of approximately 22,436 acre (35 sq. mi.) and is located about 75 road miles northeast of Tucson. The property lies approximately 10 miles from the town of Mammoth, in the Bunker Hill Mining District on the western slopes of the Galiuro Mountains, Pinal County, Arizona, USA (Figure 4-1). It lies in sections 35 and 36 T6S R17E, sections 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, T7S R17E, sections 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 T7S R18E, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 T8S R18E G&SRB&M and is centered at 32° 45' N Latitude, 110° 30' W Longitude. Copper Creek is situated somewhat central to the copper mining districts in Arizona with the Globe – Miami district to the north, the southern Arizona district to the south and the Safford and Morenci districts to the east (Figure 4-2).



December 2012

Figure 4-1 Location Map



December 2012

Figure 4-2 Arizona Copper Infrastructure



December 2012

4.2 Land and Tenure and Property Agreements The Copper Creek Property comprises one contiguous group of 61 patented and 758 unpatented Federal claims, fifteen Arizona State Mineral Exploration Leases, and private lands. All the above mineral titles are held directly by Redhawk Copper, Inc. (Figure 4-3). The claims information in Appendix A is not a legal title opinion but is a compilation of claims data based on information supplied to the author by Redhawk Copper, Inc. Redhawk has informed the author that the claims and prospecting permits are properly maintained and all appropriate fees have been paid. Based on this information, the claims and leases appear to be in good standing as of the date of this report. To renew unpatented claims, an Annual Maintenance Fee of US$ 140 per claim levied by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must be paid on or before 1 September each year. The current annual maintenance cost of the unpatented claims is approximately US$ 106,120. In addition, there is a small yearly County filing fee for the unpatented claims. There are currently fifteen Arizona State mineral exploration permits that belong to the Copper Creek landholdings. These permits are valid for five years, assuming the work requirements are fulfilled each year. All fifteen leases, which expire mid-2016, are in the name of Redhawk Copper, Inc. There is a renewal fee of US$ 100 each per year. In addition, there is a fieldwork requirement due (or cash in lieu of work) for each lease, and that is in the amount of US$ 10 per acre for years 2 & 3 and US$ 20 per acre for years 4 & 5. The fifteen permits encompass a total of 6,050.25 acres. The work must be done on these permits, or approximately US$ 60,500 must be paid as cash in lieu. The patented claims and some of the unpatented claims have been surveyed; the permits have not been surveyed (their location is determined by a legal description (i.e. Section, Range, Township, etc.). Annual property taxes to Pinal County are currently US$ 9,667. Surface title over the area of the Federal unpatented claims is comprised of BLM, State of Arizona Lands, and private ownership under the Stock Raising Homestead Act. State exploration permits are under State of Arizona jurisdiction. Unpatented mining claims are under BLM jurisdiction. The surface title over the patented claims is held by Redhawk Copper, Inc. The surface access to carry out work on the BLM and State land is through normal BLM and State permitting procedures respectively.



December 2012

Figure 4-3 Copper Creek Project – Mineral Claim Status



December 2012

5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY The Copper Creek Property is located in a ranching and mining area about 75 road miles northeast of Tucson, Arizona (Figure 4-1). Tucson is a major population center and transportation hub with well-developed infrastructure and services to support the area mines. Access to the property from Tucson is by paved highway 65 miles to the property road junction, then 10 miles on gravel road to the site. The driving time from Tucson to the site is approximately two hours. A network of ranch and mine roads provides access to most parts of the property. The Copper Creek Property is located in rugged terrain of the eastern Basin and Range physiographic province of South Eastern Arizona. Elevations on the property range from 3,400 ft to 4,900 ft above mean sea level. Climate varies with elevation, but over most of the property summers are hot and dry and winters are mild. Data collected over a fifty-year period at a weather station approximately 10 miles from site at an elevation of 3,500 ft indicates the average summer temperatures range from a low of 67.4oF at night to a high of 96oF during the day. During winter, average temperatures range from a low of 35.7oF at night to a high of 61.8oF during the day. The lowest temperature recorded was 12oF and the highest recorded temperature was 111oF. Precipitation data collected from the same weather site indicates the average annual rainfall ranges from 6.3 to 26.8 inches and averages 13.8 inches per year. A rain gauge maintained on Copper Creek since 1987 recorded average annual rainfall of 13.0 inches in a range of 8.94 inches to 24.7 inches. Occasional light snow falls at higher elevations in the winter months. The average annual evaporation rate, approximately 90 inches per year, greatly exceeds the average annual precipitation rate. Vegetation, including various cactus, mesquite and palo verde trees, grasses and scrub brush, are common in the area. The area has an exceptionally well-developed mining infrastructure. BHP’s San Manuel operation was located approximately 10 miles to the west of Copper Creek. This operation was shutdown in 2001, but substantial infrastructure including roads, power, and towns are available near Copper Creek. The large operating mine/concentrator/smelter complex owned by Asarco (Grupo Mexico SA) is located at Hayden, 30 miles to the northwest of Copper Creek. Other similar facilities are located throughout Arizona. The previous property operator carried out ground water studies and determined that adequate water for exploration drilling and any possible future mining operation may be obtained from wells on or near the property.



December 2012

6.0 HISTORY 6.1 The Early Years According to old reports, some rich lead-silver ore was mined from the Bluebird vein as early as 1863; however, the Bunker Hill (Copper Creek) mining district was not organized until 1883, after completion of the transcontinental Southern Pacific railroad (1880). Some ore was shipped from the Bluebird vein during the 1880s silver boom, Claims were staked to cover copper deposits prior to 1900, but little work was done in the district until after 1902. Principal freight access was over the crest of the Galiuro mountains, to Wilcox. In 1903, Copper Creek Mining Company acquired claims covering narrow copper-silver veins in Tertiary-age volcanic rocks near the headwaters of Copper Creek and later acquired ground along Copper Creek, as far west as the Laramide-age Old Reliable pipe deposit. The wagon road from Mammoth to Copper Creek reportedly was constructed in 1908; this provided more favorable freight haul after the railroad extended to Winkleman in 1911. By 1913, the Copper Creek Mining Company and its successors (the Minnesota-Arizona Mining Company and Copper State Metals Mining Company) had constructed a dam, power plant, dispensary and 200 ton per day gravity concentrator in the vicinity of Post Office Point. They had developed and mined a small, tabular breccia ore body at American Eagle; the Old Reliable pipe deposit was partially developed for mining and was connected to the concentrator with about two miles of narrow gauge railroad. By the end of 1913, the company was in default and employees were working the Old Reliable to recover unpaid wages. The company was refinanced in 1914 and operated at Old Reliable where about 30,000 tons were produced prior to shutdown in 1919. The Old Reliable claim group was surveyed for patent in 1919. Commencing in 1907, the Calumet and Arizona Mining Company (C & A), guided by Ira Joralemon, explored the Copper Giant, Copper Prince, Glory Hole (Globe), and Superior pipes by adits, shafts and drifts. To supplement the underground exploration, C & A drilled about 6,000 ft in fourteen surface holes, during 1914. A copper resource was found in both the Glory Hole and Prince pipes, but there was no production. The C & A group of 26 claims was surveyed for patent between 1908 and 1919; title passed to Phelps Dodge Corporation in 1931 when it purchased the Calumet and Arizona company. The only recorded production from the C & A ground has been by Arizona Molybdenum Corporation which mined and milled 23,312 tons from the Copper Prince pipe with average grade of 3.19 percent copper, during 1937. Written logs of the C & A drill holes reside in Redhawk’s files, but core has not been located.

C & A holes are numbered DH-1 through DH-14. An adit, driven below the outcrops of the Childs Aldwinkle pipes in 1915, discovered the copper-molybdenum ore body there and the pipes were partly developed for production during 1917-1918; the claims were surveyed in 1916 and patented in 1919. Arizona



December 2012

Molybdenum Corporation acquired the property in 1933 and proceeded to develop the copper and molybdenum ore body to 520 ft below the haulage level. The old Arizona-Minnesota Mining Company gravity concentrator was converted to flotation; about 350 tons per day were processed. In 1935, a new flotation concentrator was constructed on the Childs Aldwinkle property, near the portal of the haulage adit; about 300 tons per day were processed there. Between 1933 and 1938, about 329,000 tons were milled. Leasers worked the mine in 1939 and again during 1957-1965. At some time prior to 1957, the Childs Aldwinkle winze was extended to 680 ft below the haulage adit; the 680 level was developed and six short holes were drilled there by Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company; Magma Copper Company obtained logs of these holes from Inspiration in 1967. These logs are in Redhawk's files, but the core has not been located. Holes drilled by Inspiration at Childs Aldwinkle: H-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 During his work at Copper Creek for C & A, Ira Joralemon postulated that the area between the chalcocite-enriched Old Reliable and Glory Hole pipes may be underlain by a chalcocite blanket of commercial tenor. In the late 1940's, Copper Creek Consolidated Mining Company (Morris Elsing) secured the patented claims at Old Reliable and, during 1950, drilled four holes with a churn-drill to disprove Joralemon’s idea. Copper Creek Consolidated held the Old Reliable property, without recorded production, until about 1954. Holes drilled by Morris Elsing near Old Reliable: CDH-1, 2, 3, 4 6.2 The Modern Era In 1956, Siskon Corporation acquired ground that had been part of the more westerly properties of the old Copper State Metals Mining Company, most in Sections 10, 11 and 14. Siskon’s principal interest was the Old Reliable mine. The Old Reliable had been rehabilitated and sampled in 1942 and 1943 by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and very encouraging results reported in RI 4006 (1947). Siskon drilled 21 diamond core holes from the 100 and 200 levels of the Old Reliable mine. Neither logs nor core are available.

Holes drilled by Siskon at Old Reliable: OR1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; SW-1, 2, 3

In 1959, Bear Creek Mining Company (Kennecott) optioned the Siskon ground and also the Childs Aldwinkle patented claims. Bear Creek mounted the first integrated exploration (geologic mapping, geochemical and geophysical surveys, followed by drilling), at Copper Creek. Fifteen holes were drilled there by Bear Creek and several of these cut mineralized zones. However, none of the Bear Creek intersections appeared to be minable and they abandoned the project in 1962. The Bear Creek drill core was stored in a cabin at the Old Reliable under care of watchman Pete Carey. This core was moved to a warehouse at Magma’s plant in San Manuel in 1967 and is now in the possession of Redhawk.



December 2012

Holes drilled by Bear Creek: Old Reliable CU-3, 10 Childs Aldwinkle CA-1, 2, 3

Siskon claims CU-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12

In 1966, Newmont Exploration Limited (NEL) optioned the Siskon property and enlisted Magma Copper Company (80.3 percent owned by Newmont Mining Corporation) as co-venturer and operator. The Childs Aldwinkle patented claims were also optioned, as were adjacent claims owned by Clark, Downey and Lehman as well as the patented Redbird claims (Bluebird Mine). Additional claims were located to cover open Federal land and State land was leased. Exploration was directed toward discovery of a major disseminated copper deposit; breccia pipes were not a primary target. Between 1966 and 1970, geology of the district was mapped and 30 deep core holes were drilled. Core from these and all other JV holes drilled at Copper Creek was stored in a warehouse at Magma’s plant at San Manuel, until June, 2005. This work demonstrated a significant copper-mineralized zone, at depth, beneath the American Eagle Area. Magma became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newmont in 1969. Holes drilled by Magma - Newmont: Siskon claims SK-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 Bonbright claims B-20, 24, 29, 30 (Childs Aldwinkle) Downey claims D-5, 8, 9, 13, 26 Lehman claims L-10, 12, 19, 25, 27 Magma - Newmont claims M-22, 28 A-11 S-14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 Although Newmont acquired the Siskon ground in 1966, Siskon retained the right to deal separately with the upper part of the Old Reliable pipe and certain adjacent claims, for a period of 15 years. In 1968, Occidental Minerals Corporation (Oxymin) leased that ground from Siskon and also optioned part of the adjacent Phelps Dodge ground that covered the mineralized Glory Hole, Copper Prince and Copper Giant pipes. The old workings that C & A had driven to test the (Phelps Dodge) pipes were rehabilitated above the water table and Oxymin drilled 67 surface and underground holes to test the Old Reliable, Glory Hole, Prince and Giant pipes. Oxymin released their option on the Phelps Dodge ground in about 1970. Redhawk has copies of Oxymin core logs, but no logs for percussion holes; location of the core is not known.

Holes drilled by Oxymin: Old Reliable OOR1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (Surface – Core) UG-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (100 level – Core)

EH-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

(100&200 levels-Percussion)



December 2012

Glory Hole GH-1, 2, 3 (Surface – Core) EHGH-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

(Underground–Percussion)

Prince OP-1 (Surface – Core) EHOP-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (Underground-Percussion) Giant OG-1, 2 (Surface – Core) Oxymin, in 1971, assigned their interest in the Old Reliable to Ranchers Exploration and Mining Company. Ranchers drilled three holes to confirm results of Oxymin drill holes; logs of the Ranchers holes are in Redhawk’s file, but location of the core is not known. In 1972, Ranchers, in association with Du Pont, rubblized the Old Reliable pipe above the 3730 elevation, by blasting with ANFO. Copper was leached from this rubble-column with dilute sulfuric acid; copper was recovered from the leach-liquors by precipitation on tin-cans in a plant below the mine. More than 12,077,000 pounds of cement copper were recovered between 1972 and 1981, when Ranchers’ lease expired. Holes Drilled by Ranchers at Old Reliable: RD-1, 2, 3 In the years 1972 - 1974, after retrieving its property from Oxymin, Phelps Dodge (now Freeport Copper & Gold, Inc.) geologists mapped, sampled and tested the Phelps Dodge ground with geophysics; nine holes were drilled to test deep targets, with disappointing results. Phelps Dodge did not explore the pipe deposits on its ground. Redhawk has copies of the Phelps Dodge drill hole logs. Phelps Dodge has the core. Holes drilled by Phelps Dodge on their ground: CC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Humble Oil joined Newmont and Magma in exploration for porphyry copper deposits at Copper Creek in 1971. Humble assumed project management during 1971-1972, their “earn-in” period and drilled 20 deep holes. It was Humble-Newmont hole HN-12 that discovered the third (north) finger of the Childs Aldwinkle pipe. Redhawk has both logs and core. Holes drilled by Humble – Newmont: American Eagle HN-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20 Childs Aldwinkle HN-12, 14, 17, 18 Old Reliable HN-13 Joint Venture claims HN-15 Humble Oil was renamed Exxon Corporation in about 1973. In 1979, Exxon, at their sole cost, drilled a hole to test a geological theory that was advanced by their exploration management (but failed to find ore). Redhawk has both log and core. Hole drilled by Exxon (JV ground): EN-1



December 2012

Newmont resumed management of the Copper Creek Joint Venture in 1973 and drilled six angled holes from surface to test pipe targets. However, by the mid-1970s, Newmont’s corporate interest in porphyry copper exploration had waned. The Copper Creek project reverted to care and maintenance; drill targets were carefully selected, but drilling was reduced to the amount needed to underwrite property maintenance costs. Hole NE-6 discovered the lower Mammoth feeder-zone and hole NE-10 discovered the Mammoth breccia pipe. Redhawk has both logs and core for these holes. Between 1972 and 1977, the joint venture surveyed for patent claims on public domain that would be interior to a crack-line projected at 45 degrees from the bottom of the American Eagle deposit. This survey was filed with the BLM but the claims were not patented. Exxon ceased contributing to the joint venture in 1985 and withdrew in 1987. Holes drilled by Newmont-Exxon: Childs Aldwinkle AH-1, 2, 3 American Eagle AH-4, 5, 6 NE-2, 4, 7, 8 Mammoth area NE-5, 6, 10 Railroad pipe NE-9 Joint Venture claims NE-1, 3 When Newmont distributed Magma’s equity to Newmont’s shareholders in 1987, Newmont’s ownership interest in properties at Copper Creek was incorporated into Magma and Magma became an independent company. Magma’s management had little interest in exploration at Copper Creek; they reduced the size of the property package, but held the core property. Magma met the requirement for assessment expenditure by drilling three holes. Redhawk has logs and drill core for these holes. Holes drilled by Magma: Mammoth area CC-1 Childs Aldwinkle CC-2, 3 6.3 Work At Copper Creek By AMT (USA) Inc. Arizona Mineral Technology (Kushal Singh) finalized an agreement to acquire the Copper Creek property from Magma in 1994. Singh’s company was renamed AMT International Mining Corporation when it was incorporated in Canada. Between 1960 and 1995 when AMT became active at Copper Creek, more than 77 deep holes had been drilled there by major copper companies and large amounts of geological, geophysical, geochemical and other analytical data had been generated by them. These explorers were searching for a major porphyry copper deposit; the mineralized pipes were too small to interest these major companies.



December 2012

AMT began field investigations at Copper Creek in the spring of 1995; the relatively shallow mineralized pipes were favored targets for AMT. Claims were staked to recover the ground dropped by Magma and to fill fractions. Agreements to acquire the Bell (Ryland) ranch and the Mercer ranch were signed. An agreement was signed with Phelps Dodge Exploration Corporation to obtain an interest in their patented claim block. AMT obtained a prospecting permit for State lands in the south half of Section 2, near the Bluebird mine. Access and drill roads were repaired and a new access road was constructed from Saloon Gulch to the top of White Bear hill. During May and June 1995, AMT drilled nine reverse circulation (RC) holes at Old Reliable to confirm that leaching by Ranchers had not significantly depleted the chalcocite ore body there. In addition, three RC holes were drilled at Old Reliable in June 1996 and 20 RC holes were drilled there in January through March, 1997. Six of these vertical RC holes were extended with the core drill to test the deposit below the rubble column. These holes plus pre-AMT holes and rock sample assays comprise the data-base from which the resource in the Old Reliable pipe has been estimated. Holes drilled by AMT at Old Reliable: OR-1R (core), 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R, 6R, 7R, 8R, 9R, 10R, 11R, 12R,

13R (core), 14R (core), 15R (core), 16R (core), 17R (core), 18R, 19R, 20R, 21R, 22R, 23R, 24R, 25R, 26R, 27R, 28R, 29R, 30R, 31R, 32R

AMT drilled 40,135 ft in 37 angled diamond core holes to test the Childs Aldwinkle pipe above 2800 elevation, in March through September, 1996. These westerly-directed holes were drilled from four surface sites, east of the Childs Aldwinkle glory-holes. In addition, 3580 ft were drilled in nine RC holes to test the top of the blind north finger of the pipe and three vertical core holes were drilled to obtain metallurgical test samples. These holes, plus pre-AMT holes, comprise the data-base from which the resource in the Childs Aldwinkle pipe deposit has been estimated. Holes drilled by AMT at Childs Aldwinkle:

CA28+3A, CA28+4, CA28+5, CA28+8, CA30+3, CA30+4, CA30+5, CA30+6, CA32+3, CA32+4, CA32+5, CA32+6, CA32+8, CA34+2, CA34+3, CA34+4, CA34+4A, CA34+7, CA35.5+1, CA35.5+2, CA35.5+3, CA35.5+4, CA36+7, CA36+8, CA36.5+2, C36.5+3, CA36.5+4, CA37.5+1, CA37.5+1A, CA37.5+2, CA37.5+3, CA38+6, CA38+7, CA40+6, CA40+7, CA40+8, CATECH, Met-2CA, 3CA, 4CA

CA-1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R, 6R, 7R, 8R, 9R In the years 1976 through 1982, Newmont drilled two core holes beneath the south wall of Copper Creek canyon, almost directly beneath the prior location of the Arizona Molybdenum Corporation concentrator. Both of these holes cut mineralized intervals, of potential ore-grade. The near surface intercept in hole NE-10 was similar to other copper-mineralized breccia-pipe deposits in the area, but the deeper intercepts in hole NE-6 were pervasive



December 2012

sericite-chalcopyrite replacement of granodiorite. Follow-up holes drilled by AMT, 37,578 ft in 24 angled and seven vertical holes, defined the Mammoth breccia, a pipe-form, quartz-chalcopyrite veinlet stockwork deposit with N25W elongation; potentially economic parts of the pipe, bottom above the 2800 elevation. These 31 core holes drilled by AMT, plus Newmont’s hole NE-10, comprise the data-base from which the Mammoth pipe resource was estimated. Holes drilled by AMT to test the Mammoth pipe: CK32+0, 33+1Y, 33+3Y, 34.5-50, 35+3Y, 35.5-50, 36+0, 37+100, 37+50 37.2+50 CK-B, C, D, E VIX24-2, 28-1, 28-2, 30-1, 32+1, 32-1, 32-2, 32-3, 34+1, 34-1, 34-2, 36-2 VIX-A, VIXTECH, UM-1, MET1-CK, MET5-CK During November, 1996, hole VIX 28-2 extended through the relatively shallow Mammoth pipe and into sericite-chalcopyrite rock, similar to the deep mineral intercept in Newmont hole NE-6. The similarity between these mineral intercepts, about 700 ft apart, stimulated drilling of holes to test the continuity of the intervening “Lower Mammoth” (LM) mineralized zone. The Lower Mammoth deposit is a steep, N25W- trending, altered and mineralized sheared zone that clearly has fed mineralizing fluids upward, into the Mammoth pipe. In addition to Newmont’s hole NE-6, the Lower Mammoth zone has been tested by an additional 13 holes drilled by AMT; it is, however, incompletely drilled at this juncture. The limited current information indicates potentially economic parts of the Lower Mammoth feeder zone tops near 2400 elevation; it appears to have reasonable continuity for at least 700 ft along strike, to be open downward and to the southeast. Both tenor and thickness appear to increase toward the south, where thickness of the zone probably exceeds 100 ft. Holes drilled by AMT to test the Lower Mammoth zone: VIX24-2, 28-2 LM-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 In addition to holes drilled to test the four major ore bodies described previously, AMT drilled a number of core and RC holes to test other mineral occurrences at Copper Creek. Some of these holes returned interesting (but generally sub-economic) assays that warrant follow-up. Hole logs, split drill core and RC cuttings trays are in possession of Redhawk. Holes drilled by AMT to test various targets at Copper Creek (partial list): American Eagle AE-1, 2, 3 AE-1R, 2R, 3R B-24 breccia B24-1R, 2R, 3R Boomerang breccia BG-1R Bluebird area S2-98-1 Copper Giant CG1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Copper Prince CP1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6



December 2012

Doreen breccia DB1, 2, 3, 4 Glory Hole (Globe) G1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 11, 12, 13 M22 drill site M22-1R Marsha breccia MB-1, 2, 2A Pole breccia PB30+14, 34+14, 38+14 PB-1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R Railroad pipe RR-1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R PC1

Post Office breccia PO-1R Rum claims RUM-1 Shirley breccia SB-1, 2 Superior breccia S1, 2, 3 White Bear pipe WB-1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R AMT mounted a staggered, 200 ft grid, which covered much of the productive ground at Copper Creek. This grid was used to guide collection of geochemical samples, ground magnetic and radiometric surveys. The exploration survey data is in files controlled by Redhawk and warrants study. AMT exhausted its financial resources in 2001 and ceased all exploration. Norshield Investments, AMT’s primary creditor, advanced funds necessary to maintain the key properties at Copper Creek, but agreements to secure the “Ryland” ranch, the Mercer Ranch, the Phelps Dodge claims and Downey’s Moose claims were dropped. Redhawk Resources reviewed the project data in 2004. Redhawk acquired AMT’s remaining property at Copper Creek, as well as the drill core, rock samples and the accumulated project data, in 2005. 6.4 Redhawk Resources Redhawk Resources reviewed the project data in 2004. Redhawk acquired AMT’s property at Copper Creek, as well as the drill core, rock samples and the accumulated project data, in 2005. Redhawk spent considerable time following the acquisition organizing and consolidating the available data and drill core. The core is now housed in a core storage facility at Redhawk's project office in San Manuel, Arizona. During the review of the drill core, it was discovered that some of the last holes drilled by AMT were not split or assayed. Redhawk has logged, split and assayed this core and the results were added to the data base. Redhawk commissioned Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) to develop a resource estimate of four of the mineralized targets (Mammoth Breccia, Childs-Aldwinkle Breccia, Old Reliable Breccia and the Lower Mammoth – Keel deposit) on the Copper Creek ground. IMC’s work started in March 2006 and a resource was announced in September 2006. The NI 43-101 Technical Document for this resource is titled “Copper Creek Property Mineral Resource, Pinal County, Arizona, USA, Technical Document”, dated October 31, 2006 and filed on SEDAR on November 8, 2006.



December 2012

Redhawk commenced a drilling program in 2006 in the Mammoth Breccia deposit and in the breccia pipes located on the claims acquired from Phelps Dodge Corporation. In 2007, Redhawk commissioned IMC to develop a resource estimate for the American Eagle deposit to report the resource and to provide guidance to Redhawk’s drilling in the American Eagle. The resources are documented in the IMC’s NI 43-101 Technical Report titled “American Eagle Deposit Mineral Resource, Copper Creek Property, Pinal Country, Arizona, USA, Technical Report” dated November 26, 2007 and filed on SEDAR on November 29, 2007. In late 2007 and early 2008 Redhawk completed twelve rotary hammer pre-collar holes totaling 18,024 feet in the American Eagle area. One pre-collar drill hole was deepened 246 feet with core drilling and one core drill hole was completed from surface to a depth of 3,806 feet in the American Eagle area. Redhawk also drilled three core drill holes from surface totaling 10,975 feet. Redhawk drilled twelve core holes totaling 3,800.4 feet from surface on the Copper Prince Breccias and three core holes from surface on the Globe Breccias totaling 1,220 feet in early 2008. IMC updated the property mineral resources in October 2008. This estimate included resources in the Globe and Copper Prince breccias for the first time. The resources are documented in the IMC’s NI 43-101 Technical Report titled “Copper Creek 2008 Mineral Resource, Pinal Country, Arizona, USA, Technical Report” dated October 28, 2008 and filed on SEDAR on October 29, 2008. Redhawk commissioned K D Engineering of Tucson to provide a scoping level economic study for the project in late 2009, based on the 2008 resource estimate. The NI 43-101 Technical Document for this resource is titled “Copper Creek Project 2,500 - 10,000 TPD Scoping Study”, dated March 12, 2010 and filed on SEDAR on May 12, 2010. Redhawk conducted a district exploration program in 2010 and early 2011. This program targeted previously six undrilled areas outside the existing breccia and porphyry resources which Redhawk judged prospective for potentially higher grade mineralization in mafic volcanic and diabase host rocks. Encouraging copper intercepts in hole REX-10-047 west of the Keel and American Eagle areas suggested the possibility of extending these porphyry resources westward. Consequently, two additional angled holes were drilled from the same site. Drilling for the expanded eight-hole program totaled 32,871 feet. A key result of the district exploration program was that it showed for the first time the scale of the Copper Creek sulphide system. These holes expanded the footprint of known porphyry-style alteration and sulphide mineralization from approximately 5,500 to 13,000 feet in the northwest-southeast direction. Starting in February 2011, Redhawk embarked on a 100,000-foot (30,000 meter) program of in-fill and step-out drilling intended to upgrade a significant portion of the American Eagle



December 2012

and Keel porphyry resources from the 'Inferred' category to the 'Measured and Indicated' category. In addition, the program was designed increase the size and confidence of the potential resource area connecting the Keel and American Eagle porphyry resources. Both objectives were successfully achieved. The program included both vertical and angled core holes, and completed core drilling from a number of rotary pre-collars drilled in 2007 and 2008. As of the end of April 2012, 23 holes totaling 87,659 feet had been completed. At Redhawk's request, IMC updated property-wide breccia and porphyry resources in April-May 2012, based on drilling through end-March, 2012. This NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate was announced in Redhawk's news release dated May 10, 2012, and forms the basis of the resource report titled “Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Update, Pinal County, Arizona, USA – Technical Report”, dated June 25, 2012. This resource estimate considered potential open-pit extraction of a much larger scale resource. Redhawk and its consultants evaluated the opportunities of developing Copper Creek as either a large open pit at mill rates of 100,000 to 120,000 tons per day (tpd) or a large scale underground mine with mill rates in the 20,000 to 25,000 tpd. To support the underground alternative, the Copper Creek mineral resource estimate was updated with any additional information to target an underground resource. The mineral resource estimate was revised for the Keel and American Eagle deposits based on 174 drill holes (343,799 feet) and the mineral resource for the breccia deposits is based on the mineral resource announced in the October 28, 2008 Technical Report. This resource estimate was announced in the Redhawk press release dated December 19, 2012 and is documented in this technical report.



December 2012

7.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND MINERALIZATION The Copper Creek Property lies in the porphyry copper metallogenic province of the southwestern United States of America. 7.1 Regional Geology The regional basement consists of a variety of Proterozoic rocks that lie on the southern flank of the Achaean craton of North America (Dickinson, 1989). During the Mesozoic Era, back arc and foreland basin volcanic and sedimentary formations covered much of southern Arizona. This Mesozoic event was succeeded by a Laramide age (Late Cretaceous – Early Tertiary; 80-50 Ma.) volcanic-plutonic arc event accompanied by a major ENE-WSW compressional tectonic regime. This tectonism resulted in northwest-trending, basement sourced uplifted blocks and a widespread ENE-trending brittle structural fabric. The majority of porphyry copper deposits in the southwestern United States (including Copper Creek) date to this period of Laramide tectonism. Thick Galiuro Volcanics of mid-Tertiary age then covered the area and subsequent erosion has locally re-exposed the underlying copper-bearing bedrock. Figure 7-1 is a regional geologic map showing the geologic units by age. The Copper Creek Property lies at the intersection of an ENE-trending belt of porphyry copper deposits, which include Lakeshore, Silverbell, San Manuel/Kalamazoo, Safford and Morenci, and a NNW-trending belt that includes Superior (Resolution), Christmas and Miami-Inspiration (Marsh, 2001). Many of these deposits are deeply eroded, but the Copper Creek porphyry system appears to be nearly upright and largely intact. Previous exploration and development have taken place on high level porphyry copper breccia pipes. Below these breccias, drilling has indicated an extensive porphyry copper-molybdenum mineralized system, which has been the focus of Redhawk’s exploration in recent years. 7.2 Copper Creek Geology The Copper Creek district is centered on the Copper Creek granodiorite, the central of three Laramide granodiorite intrusions forming a northwest-oriented cluster on the west side of the Galiuro Mountains. The Copper Creek granodiorite was emplaced approximately 62 million years ago into Precambrian and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, Late Precambrian diabase, and Cretaceous Glory Hole volcanics. The Copper Creek stock and adjacent Glory Hole volcanics have been intruded by a sequence of Laramide granodiorite, monzogranite, and quartz diorite porphyry plugs and dykes. The district is marked by over 400 hydrothermal breccia bodies, ranging from a few feet to several hundred feet across, which (like the porphyry bodies) are concentrated in two northwest-trending belts. Post-mineral Galiuro Volcanics cover all these rocks on the east and northeast. To the southwest, the district is bounded by a northwest-trending range-front fault which down drops Tertiary Gila Conglomerate against the Laramide and older rocks. Figure 7-2 is a geologic map showing the mapped lithologies in the Copper Creek area.



December 2012

Figure 7-1 Regional Geology Map



December 2012

Figure 7-2 Local Geology – Mapped Lithologies



December 2012

7.3 Mineralization The Copper Creek mineralization consists of chalcopyrite, bornite, and chalcocite. Copper oxide minerals locally replace sulphides in the near surface supergene weathering environment. A chalcocite enriched, supergene zone forms the principal part of the Old Reliable deposit above the water table. Molybdenite occurs in sufficient amounts in the Childs-Aldwinkle breccia, the Old Reliable breccia, the Keel, and the American Eagle to be of economic interest. Gold and silver occur but were not systematically assayed by previous owners. Redhawk has re-assayed individual intervals to better understand the precious metal grade distribution where previous owners had assayed long composite runs and Redhawk routinely assays for silver in its drilling. Near-surface mineralization at Copper Creek occurs predominately in the breccia bodies and to a lesser extent in high angle “early halo” veins. Sulfides are concentrated within the breccia matrix, and are dominated by chalcopyrite, bornite, and pyrite, with minor chalcocite in the upper parts of some pipes. High-grade mineralization in the breccias typically occurs as prominent masses and clots of copper minerals filling open spaces, or as sheeted veins along the edges of the pipes. Relative levels of copper, molybdenum, gold and silver vary considerably from breccia to breccia. Molybdenite Re-Os ages from the breccias yield mineralization ages between 62 and 57 million years. Recent drilling indicates that the deeper American Eagle and Keel porphyry-style resources are connected and form a single copper-mineralized body at least 5000 feet long northwest-southeast, which is open in most directions. This mineralized body is controlled by a broad dome-shaped zone of common, subhorizontal to steep “early halo” quartz-sulfide veins. These veins display thin centerlines of quartz and sulfides, surrounded by much thicker halos of biotite, sericite, and abundant copper sulphides. The “early halo” vein zone is hosted mostly in Copper Creek granodiorite but appears centered on a cluster of syn-mineral granodiorite porphyry bodies. In parts of the American Eagle/Keel, many “early halo” veins are re-opened as semi-massive chalcopyrite-bearing veins that enhance the copper grade. Superimposed on the “early halo” vein zones are breccias and zones of intense quartz-sericite alteration, both of which tend to carry high-grade copper which further upgrades copper mineralization within the same volume of rock. A near-vertical set of “early halo” veins extends above the well mineralized dome-shaped “early halo” vein zone to the present surface, where outcropping veins are widespread and typically trend east-northeast. Sulfides in the American Eagle/Keel zone are zoned with depth, with pyrite-dominant mineralization near the surface transitioning into chalcopyrite-dominant rock in the better mineralized zones and increasing bornite content at depth. Small lead and zinc prospects, primarily vein occurrences, occur toward the edges of the breccia-porphyry system.



December 2012

8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES The Copper Creek area contains multiple styles of Laramide copper-molybdenum-silver+/-gold deposits characterized by relatively high primary copper grades. Early development of the district dated from 1863, and focused on the exposed copper-rich (>>1% Cu) breccia bodies and peripheral silver-lead-zinc veins. In the 1960s and 1970s deeper drilling discovered porphyry-style sheeted and stockwork vein mineralization (~0.8% Cu) at depths between 1,200 to +4,000 feet in the American Eagle and Keel areas, beneath a small portion of the near-surface breccia cluster. The breccias are clast- to matrix-supported and consist of angular to subrounded, pebble- to boulder-sized, commonly quartz-sericite altered fragments formed from the host wall rock. Matrices of most breccias are partially to completely filled with varying combinations of quartz, sulfide minerals, tourmaline, specularite, and minor rock flour. Breccias are known to persist over 3000 feet vertically. They terminate abruptly upward into lower grade material; the Mammoth pipe, the largest breccia in the current resource, is “blind” a mere 105 feet below the surface. Where drilling density is sufficient, the bottoms of the breccia pipes neck downwards into bodies of granodiorite porphyry. Over 90 percent of the mapped breccia bodies have not been drilled. Evidence suggests that the breccia pipes were formed during implosive wall-rock collapse initiated by widespread porphyry magma withdrawal. As magma withdrew from the apex of a given intrusive body, gravity induced collapse initiated brecciation of the wall rock. The brecciation propagated to form the breccia bodies that are elongate in the vertical direction. The American Eagle and Keel porphyry zones were previously classified as “hybrid porphyry” or “sheeted vein type” deposits due to their unusual vein styles. Recent work by Redhawk geologists has led to the recognition that the Copper Creek porphyry ores are typical of the “early-halo type” of porphyry system described by Proffett (2009). In these deposits the dominant style of copper-bearing veins are early dark micaceous (EDM) veins or early potassic halos lining incipient fractures, rather than the A-type sugary quartz stockwork veins common in many porphyry systems. Well known early-halo type porphyry deposits include Butte, Montana, and Chuquicamata and Los Pelambres, Chile.



December 2012

9.0 EXPLORATION Exploration activities on the Copper Creek Property have spanned over 140 years by many different companies as noted in Section 6, History. The exploration work conducted since 1950 focused on the two different mineralization types: the breccia pipes or the deep porphyry deposits. The focus depended on the mining/exploration company doing the work with the larger, copper producing companies focusing on the large porphyry targets and the smaller companies (looking to develop production quickly) focusing on the breccia targets. AMT mapped the surface expressions of breccia occurrences on the property and Redhawk is expanding on this work. Portions of an internal Redhawk memo are included below to provide an initial measure of the exploration potential on the property. “Between the coordinates of 630,000 to 646,000 north and 394,000 to 410,000 east, a total of 358 breccia occurrences were counted, not including the Old Reliable, Childs-Aldwinkle or Mammoth. As best can be determined, 34 of the individual breccias have been drill tested on the Redhawk property, many with multiple holes. This figure includes only holes which appear to penetrate a specific breccia, and does not take into account roughly 30 holes scattered throughout the property which were not collared in (or directed towards) a breccia, but may well have intercepted the irregular subsurface continuation of one of the bodies. From this it follows that there are at least 324 of the mapped breccia occurrences on Redhawk property that have not been tested by drilling. With the acquisition of the PD claims and additional surface exploration, the number of mapped breccias now exceeds 400.” If the heavily drilled area is excluded, then within the Redhawk property south of the PD claim block, there are 235 breccia bodies that have been tested by only ten drill holes. Many of these breccias have had surface samples collected and analyzed with about 590 samples taken in the breccias. The compilation of this data by Redhawk reveals: “The western breccia belt was found to have 15 samples anomalous in copper (>200 PPM) from 14 breccias, of which one has been drill tested. One anomalous untested molybdenum (>40 PPM) sample was noted from breccia sampling in the western belt. In the southern area are 37 breccia samples anomalous in copper from roughly 26 breccia bodies, with one of these having a drill test. Ten breccia samples in this area are anomalous in molybdenum from 8 bodies, again with one having a drill test. Eight of the breccia bodies from the southern area have coincident anomalous copper and molybdenum values, and one of these has been drill tested. In the northeast are there are only about 14 breccia samples, with two of these anomalous in copper and one anomalous in molybdenum, with no drilling to test the anomalous samples.” Work by Redhawk since 2009 has resulted in determining that the Copper Creek mineralization system is an “early halo” style characterized by a large percentage of “early dark micaceous” (EDM) and later “D” type veining hosting the vast majority of copper and molybdenum values in the “porphyry” mineralization. The abundant breccia bodies appear



December 2012

to be a late phase of mineralization. The EDM and D style veins are identifiable in road cuts, drainages, and sometimes in outcrops. The EDM and D style veins are being mapped on the surface and show a strong correlation with the “footprint” of the porphyry mineralization area. Zones of more intense EDM and D veining on the surface are most commonly ENE trending and have very steep to vertical dips and are target areas for developing open pit mineable grades above the more massive zones of porphyry mineralization at deeper levels. The deeper porphyry mineralization is dominated by the EDM and D veining but dips of the veining is strongly sub-horizontal to moderate angles rather than the steep to vertical dips at shallower levels. Detailed drill hole logging has resulted in determining a series of porphyritic intrusions that intrude the main granodiorite body that hosts the vast majority of the porphyry style mineralization. Crosscutting relationships between the porphyritic intrusions and various veining episodes are being used to develop a full three dimension geologic model in the resource areas. During 2010 and 2011 six widely spaced drill holes were drilled on exploration targets within the district. The holes were designed to test various target concepts and most of the test holes were 1 to 2 kilometers from the edge of the 2008 deep porphyry resource of the Keel and American Eagle. Five of the six holes encountered significant grades of copper and molybdenum and alteration and veining styles consistent with that found in the resource area. The drilling and the presence of the breccia bodies over a large area indicate a large hydrothermal system that is largely under explored. Drilling during 2011 and 2012 focused on drill targeting to move as much of a large “inferred” resource tonnage in the American Eagle/Keel into the higher quality “indicated” and/or “measured” resource categories. The drill program also made a strong connection between the American Eagle and Keel mineralization showing the area to be one continuous mass of similar mineralization.



December 2012

10.0 DRILLING Exploration drilling has been conducted by most of the previous owners of the Copper Creek property, and Redhawk commenced drilling during the fourth quarter 2006. A summary of the number of holes and footage by company is summarized in Table 10-1 which totals 551 holes for 659,521 feet. Table 10-2 summarizes the drilling by drill type and this total will exceed the 551 number of holes because some holes were drilled using more than one drilling method. Since the June 2012 mineral resource estimate and up to the cutoff date for the current mineral resource update, Redhawk has added 6 holes for an approximately 26,861 feet of drilling information to the Copper Creek database. There are six mineralized areas which are of interest at Copper Cheek and are the combinations of the breccia zones (Globe, Copper Prince, Old Reliable, Childs-Aldwinkle, and the Mammoth) with the deeper porphyry mineralization (Keel, which is below the Mammoth breccia and the American Eagle, to the southeast of the Keel). Figure 10-1 shows the drill holes and the limits of the mineralized areas. Table 10-3 summarizes the number of holes, footage and number intervals plus intervals with assays for copper, moly, and silver within each of the mineralized area limits shown on the map. The total number of holes on this table exceeds the 551 total because some holes cross from one area to another.

Table 10-1 Drill Hole Statistics by Company Data Base

Code Company Date Number of

Holes Total

Drilling, ft Assayed for

Copper Assayed for

Moly 13 Calumet & Arizona 1914 14 5,409 3,232 0 2 Bureau of Mines 1942-3 31 2,931 2,753 0 7 Siskon 1956-58 25 4,027 3,914 760 3 Bear Creek Mining 1959-62 15 29,085 17,163 9,944 6 Newmont 1966 22 30,258 27,274 17,347 10 Occidental 1968-70 49 9,219 8,516 3,340 9 Ranchers 1971 3 785 785 0 5 Magma 1971-72 38 94,271 91,115 30,428 11 Exxon 1971-72 21 73,529 72,809 72,281 12 Inspiration (?) 1973 6 746 746 81 15 Phelps Dodge 1972-74 9 25,447 24,408 30 1 AMT 1995-2001 238 192,407 103,521 90,921 16 Redhawk 2006 on 78 190,388 111,109 111,109 Others 2 1,020 0 0



December 2012

Rotary/ Drifts/ NotPercussion Raises Classified

Number of holes 370 75 95 56 11 607Total drilling, ft 524,818 35,787 89,131 3,056 6,730 659,521

Assayed for copper, ft 420,437 29,748 57,084 2,878 5,660 515,807Percent complete 80 83 64 94 84 78

Total assay intervals 46,079 3,009 5,868 577 566 56,099Average assay interval, ft 9.1 9.9 9.7 5.0 10.0 9.2

Assayed for molybdenum, ft 318,690 17,758 43,477 110 4,700 384,734Percent complete 61 50 49 4 70 58


Diamond core

Reverse circulation

Total

Table 10-2 Drilling Statistics by Drilling Type


Mineralized Area Number of Holes

Total Drilling,

feet

Number of

Intervals

Intervals Assayed

for Copper



Globe 35 28,198 2,145 2,085 1,101 582 Copper Prince 71 40,062 3,770 3,704 1,248 394 Old Reliable 141 42,417 4,780 4,623 2,198 302 Childs-Aldwinkle 86 78,950 4,103 3,886 3,125 1,032 Mammoth-Keel 85 141,860 11,636 11,392 11,151 5,854 American Eagle 94 242,688 22,851 22,552 17,483 11,294 Outside 85 85,347 7,942 7,854 5,261 4,254 Total 659,521 57,227 56,096 41,567 23,712



December 2012

Figure 10-1 Drillhole Locations Mineralized Areas 1 = Globe 2 = Copper Prince 3 = Old Reliable 4 = Chiles-Aldwinkle 5 = Mammoth – Keel 6 = American Eagle

N

5

1

6

3

4

2



December 2012

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY 11.1 Prior to Redhawk Redhawk does not have any record of the methods used for core logging and sampling from drilling that pre-dates AMT’s involvement with the property (AMT optioned the property in 1995). The earlier drilling was done by several major mining and resource industry companies and it is assumed that they used industry standard practices at the time. Review of the geologic logs, down hole survey records and assay certificates that Redhawk has on file confirms that data was collected and handled with good practices. As the various companies participated in the exploration of Copper Creek, assay checks were often done on previous assay work as part of the new company’s due diligence. This check assay work was reviewed by IMC and is presented in Section 14 of the IMC report “Copper Creek 2008 Mineral Resource, Pinal County, Arizona, USA, Technical Report” dated October 28, 2008 and posted on SEDAR. AMT started work at Copper Creek in 1995. There are no written records of its sampling methods and data handling, but verbal discussions by Joe Sandberg of Redhawk with Claus Wiese, a former employee of AMT, confirmed that the procedures followed industry standards. In summary, the drill core or cuttings were logged for geologic and geotechnical information, core was split by either sawing or mechanical splitting, and half core was sent for assay. The particulars of the sample split for the RC drilling is not known. Redhawk has spent much time and effort organizing and review the data from the previous work since it took over the property in 2005. A summary of its activities and chain of custody of the information is included in Section 13 of the IMC report mentioned above. Redhawk has consolidated the drill core, cuttings and assay pulps into one storage facility under its control. Redhawk has re-logged a majority of the core to both confirm the previous logging and to evaluate new theories. Redhawk found the core from several of the holes drilled by AMT late in its property ownership had not been split or assayed. Redhawk has sampled and assayed these holes and updated the drill hole data base. 11.2 Redhawk Sample Handling Procedures All drill core (or RC samples) is either picked up on the drill site by Redhawk personnel and brought directly to Redhawk’s secure facility in San Manuel, AZ, or is delivered directly to Redhawk’s facilities by the drilling crew. Redhawk’s geologists log the core and mark the core for sampling. Redhawk personnel saw or split the core as per the geologist’s marked intervals and split lines. One half of the split core is placed in marked bags and delivered by Redhawk personnel directly to Jacobs Assay in Tucson, AZ for sample preparation. The second half of the core is stored in the Redhawk core storage facilities for reference. IMC



December 2012

has observed the logging and splitting practices during its 2008 visits and found them to meet industry standards. Redhawk has confirmed that the practices have not changed. 11.3 Current Sample Preparation Procedures The split core is delivered to Jacobs Assay for preparation of a pulp sample for assaying. The procedure is documented below from a verbal conversation with Michael Jacobs.

• On delivery, the samples are checked against the list provide by Redhawk, then logged into the lab records in the same order as on the Redhawk list.

• The entire sample is processed through a jaw crusher, three times to reduce the size to a nominal minus ½ inch.

• The jaw crusher is brushed off and blown clean with compressed air between each sample.

• The sample is mixed, pan to pan, six times; then poured through a Jones splitter. One quarter of the sample is retained for further processing and the remaining three quarters is placed back in the bag as the reject sample. These are retained for future use. The Jones splitter is cleaned with compressed air between each sample.

• The one quarter split of the sample goes through a second jaw crusher and roller (one pass), mixed, and further crushed if needed to reach minus 10 mesh size.

• The sample passes through a Jones splitter to get a 250 gram split, which is pulverized to minus 150 mesh. The Jones splitter is cleaned and the pulverizer is cleaned with silica sand after each sample.

• The pulverized 250 gram sample is mixed on rolling cloth 25 times from each corner, then placed into the pulp sample bag for shipment to the assay laboratory.

• The rejected minus 10 mesh material that was not pulverized is placed in a separate bag that is placed in the bag of the reject material from the initial split.

The prepared pulps are shipped directly by public carrier from Jacobs to ALS Chemex Laboratory in Reno, Nevada for assay. Reject samples designated for metallurgical work by Redhawk personnel are sorted by Jacobs and delivered to Metcon in Tucson, AZ. Jacobs prepares a second pulp from the sample reject material for every tenth sample and those pulps are given to Redhawk personnel or delivered back to the Redhawk office. Once several jobs of reject check pulps are collected, these are boxed and shipped to ALS in Reno for assay. In 2007, Jacobs prepared five standards (one to three 5 gallon buckets each) of various copper assay levels from Copper Creek mineralized material. Either 5 or 10 samples from each standard created were sent to three separate laboratories for copper, molybdenum and silver assaying. The results from each laboratory were compared and an average value for the standard created for copper, molybdenum and silver. One of the five standards is selected at random and inserted in with the pulps sent to ALS for assaying. The standards are inserted at the rate of about 1 in 10. The standards vary from 0.014% to 5.678% copper and from 0.00032% to 0.0092% molybdenum. In late 2012 a sixth standard was prepared and 10 samples were sent to 5 certified labs for assay of copper, molybdenum, and silver. The results from each lab were compared and an average value for the standard created at 0.745%



December 2012

copper, 0.0285% molybdenum, and 3.13 ppm silver. A blank standard has been prepared and is being readied for use in future work. 11.4 Assay Procedure Redhawk samples were analyzed by ALS Chemex in Reno. The samples are assayed for copper and molybdenum using standard four acid digestion assay techniques. Significantly mineralized intervals were then re-assayed for gold using 30 gram charge fire assay and AAS and multi-element ICP (48 elements) to get silver values, copper and molybdenum check values, and other elements for geochemical and metallurgical information. Copper values from the ICP exceeding 10,000 ppm were re-assayed using an additional "ore grade" assay method. All drilling starting in 2010 is assayed by ALS for multi-element methods with copper values exceeding 5,000 ppm or, later in the drilling program, 2,000 ppm being re-assayed by AA 62 and values exceeding 10,000 ppm are re-assayed using an additional "ore grade" assay method. Approximately one in 12 to 14 original pulps is selected for check assay by Redhawk. The list of pulps for check assay is sent to ALS, which retrieves the pulp samples and these samples are transferred to the Inspectorate Lab in Reno. The check samples are assayed for copper, molybdenum and silver with the results provided to Redhawk.



December 2012

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION This section is taken from the IMC technical report titled “Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Update, Pinal County, Arizona, USA – Technical Report” dated June 25, 2012 (posted on SEDAR). Redhawk has continued to run assay checks, standards and blanks and this data is being supplied to IMC who is in the process of updating its findings. 12.1 Pre-2010 Drilling Check assay and other relevant results for the earlier drilling conducted by Redhawk and preceding companies at Copper Creek are discussed in Section 14 of the NI43-101 Technical Report entitled “Copper Creek 2008 Mineral Resource” dated October 28, 2008 and posted on SEDAR. The review of the available assay data base used for the 2008 Mineral Resource was divided into two parts: review of the assay data itself in the form of check assays run by previous owners and spot check the Redhawk data base as it was provided to IMC against original data in the form of assay certificates, geologic logs and survey notes. IMC found the data to be acceptable for the development of a resource estimate and notes some areas that require additional attention as the project continues. 12.2 2010 – 2012 Redhawk Drilling - Summary This review summarizes the results of the QAQC and check assaying program on the Redhawk drilling conducted from 2010 through 2012. The data base assays for the 2010-12 Redhawk drilling were run by ALS on pulps prepared by Jacobs Assay. The QAQC data supplied to IMC consist of assays run by ALS on standards, check assays run by Inspectorate on Jacobs pulps, assays run by ALS on a second Jacobs pulp from the sample coarse reject and assays run by METCON on pulps prepared by METCON. Based on its analysis of these data IMC's conclusions are:

1. ALS's assaying procedures for copper, molybdenum and silver are acceptable.

2. The only assays that act as a complete check on Jacob's sample preparation procedures are those run by METCON on METCON pulps, and the fact that these assays are biased up to 17% low relative to the ALS data base assays for copper indicates a possible sample preparation problem at METCON or at Jacobs. Jacobs did prepare a second pulp from the coarse reject material for selected samples and this pulp was assayed by ALS and falls within acceptable ranges. IMC believes that the problem most likely occurred at METCON, but the possibility that it occurred at Jacobs cannot be discounted at this time. As a result, IMC believes that the 2010-12 Redhawk assays are conditionally acceptable until Jacobs' sample preparation procedures are validated. This validation needs to be done prior to any future resource updates. Redhawk has sent a batch of 73 coarse reject samples (from intervals where the pulp was prepared by Jacobs) to ALS for sample preparation and assay. Redhawk has commented to IMC that this check work came back fine, and IMC needs to follow up on the results.

3. To do this it is recommended to ship every 20th reject sample from the post-2008 drilling



December 2012

(approximately 600 samples) to a check laboratory, have this laboratory prepare pulps from the rejects and assay them with the same procedures as used by ALS. If the assays compare acceptably with the data base assays, the Jacobs sample preparation procedures will be validated. (IMC recommended in section 14.4 of the October 2008 Technical Report that future check assays be run on rejects rather than pulps to obtain a check on both analytical and sample preparation procedures.)

4. Consideration should be given to adding a higher-grade molybdenum standard and a silver

standard. Since the June 2012 technical report, Redhawk has added a 0.028% molybdenum standard to its suite of standards. A silver standard is also being run.

5. Blank samples should be inserted in the sample stream as part of the QAQC program.

Redhawk has created a blank sample for use once drilling resumes. At that time, the round robin assay work from a group of assay labs will be done to verify the assay of the blank standard.

12.3 Assays on Standards The results of the ALS Chemex assays on five copper - molybdenum standards are summarized in Tables 12-1 and 12-2. A standard was inserted approximately once every 13 samples (1,625 standards in 12,725 total assays). The five standards were prepared from Copper Creek drill samples by Jacobs and expected grades were determined by assaying the standards at three assay laboratories and taking the mean of all the assays. There are no silver standards.

Table 12-1 Assays on Copper Standards

Standard Expected Grade

Number of Readings

Mean Standard Deviation

Median % Mean/ Expected

% Median/ Expected

1 0.042 319 0.038 0.010 0.036 -10 -14 2 0.969 470 0.948 0.048 0.951 -2 -2 3 0.555 410 0.538 0.043 0.534 -3 -4 4 5.678 347 5.517 0.374 5.559 -3 -2 5 0.014 79 0.015 0.006 0.014 +7 0



December 2012

Table 12-2 Assays on Molybdenum Standards

Standard Expected

Grade Number of Readings

Mean Standard Deviation

Median % Mean/ Expected

% Median/ Expected

1 0.0030 319 0.0031 0.0024 0.0028 +3 -20 2 0.0075 470 0.0073 0.0018 0.0070 -3 -7 3 0.0092 410 0.0088 0.0021 0.0087 -4 -5 4 0.0010 347 0.0014 0.0004 0.0014 +40 +40 5 0.0003 79 0.0004 0.0001 0.0004 +33 +33

The mean copper grade of the standard assays is 2-4% lower than the expected grade for standards 2, 3 and 4 and the mean molybdenum grade is 5 to 7% lower than the expected grade for standards 2 and 3. The grades of the other standards are too low to allow a meaningful mean/expected grade comparison to be made. (Median values are shown in the Tables because the scatter of the standard assays makes it difficult to determine whether the outlier points are a result of assay variability, poor homogenization of the standard, sample mislabeling or data entry errors. Under these circumstances the median might be considered a more meaningful estimate of the mean of the standard assays.) The results of the standard assays are summarized in Figures 12-1 through 12-10. There is no indication of any significant variations in grade with time for any of the standards. IMC considers these results acceptable. However, QAQC programs commonly include assays run on blanks and it would therefore be desirable to insert blanks into the sample stream. (Standard 5 could be replaced by blanks). Adding a higher-grade molybdenum standard in the +/- 0.05% range and a silver standard in the +/- 1 g/t range should also be considered.



December 2012

Figure 12-1: Standard 1, Copper, Expected Value 0.042% X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends April 8, 2012)

Figure 12-2: Standard 2, Copper, Expected Value 0.969% X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends June 8, 2012)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700



December 2012

Figure 12-3: Standard 3, Copper, Expected Value 0.555% X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends June 8, 2012)

Figure 12-4: Standard 4, Copper, Expected Value 5.678%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 100 200 300 400 500 600



December 2012

X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends May 28, 2012)

Figure 12-5: Standard 5, Copper, Expected Value 0.014% X-Axis = Days from April 6, 2012 (Plot Ends June 8, 2012)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70



December 2012

Figure 12-6: Standard 1, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0030% X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends April 8, 2012)

Figure 12-7: Standard 2, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0075% X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends June 8, 2012)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700



December 2012

Figure 12-8: Standard 3, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0092% X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends June 8, 2012)

Figure 12-9: Standard 4, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0010% X-Axis = Days from October 1, 2010 (Plot Ends May 28, 2012)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

0.009

0.01

0 100 200 300 400 500 600



December 2012

Figure 12-10: Standard 5, Molybdenum, Expected Value 0.0003% X-Axis = Days from April 6, 2012 (Plot Ends June 8, 2012)

12.4 Check Assay Comparisons The results of the check assay comparisons for copper are summarized in Table 12-3. Copper represents the bulk of the economic value of the Copper Creek resource, so the copper comparisons are the most important.

Table 12-3 ALS Database Assays (on Jacobs Pulps) Versus Check Assays for Copper

Check Lab Pulps from Number ALS mean Check mean Check/ALS % QQ-plot % Inspectorate Jacobs 562 0.366 0.379 +3.6 +3.0

ALS duplicates Jacobs 295 0.323 0.306 -5.2 -3.6 METCON (AA) METCON 97 0.570 0.470 -17.5

METCON (AA2)

METCON 61 0.545 0.490 -10.1

METCON (ICP) METCON 61 0.545 0.542 -0.6

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70



December 2012

According to these results a Jacobs pulp was sent to Inspectorate for check assay approximately once every 23 samples (562 assays in 12,725 total assays) and a second pulp prepared from the coarse reject by Jacobs was re-assayed by ALS approximately once every 43 samples (295 assays in 12,725 total assays). The METCON assays were run on pulps prepared separately from Jacobs rejects by METCON. IMC generally considers check assay results to be acceptable when the mean grade of the check assays is within 5% of the mean grade of the data base assays and/or when the gradient of a QQ-plot, which compares the grade distributions of the two data sets rather than the mean grades, falls within 5% of a 1:1 line. This criterion is met for the ALS versus Inspectorate copper comparison. However, because both the ALS data base and the Inspectorate check assays were run on Jacobs pulps the results act to verify only ALS's analytical procedures. The criterion is also met for the ALS versus ALS duplicate assay copper comparison. The ALS duplicate assays were run on second pulp prepared by Jacobs and therefore acts as a check only on analytical procedures. If there were any problems with Jacobs' sample preparation procedures the duplicate comparisons would not identify them. The METCON assays are the only assays that were run on pulps prepared by a lab other than Jacobs and are therefore the only ones that act as an independent check on Jacobs' sample preparation procedures. The 5% criterion is met in the METCON (ICP) case but not in the two METCON AA cases, which show METCON biased 10-17% low relative to ALS. These results suggest a sample preparation or assaying problem at METCON, but the possibility that the Jacobs sample preparation procedures are biasing the ALS copper assays high is being investigated by having ALS create new pulps from the coarse rejects to check the Jacobs sample preparation. The results of the check assay comparisons for molybdenum and silver are summarized in Tables 12-4 and 12-5. These comparisons are less important because molybdenum and silver are byproduct minerals that contribute only a small proportion to the economic value of the Copper Creek resource.

Table 12-4 ALS Database Assays (on Jacobs Pulps) Versus Check Assays, Molybdenum

Check Lab Pulps from Number ALS mean Check mean Check/ALS % Inspectorate Jacobs 562 0.0078 0.0080 -2.5

ALS duplicates Jacobs 294 0.0076 0.0073 +4.1 METCON

(AA) METCON 97 0.0128 0.0109 +17.4

METCON (AA2)

METCON 61 0.0055 0.0050 +10.0

METCON (ICP)

METCON 61 0.0055 0.0048 +14.5



December 2012

Table 12-5 ALS Database Assays (on Jacobs Pulps) Versus Check Assays, Silver

Check Lab Pulps from Number ALS mean Check mean Check/ALS % Inspectorate Jacobs 562 1.09 1.17 +7.3

ALS duplicates Jacobs 294 1.08 1.07 -0.9 METCON METCON 97 1.77 2.02 +14.1

The Inspectorate and ALS duplicate comparisons for molybdenum and silver also generally meet criteria for acceptance but again the ALS versus METCON comparisons show apparent biases, although in the opposite sense to copper. The results of the check assays comparisons are shown in the following Figures:

Figures 12-11 through 12-15: XY scatterplots, copper Figures 12-16 and 12-17: QQ-plots, ALS/Inspectorate and ALS/ALS duplicate cases Figures 12-18 through 12-22: XY scatterplots, molybdenum Figures 12-23 through 12-25: XY scatterplots, silver



December 2012

Figure 12-11: ALS Data Base Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Copper



December 2012

Figure 12-12: ALS Data Base Assays vs. ALS Assays on Second Pulp, Copper



December 2012

Figure 12-13: ALS Data Base Assays vs. METCON AA Check Assays, Copper



December 2012

Figure 12-14: ALS Data Base Assays vs. METCON AA2 Check Assays, Copper



December 2012

Figure 12-15: ALS Data Base Assays vs. METCON ICP Check Assays, Copper



December 2012

Figure 12-16: ALS Data Base Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Copper, QQ-Plot, 99.8% of Data



December 2012

Figure 12-17: ALS Data Base Assays vs. ALS Assays on Second Pulp, Copper, QQ-Plot, 99.5% of Data



December 2012

Figure 12-18: ALS Data Base Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Molybdenum



December 2012

Figure 12-19: ALS Data Base Assays vs. ALS Duplicate Assays, Molybdenum



December 2012

Figure 12-20: ALS Data Base Assays vs. METCON AA Check Assays, Molybdenum



December 2012

Figure 12-21: ALS Data Base Assays vs. METCON AA2 Check Assays, Molybdenum



December 2012

Figure 12-22: ALS Data Base Assays vs. METCON ICP Check Assays, Molybdenum



December 2012

Figure 12-23: ALS Data Base Assays vs. Inspectorate Check Assays, Silver



December 2012

Figure 12-24: ALS Data Base Assays vs. ALS Assays on Second Pulp, Silver



December 2012

Figure 12-25: ALS Data Base Assays vs. METCON Check Assays, Silver



December 2012

13.0 METALLURGICAL TESTING The following is a discussion of the metallurgical testing of the proposed project provided by K D Engineering, Co, Inc. which has been working on the Copper Creek Project and authored a previous PEA Study titled: “Redhawk Copper, Inc. – Copper Creek Project – 2,500 – 10.000 tpd Scoping Study, dated 12 March 2010 and posted on SEDAR. 13.1 Bulk Copper Molybdenum Flotation Test Program

The previous property owners of the Copper Creek property had metallurgical tests conducted at Mountain States R&D International, Inc. (MSRDI). Much of the testwork evaluated heavy media separation or heavy media separation followed by flotation as a processing technique. A conventional bulk flotation process followed by a differential flotation circuit to separate the copper and molybdenum is currently planned. Results from conventional flotation tests, described in the “Report of Metallurgical Testing on Copper Sulfide Resources of the Copper Creek Property” by MSRDI dated 3 January 1997 are summarized below. Additional work on other mineralized zones, conducted in 2008 is described in the “Copper Creek Project Preliminary Flotation Study” by METCON Research (METCON) dated November 2008. Results from this work are also summarized below.

In the first test series conducted by MSRDI, rougher flotation tests were conducted on four different composite samples from the Copper Creek Property. Three of the composites were from the Childs-Aldwinkle area and the fourth was from the Creek Breccia. These selected composite samples represented three copper grades: low (about 0.5 percent copper); average (1.5 to 2.5 percent copper); and high (plus 3 percent copper) for each mineralization type. The tests were planned to evaluate the effect of particle size (grind) on the recovery of copper and molybdenum.

Test conditions for the series are noted below: ▪ Lime =3.5 lb/t pH= 10.8 - 11.2 ▪ S-5741 = 0.01 lb/t ▪ Nalco 9743 = 0.017 lb/t ▪ Z-11 = 0.002 lb/t ▪ Fuel Oil = 0.023 lb/t

Results from the test series are summarized in Table 13-1



December 2012

Table 13-1 Effect of Grind on Copper and Molybdenum Recovery in MSRDI Tests

As shown in Table 13-1, the copper recovery and rougher concentrate grades realized were both excellent. Generally, the effect of finer grind was to increase copper recovery. The effect of grind on molybdenum recovery is not as clear. The target grind P80 equal to 140 microns was selected for the remainder of the test program.

The second series of tests conducted by MSRDI, summarized in Table 13-2, was run to evaluate cleaning the rougher concentrate produced. The rougher concentrate was not reground, and excellent cleaner concentrate grades, averaging over 40 percent copper, were achieved.

Table 13-2 MSRDI Concentrate Cleaning Summary

Sample Test GrindIdentification Cu, % Mo, % No. Cu, % Mo, % P80* Cu, % Mo, % Cu, % Mo, % Cu Mo

(CA) CP & PY BM-1 0.57 0.0140 165 25.25 0.510 0.015 0.0026 97.42 81.51low grade BM-4 0.58 0.0157 135 25.55 0.550 0.017 0.0038 97.11 76.40

(CA) CP & BN BM-2 1.59 0.0080 170 35.73 0.146 0.146 0.0022 91.17 73.68medium grade BM-5 1.51 0.0099 145 36.04 0.173 0.032 0.0029 97.97 71.92(CA) CP & BN BM-3 3.44 0.0127 175 41.43 0.103 0.19 0.0050 94.90 63.76

high grade BM-6 3.40 0.0132 135 39.73 0.122 0.041 0.0032 98.90 77.89(CA) BN & CP BM-7 0.50 0.0149 170 21.28 0.470 0.022 0.0043 95.75 71.80

low grade BM-13 0.57 0.0128 150 25.65 0.422 0.017 0.0038 97.06 70.84(CA) BN BM-8 2.29 0.0237 195 43.57 0.364 0.048 0.0052 98.02 79.21

high grade BM-14 2.19 0.0187 165 41.59 0.294 0.025 0.0035 98.92 82.22(CA) BN BM-15 1.86 0.0290 175 37.77 0.540 0.029 0.0030 98.51 90.15

medium grade BM-9 1.82 0.0309 155 36.04 0.520 0.022 0.0052 98.85 84.03(CA) MO & CP BM-10 0.68 0.0463 200 24.94 1.450 0.021 0.0083 96.98 82.53

low grade BM-16 0.71 0.0506 150 24.48 1.540 0.015 0.0072 97.94 86.16(CA) MO & BN BM-17 1.96 0.1754 195 42.76 3.720 0.021 0.0069 98.98 96.25medium grade BM-11 1.75 0.1900 140 37.77 3.940 0.018 0.0096 99.02 95.19(CA) MO & CC BM-18 2.36 0.0745 210 36.24 1.040 0.127 0.0110 94.94 86.15

high grade BM-12 2.49 0.0960 145 36.34 1.180 0.097 0.0880 96.37 81.40(VIX) CP & PY BM-19 0.86 0.0030 175 22.19 0.023 0.015 0.0022 98.32 29.29

low grade(VIX) CP & PY BM-20 1.65 0.0031 165 25.14 0.012 0.015 0.0025 99.15 24.99 medium grade(VIX) CP & PY BM-21 2.90 0.0035 160 26.26 0.011 0.015 0.0026 99.54 34.36

high grade

3-2 1.73 0.1900

3-3 2.54 0.0880

2-3 1.73 0.0431

3-1 0.64 0.0630

2-1 0.54 0.0113

2-2 2.40 0.0211

1-2 1.59 0.0099

1-3 2.99 0.0127

Recovery, %

1-1 0.54 0.0130

Assay Head Calc Head Ro Conc Ro TailSample

4-1 0.81 0.0021

4-2 1.58 0.0021

4-3 3.01 0.0025

Test GrindCu, % Mo, % No. Cu, % Mo, % P80* Cu, % Mo, % Cu, % Mo, % Cu, % Mo, % Cu Mo

1-2 BM-22 1.49 0.0108 146 39.54 0.244 30.72 0.184 0.030 0.0023 87.12 74.21(CA) CP & BN BM-28 1.50 0.0089 146 43.43 0.196 35.16 0.160 0.030 0.0020 96.10 73.06 Additional collector

BM-32 1.53 0.0088 146 --- --- 35.67 0.160 0.040 0.0020 97.43 76.07 Timed concentrates2-2 BM-23 2.16 0.0267 167 48.28 0.590 39.86 0.445 0.030 0.0031 88.08 87.17

(CA) BN BM-29 2.05 0.0221 167 52.32 0.510 43.01 0.417 0.030 0.0030 96.71 87.47 Additional collectorBM-33 2.15 0.0214 146 --- --- 43.39 0.371 0.030 0.0030 98.63 84.86 Timed concentrates

3-2 BM-24 1.88 0.2006 138 45.45 5.230 39.16 4.180 0.030 0.0030 89.87 96.84(CA) MO & CP BM-30 1.93 0.2034 138 47.37 5.040 37.29 3.903 0.020 0.0030 97.04 98.03 Additional collector

4-2 BM-25 1.72 0.0055 128 30.91 0.051 25.68 0.050 0.038 0.0024 96.35 49.33(VIX) CP & PY BM-31 1.63 0.0062 128 32.77 0.780 27.73 0.071 0.020 0.0020 98.33 61.59 Additional collector(CA) CP-PY 3.40 0.0020 BM-46 3.63 0.0030 --- 32.33 0.010 28.82 0.005 0.030 0.0020 99.08 38.49

* MicrometersCA = Childs-Aldwinkle CP = ChalcopyriteVIX = Creek Breccia PY = Pyrite

CC = ChalcociteMO = Molybenite

Sample Ro Conc Recovery, %Assay Head Calc Head Cl Conc

1.73

1.58

0.1900

0.0021

2.4

Remarks

1.43

Ro Tail

0.0099

0.0211



December 2012

The effect of flotation retention time was also evaluated by MSRDI. The recovery - time profile for both copper and molybdenum from two composites are shown in Figure 13-1. Results indicate rapid flotation kinetics with over 95 percent of the copper recovered in three minutes with the flotation reagents used.

Figure 13-1 MSRDI Rougher Flotation Kinetics After the batch test described above, MSRDI conducted locked cycle tests on the average grade composites. Results are summarized in Table 13-3. Concentrate grades between 32 and 62 percent copper were obtained with copper recoveries all above 95 percent. Molybdenum recoveries were directly proportional to the molybdenum head grade with the high-grade sample giving 94 percent recovery and the low-grade sample giving 28 percent recovery. As can be seen, flotation response of all the various mineralization types, as well as grades, is excellent averaging over 97 percent for copper and 72 percent for molybdenum.

Table 13-3 MSRDI Locked Cycle Test Results

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0 2 4 6

Cum

ulat

ive

Rec

over

y (p

erce

nt)

Flotation Time (min)

Test 32 Copper Recovery

Test 32 Moly Recovery

Test 33 Copper Recovery

Test 33 Moly Recovery

Test GrindCu, % Mo, % No. Cu, % Mo, % P80* Cu, % Mo, % Cu, % Mo, % Cu, % Mo, % Cu Mo

1-2 (CA) CP & BN 1.43 0.0099 BM-34 1.50 0.0120 146 44.04 0.260 34.36 0.208 0.050 0.0033 97.03 72.902-2 (CA) BN 2.40 0.0211 BM-35 2.14 0.0250 167 52.47 0.510 43.28 0.421 0.030 0.0042 98.66 82.343-2 (CA) MO-BN 1.73 0.1900 BM-36 1.62 0.1820 138 47.47 5.100 38.78 4.140 0.020 0.0087 99.04 94.831-2 (CA) 350-550 4.90 0.0037 BM-39 4.70 0.0051 116 61.83 0.037 53.35 0.034 0.250 0.0030 95.06 52.564-2 & 4-3 (VIX) CP & PY --- --- BM-40 2.37 0.0034 127 32.38 0.013 26.74 0.015 0.020 0.0030 99.37 28.151-3 (CA) 2.99 0.0120 BM-45 3.15 0.0150 --- 44.43 0.185 35.13 0.040 0.030 0.0020 99.13 86.122-3 (CA) BN 1.73 0.0430 BM-41 1.81 0.0320 --- 44.68 0.780 34.76 0.120 0.030 0.0010 98.53 97.053-3 (CA) MO & CC 2.54 0.0880 BM-44 2.44 0.0840 --- 43.27 0.146 33.34 0.240 0.090 0.0050 96.57 94.34(OR) 400-600 CC 1.42 0.0070 BM-42 1.65 0.0090 --- 45.98 0.210 31.52 0.030 0.170 0.0020 90.17 78.08(VIX) 670-710 CP & PY 1.28 0.0020 BM-46 1.96 0.0030 --- 40.06 0.020 30.25 0.010 0.020 0.0019 98.90 37.40

Average (arithmetic) 2.27 0.0419 2.33 0.0371 45.66 0.73 36.15 0.53 0.07 0.0034 97.25 72.38* Micrometers

CA = Childs-Aldwinkle CP = ChalcopyriteVIX = Creek Breccia PY = PyriteOR = Old Reliable BN = Bornite

CC = Chalcocite

Ro Conc Ro Tail Recovery, %Sample Assay Head Calc Head Cl Conc



December 2012

METCON ran rougher flotation tests on composites of material identified as follows: ▪ Mid Grade Globe Breccia Composite ▪ High Grade Globe Breccia Composite ▪ Strongly Oxidized Copper Prince Composite ▪ Weakly to Unoxidized Copper Prince Composite ▪ Keel & American Eagle Composite

Head grades for the composites are shown in Table 13-4. It is noted that the molybdenum head grade in these composites is very low.

Table 13-4 METCON Composite Test Head Analysis

Sample Identification Assays

Cu (%)

Mo (%)

Fe (%)

Au (g/t)

Ag (g/t)

Mid Grade Globe Breccia Composite 0.87 0.003 3.84 N/A N/A High Grade Globe Breccia Composite 1.43 0.003 4.04 N/A N/A Strongly Oxidized Copper Prince Composite 2.87 0.005 2.99 0.03 3.40 Weakly to Unoxidized Copper Prince Zone Composite 2.35 0.010 3.14 0.05 5.00

Keel & American Eagle Composite 0.53 0.009 2.16 0.02 1.00 METCON ran rougher flotation tests on the composites at 38 percent and 22 percent solids and grind sizes of approximately 80 percent passing 175 microns, and 140 microns. The best results from the METCON tests are summarized in Table 13-5.

Table 13-5 METCON Rougher Flotation Test Results

Composite Sample ID Products

Wt. (%)

Assays ( % )

Distribution (%)

Cu (%)

Mo (%)

Cu (%)

Mo (%)

Mid Grade Globe Breccia Cu-Mo Ro. Concentrate 8.89 8.49 0.015 85.99 42.26

High Grade Globe Breccia Cu-Mo Ro. Concentrate 14.78 8.90 0.009 94.49 43.93

Strongly Oxidized Copper Prince

Cu-Mo Ro. Concentrate 4.68 30.60 0.043 47.14 12.71

Weakly to Unoxidized Copper Prince

Cu-Mo Ro. Concentrate 6.85 30.10 0.045 77.98 76.80

Keel & American Eagle Composite

Cu-Mo Ro. Concentrate. 6.78 7.70 0.120 90.91 80.24



December 2012

METCON results indicate that recovery is a function of oxidation and head grade. METCON conducted tests with sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) in an attempt to improve results from the oxidized composites. These tests did not result in significant recovery improvement. Redhawk personnel indicate the amount of oxide material in the deposit is low. 13.2 Copper Molybdenum Separation Test Program

Limited testing was conducted by MSRDI to demonstrate the copper molybdenum separation process. The tests using NaHS, the conventional reagent for copper-molybdenum separation circuits, were not successful and additional testing to optimize reagents used in the bulk copper molybdenum flotation step and the subsequent copper molybdenum separation is highly recommended. It should be noted that it is difficult to undertake the proposed copper-molybdenum separation in the initial laboratory testing phase of the mining project due to lack of appropriate quality and quantity of bulk copper-molybdenum concentrates. MSRDI carried out the proposed copper-molybdenum separation testing on a composite sample made up of higher grade molybdenum samples from the Childs-Aldwinkle deposit (Samples 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3). These samples contained a mixture of chalcopyrite, bornite, and chalcocite, and have an average copper grade of 1.28 percent and an average molybdenum grade of 0.100 percent. In this testing program ten kilograms of the composite sample were ground to the desired mesh (P80 = 150) and subjected to flotation using the standard flotation conditions and reagents to obtain the final copper-molybdenum concentrates for the subsequent copper-molybdenum separation tests (Test No. BM-47). The bulk concentrate from the preceding test was split into eight equal portions of about 50 grams each, and a sample for head assay. The eight samples were subjected to selective flotation techniques utilizing various copper or molybdenum depressants to evaluate the alternatives. The results of this testing program are summarized in the following Table 13-6.

Table 13-6 Summary Results of Copper-Moly Separation

Test No. Reagent Amount (lb/t) Remarks BM-47-A NaSH 10.0 No depression of copper BM-47-B Na-Ferrocyanide Up to 5.0 No depression of copper BM-47-C Na-Cyanide Up to 5.0 No depression of copper BM-47-D Na-Hypochlorite Up to 5.0 No depression of copper BM-47-E Steaming 4 Hours No depression of copper

BM-47-F Oven-Drying 8 Hours Some depression of copper

BM-47-G CM-Guar Up to 3.0 Some depression of molybdenum

The results of the scoping tests indicated that selective flotation of molybdenum from the bulk copper-moly concentrates produced using conventional copper depressants such as NaSH, ferro-cyanide, and hypochlorite was not effective. This lack of effectiveness may be attributed to two reasons:



December 2012

▪ The copper mineralization consists predominantly of bornite and chalcocite, both of which are not responsive to depression using NaSH and ferro-cyanide; or

▪ The collectors S-5741 and Nalco 9743 form very strong chemical bonds with the copper minerals that are difficult to sulfidize or oxidize.

A single test evaluating the use of a milder xanthate collector to obtain a bulk copper-moly concentrate followed by selective flotation of molybdenum using NaSH reagent (Test BM-49) was run. Results of this test indicate that effective selective flotation of molybdenum from the bulk concentrate was achieved. The molybdenum grade of the rougher concentrate was 29.80 percent. This favorable result indicates that it should be possible to obtain acceptable molybdenum recovery at marketable grades, but more testwork on representative samples is needed to confirm and optimize the process.

It should be noted that molybdenite occurrences in the Copper Creek deposits contain appreciable amounts of rhenium (up to 1100 ppm). Since the rhenium is contained in MoS2, crystals, it will be concentrated with Mo and can be recovered during further treatment of the MoS2 concentrates to produce rhenium.

METCON also attempted a copper-molybdenum separation using NaHS. The test was run on concentrate from the Keel & American Eagle composite sample. Unfortunately the test head grade was very low, so resulting test product analysis is difficult. It is not possible to improve the confidence in the moly separation process at this time. Results from the test are summarized in Table 13-7.

Table 13-7 METCON Copper – Molybdenum Separation Test Results

Products

Weight (%)

Assays ( % ) Distribution (%) Cu (%)

Mo (%)

Fe (%)

Cu (%)

Mo (%)

Fe (%)

Molybdenum 3rd Cleaner Concentrate 0.01 12.54 22.02 11.16 0.32 38.18 0.07 Mo Rougher Tail (Cu Concentrate) 1.20 32.76 0.096 27.70 68.46 13.74 14.14 Calculated Head 0.57 0.008 2.35 Assay Head 0.53 0.009 2.16

13.3 Bond Grinding Work Index

Two composite samples of Copper Creek mineralization (one a comparatively soft and the other a comparatively hard) were prepared and subjected to standard Bond Grind Work Index tests at 100 mesh by MSRDI. The results of these tests revealed that the harder composite has a Work Index of 13.2 kWh/ton while the softer composite has a Work Index of 11.5 kWh/ton. These work index values are typical and were used to estimate the power required for grinding.



December 2012

13.4 Mineralogical Studies

The mineralogical studies indicated that the mineral grains were very coarse and that the mineralized material may be amenable to processing by heavy-media-separation techniques. For this reason, much of the work conducted was aimed at evaluating the response of the mineralization to heavy-media-separation technique. The mineralogical studies, and subsequent chemical analysis indicated the presence of tennantite, an arsenic-bearing mineral in some of the copper concentrates produced.

The general mineralogy distribution, as interpreted by AMT indicates the following: ▪ Chalcocite occurs on the upper portions and down the margins of the breccia.

Significant chalcocite may exist to the 3,750 ft elevation. Chalcocite is replacing chalcopyrite and bonrite. It is possible some of the bornite in this upper zone may be supergene in origin.

▪ Chalcopyrite forms the main hypogene zone. It occurs by itself and mixed with

bornite or pyrite. It occurs mainly at the outer portions of the pipe and at depth.

▪ Bornite appears to occur in the core of the breccia body, usually with chalcopyrite. It does not seem to occur below 3,450 ft elevation.

▪ Below the 3,450 ft elevation, tennantite occurs, usually replacing chalcopyrite and

bornite. Above 3,530 ft elevation arsenic is less than 10 ppm and does not exceed 1,000 ppm (0.10 percent) until below 3,460 ft elevation.

MSRDI concluded the following from this phase of the test work: ▪ The flotation response of all the mineralization types and grades to standard operating

conditions at the San Manuel concentrator is excellent. In the single-stage flotation tests, copper recoveries ranged from plus 90 percent for lower grade composites to as high as 99 percent for higher grade mineralization, along with rougher concentrate grades ranging from about 22 percent copper to as high as 42 percent copper depending on the bornite content in the feeds.

▪ In the confirmatory locked-cycle flotation tests, the recoveries of copper in the final concentrates were 96 to 98 percent with grades varying from 27 to 62 percent copper depending on the bornite content in the feeds.

▪ It should be noted that the excellent results obtained in the above tests required a

grind P80: equal to 140 microns.

▪ The results also showed that the recoveries of the by-product molybdenum, were also relatively high and varied from a low of 26 percent to a high as 94 percent depending on the head grade of Mo in the composite samples.



December 2012

▪ The Work Index determined for the composite samples investigated were as follows:

Softer Mineralization Composite: 11.5 kWh/ton Harder Mineralization Composite: 13.2 kWh/ton.

▪ In regard to the quality of the final flotation concentrates, the detailed chemical

analysis for 22 elements including toxic elements indicated that all the final products were relatively clean of toxic elements except for unusually high arsenic content in some of the concentrates.

▪ This arsenic contamination was attributed to the presence of tennantite occurrences in

some localized areas of the Copper Creek deposits. According to AMT's geological staff, this occurrence of arsenic has been recognized in some limited locations in the deposit and should not be a detrimental issue in most of the resources. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the presence of arsenic and appropriate steps need to be taken to keep the arsenic content below the tolerable limit in the final copper concentrates.

▪ Results of copper-molybdenum selective flotation tests on the bornite rich bulk

flotation concentrates indicated that molybdenum depressants such as Dextrine and starches were more effective in depressing molybdenite rather than NaSH, ferro-cyanide and cyanide used for copper depression. Effective copper-molybdenum separations were also achieved by floating the molybdenum selectively with fuel oil prior to flotation of copper by conventional collectors. Similarly, effective separation of molybdenum from the copper-moly bulk concentrates was achieved by using the Xanthate type collector for bulk concentration. In this case, the Xanthate complex was decomposed by acid conditioning and then the copper was depressed with the conventional NaSH technique. Equally effective separation of molybdenum was achieved by this technique using the standard flotation reagents that were used by the San Manuel concentrator.

Review of the chemical analyses of the final copper concentrates from locked-cycle tests shown in Table 13-8 indicated that two out of eight composite samples showed high arsenic content. Since this high arsenic content would render the concentrates difficult to market, or at the best involve a hefty penalty, it was recommended that AMT geological staff evaluate the extent of copper and arsenic mineralization (tennantite) in the Copper Creek Property. James Guthrie, AMT Chief Geologist, indicates that the arsenic content is rather limited and that "arsenic is not present in any significant amount until below the 3,460 ft elevation in the Copper Creek Property. Accordingly, the arsenic content in the final copper concentrates would be under the acceptable limits for a major portion of the mine life. It is envisaged that if and when arsenic content becomes a major issue, that effective techniques for blending the mineralized material or separating arsenic from copper concentrates will be available.



December 2012

Table 13-8 Concentrate Analysis

Arsenic was assayed in the recent drilling completed by Redhawk. Results are summarized in Figure 13-2 support the AMT conclusion that the arsenic concentration is generally low but spotty and can be controlled by blending.

Figure 13-2 2007 Drill Program – Arsenic Concentration Versus Drill Hole

Redhawk 2007 Drill Results Arsenic Concentration Vs. Drill Hole

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

CG

2C

G4

CG

5C

G6

CK3

2+0

CK3

5.5-

50C

P5G

10G

11G

13 G6

G7

G8

G9

G9A

NE-

6R

UM

-1S-

2 98

-1U

B-4R

VIX2

8-2

WC

-1LM

-10

LM-1

1LM

-9C

ATEC

HLM

-10

LM-9

RAE

-07-

019

RC

P-08

-026

RC

P-08

-027

RC

P-08

-028

RC

P-08

-030

RC

P-08

-038

RG

C-0

7-01

4R

GS-

08-0

41R

GS-

08-0

42R

MK-

07-0

15R

MM

-06-

001

RM

M-0

6-00

2R

MM

-06-

003

RM

M-0

7-00

4R

MM

-07-

007

RM

M-0

7-01

0R

MM

-07-

012

RM

M-0

7-01

3R

PE-0

8-03

3R

PE-0

8-03

4R

PE-0

8-03

5R

PE-0

8-03

6R

PE-0

8-03

7R

PE-0

8-03

9R

PE-0

8-04

0

Hole

Ars

enic

(ppm

)

Hole AverageHole Maximum

MSRDI Sample Cu Mo As Au Ag Hg Cd Pb Zn Sb Bi Co Mn Ni Se Te F MgO Cr Fe S ClNo. Identification % % % Oz/T Oz/T PPM % % % % % % % % % % PPM % % % % %

14985 BM-34 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 43.18 0.227 2.040 0.01 6.19 8.4 0.01 0.05 0.334 ND 0.15 0.01 0.06 0.038 0.03 ND ND 0.20 0.05 15.50 24.91 0.24Sample 1-2 (CA) CP & BN

14987 BM-35 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 52.52 0.494 4.250 0.11 3.56 0.6 0.01 0.02 0.294 ND 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.033 0.03 ND ND 0.30 0.05 9.55 23.14 0.14Sample 2-2 (CA) BN

14989 BM-36 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 48.43 0.520 0.020 0.08 5.12 0.6 0.01 0.01 0.308 ND 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.030 0.03 ND ND 0.17 0.04 13.04 25.90 0.11Sample 3-2 (CA) MO & BN

18752/3 BM-41 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 or 6 44.68 0.790 0.019 0.34 4.98 15.0 --- 0.06 0.128 ND 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.015 0.01 ND 0.001 0.15 0.02 4.54 26.96 0.10Sample 2-3 (CA) BN

18757/8 BM-42 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 or 6 45.98 0.200 0.009 0.01 1.28 8.0 --- 0.01 0.030 ND ND 0.05 0.01 0.034 0.01 ND 0.001 0.22 0.03 9.06 25.02 0.10Sample OR 400-600

19056/7 BM-44 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 or 6 43.27 1.460 ND 0.04 2.18 2.4 --- 0.04 0.006 ND 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.005 0.01 ND 0.003 0.02 0.02 16.31 9.63 0.09Sample 3-3 (CA) MO & CC

19058/9 BM-45 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 or 6 44.43 0.185 ND 0.08 3.78 1.6 --- 0.04 0.006 ND 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.007 0.00 ND 0.002 0.01 0.01 17.85 10.76 0.06Sample 1-3 (CA) CP & BN

19060/1 BM-45 Cu Cl Conc 1-5 or 6 40.06 0.022 ND 0.01 1.01 3.2 --- 0.02 0.070 ND ND 0.01 0.01 0.290 ND ND 0.002 0.02 0.05 26.21 12.60 0.06Sample VIX 670-710



December 2012

13.5 Current Metallurgical Study

Pursuant to instructions from Joe Sandberg, President of Redhawk Copper Inc., METCON Research (METCON) has conducted a preliminary variability flotation study on 14 composite samples from Copper Creek Project. The composite samples studied were identified as follows:

Composite 1 - Copper Grade in the 0.2 to 0.3 Percent Range Composite 2 - Chalcopyrite Dominant ≥ 0.2 to 0.5 Percent Copper Composite 3 - Chalcopyrite Dominant ≥ 0.5 Percent Copper Composite 4 - Bornite Moderate to Strong ≥ 0.2 to 0.5 Percent Copper Composite 5 - Bornite Moderate to Strong ≥ 0.5 Percent Copper Composite 6 - High Copper Grade Composite 7 - Mid Copper Grade Composite 8 - Low Copper Grade Composite 9 - SE Low Grade Composite 10 - SE Moderate High Copper Grade Composite 11 - SE High Bornite Composite 12 - SW Low Copper Grade Composite 13 - SW Moderate High Copper Grade Composite 14 - SW High Bornite

A preliminary variability flotation study was conducted on 14 composite samples from the Copper Creek Project in San Manuel, Arizona. The metallurgical data developed indicated that the copper and molybdenum contained in the Copper Creek composite samples studied are amenable to copper and molybdenum recovery by froth flotation process. The metallurgical data developed are summarized in the following paragraphs. 13.5.1 Sample Preparation and Head Assay

The composite samples were prepared per instruction received from Joe Sandberg. Test charges of 1,000 grams were prepared for head assays, grind calibration and flotation testing. A test charge from each composite was selected at random, pulverized to 100 percent minus 150 mesh and a sample submitted for head assays. The results obtained are summarized in Table 13-9.



December 2012

Table 13-9 Head Assays – Summary of Results

Sample Identification Assays

Cu (%)

Mo (%)

Au (g/t)

Ag (g/t)

Composite 1 - Copper Grade in the 0.2 to 0.3 Percent Range 0.25 0.005 NA NA

Composite 2 - Chalcopyrite Dominant Copper Grade ≥ 0.2 to 0.5 Percent 0.27 0.002 NA NA

Composite 3 - Chalcopyrite Dominant, Copper Grade ≥ 0.5 Percent 0.91 0.030 NA NA

Composite 4 - Bornite Moderate to Strong, Copper Grade ≥ 0.2 to 0.5 Percent 0.28 0.011 NA NA

Composite 5 - Bornite Moderate to Strong, Copper Grade ≥ 0.5 Percent 0.82 0.012 NA NA

Composite 6 - High Copper Grade 0.85 0.007 NA NA Composite 7 - Mid Copper Grade 0.37 0.006 NA NA Composite 8 - Low Copper Grade 0.25 0.004 NA NA Composite 9 - SE Low Grade 0.30 0.001 0.01 1.30 Composite 10 - SE Mod-High Grade 0.61 0.005 0.01 2.30 Composite 11 - SE High Bornite 0.27 0.014 0.01 1.30 Composite 12 - SW Low Copper Grade 0.29 0.011 0.01 1.30 Composite 13 - SW Moderate High Copper Grade 0.62 0.002 0.02 1.60 Composite 14 - SW High Bornite 0.63 0.232 0.05 3.10

Remarks: NA = Assays Not Available

The following comments relate to the chemical analyses conducted on the head samples. Total copper grade ranged from 0.25 percent to 0.91 percent. The highest copper grade is

observed in Composite 3.

Total molybdenum grade ranged from 0.001 percent to 0.232 percent. The highest molybdenum grade is observed in Composite 14.

Gold and silver assays were conducted on Composites 9 through 14. Low gold and silver assays are observed on these composites



December 2012

13.5.2 Open Cycle Cu-Mo 2nd Cleaner Flotation Testing On Composite Samples

Open cycle Cu-Mo second cleaner flotation testing was conducted on 14 composite samples representing different zones from the Copper Creek Project. Rougher flotation was conducted at approximately 30 percent and 22 percent solids and at a grind size of approximately 80 percent passing 140 microns. Specific details relate to scheme of reagents and testing conditions are included in Appendices 2 through 15 in the METCON report on this work titled “Copper Creek Project – Preliminary Open Cycle Flotation Study (Variability Flotation Testing), dated June 2012 (METCON Project No. M-718-03, Document No. Q718-03-028.01). Table 13-10 summarizes the metallurgical data developed on the 2nd cleaner flotation testing. Table 13-10 Cu-Mo 2nd Cleaner Flotation On Composite Samples – Summary of Results

Sample ID

Cu-Mo 2nd Cleaner Concentrate Recovery (%)

Cu (%)

Mo (%)

Au

(g/t)

Ag

(g/t) Cu Mo Au Ag

Composite 1 - Copper Grade in the 0.2 to 0.3

28.8

0.5

1.2

NA 86.

75.3

NA NA Composite 2 - Chalcopyrite Dominant Copper

30.5

0.3

1.4

NA 85.

72.0

NA NA

Composite 3 - Chalcopyrite Dominant, Copper

30.2

0.7

1.4

NA 87.

73.7

NA NA Composite 4 - Bornite Moderate to Strong, Copper

41.8

2.2

3.9

NA 85.

72.4

NA NA

Composite 5 - Bornite Moderate to Strong, Copper

40.1

0.5

5.6

NA 77.

80.6

NA NA Composite 6 - High Copper Grade 31.1

0.2

0.9

NA 88.

77.4

NA NA

Composite 7 - Mid Copper Grade 23.9

0.2

0.9

NA 87.

66.4

NA NA Composite 8 - Low Copper Grade 25.5

0.3

0.9

NA 82.

65.9

NA NA

Composite 9 - SE Low Grade 18.9

0.0

0.5

47 88.

37.8

57.3

54. Composite 10 - SE Mod-High Grade 21.0

0.1

0.5

61 92.

80.1

72.4

70.

Composite 11 - SE High Bornite 21.8

1.0

0.4

56 88.

87.3

45.4

53. Composite 12 - SW Low Copper Grade 20.8

0.7

0.7

46 85.

86.6

57.7

49.

Composite 13 - SW Moderate High Copper Grade 31.0

0.0

0.7

44 89.

38.6

62.8

48. Composite 14 - SW High Bornite 31.5

12.

3.5

154 91.

97.0

82.4

78.

Remarks: N/A, data not available

The following comments relate to the Open Cycle Cu-Mo 2nd Cleaner flotation tests on composite samples from Copper Creek Project.

Copper recovery obtained ranged from approximately 77 percent to 93 percent. The highest copper recovery of approximately 93 percent was observed on Composite 10.



December 2012

The lowest copper recovery of approximately 77 percent was obtained on Composite 5.

Molybdenum recovery achieved ranged from approximately 38 to 97 percent.

Composite 14 provided the highest molybdenum recovery of approximately 97 percent.

The lowest molybdenum recovery of approximately 38 percent was obtained on

Composite 9. Complete mass balance for gold and silver was conducted on composites 9 through

14. Locked cycle flotation testing should be conducted by mean of determining the

ultimate concentrate and tailing values when recycling product is considered as in normal plant practice.



December 2012

14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE 14.1 Summary The December 2012 mineral resource is a combination of the re-statement of the October 2008 mineral resource for the five breccia deposits and the re-estimation of the Keel – American Eagle porphyry deposit. No new drilling has been done in the breccias so the October 2008 resource models are used with the resources updated to reflect a new calculation of the copper equivalent. The Old Reliable is reported separate from the other breccia deposits because it is anticipated to be mined by an open pit method, while the remaining breccia deposits would be mined underground. The Keel – American Eagle deposit has been re-estimated to include the additional drilling results since March 2012 (data cutoff date for the June 2012 resource) and to model the deposit for a potential underground mining approach. Grades in the updated Keel – American Eagle resource model were estimated using inverse distance to the fourth power (ID4) in three estimation domains defined by Redhawk geologists as copper grade shells based on 20ft drill hole composites. Zone 5 was defined by composite grades where total copper greater than or equal to (>=) 0.50%, Zone 4 was defined by composite grades where total copper >= 0.40% and less than (<) 0.50%, and Zone 3 was defined by composite grades where total copper >=0.30% and < 0.40%. All three zones were estimated with a 350ft by 350ft (horizontal) and 275ft (vertical) search. Blocks in Zone 3 were estimated using composites in Zones 3 and 4, blocks in Zone 4 were estimated by using composites in Zones 3, 4, and 5, and blocks in Zone 5 were estimated using composites in Zones 4 and 5. The five breccia models used the outlines of the breccia bodies as limits to the grade estimates. There is isolated mineralization to the exterior of the breccia bodies and the estimate of grade of this mineralization was made using a polygonal estimation with a limited search distance. The Childs-Aldwinkle and Mammoth grade models were estimated using indicator kriging and the Old Reliable, Globe and Copper Prince grade models used ordinary kriging. A summary of the development of these resource models is presented later in this section and the details are found in the October 2008 technical report. Tonnages were calculated assuming a constant density of 12.5 cu ft/ton (2.56 g/cc). Resources were classified as measured, indicated or inferred based on the number of holes within the search and the kriging variance. In preparing this estimate IMC has assumed that all of the data supplied to it, including assay and survey data, are correct to within normally-accepted limits of error. The mineral resource in Table 14-1 is tabulated at different copper equivalent (CuEq) cutoffs for each of three areas:

• The near surface Old Reliable breccia is tabulated using a 0.40% CuEq cutoff to reflect a potential open pit resource.




December 2012


The copper equivalent grade is based on the metal prices and estimate of recoveries for copper, molybdenum, silver and gold (estimated in the breccia deposits only). Metal Price Recovery Copper $2.75/lb 90% Molybdenum $12.00/lb 80% Silver $20.00/oz 90% Gold $1100/oz 40% The copper equivalent calculations are: Keel – American Eagle: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag (opt) Breccia Deposits: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag (opt) + 8.89 x Au (opt)




Moly, %

Silver, opt

Gold, opt

CuEq, %





Keel – Am. Eagle

0.50%




December 2012

14.2 Drilling and Assaying Table 14-2 summarizes basic drilling and copper-molybdenum assaying statistics for the assay data base supplied to IMC. (Note that the sum of the holes in the individual categories exceeds the total number of holes by 56 because 56 holes were drilled using more than one drilling method.)

Table 14-2 Drilling and Assaying Statistics, All Data

Rotary/ Drifts/ NotPercussion Raises Classified

Number of holes 370 75 95 56 11 607Total drilling, ft 524,818 35,787 89,131 3,056 6,730 659,521

Assayed for copper, ft 420,437 29,748 57,084 2,878 5,660 515,807Percent complete 80 83 64 94 84 78


Assayed for molybdenum, ft 318,690 17,758 43,477 110 4,700 384,734Percent complete 61 50 49 4 70 58


Diamond core

Reverse circulation

Total

Table 14-3 summarizes drilling by the mineralized areas within the block model used for the Keel – American Eagle mineral resource update. This is a sub-set of the total drill hole data base which is presented in Section 10.


Mineralized AreaNumber of

Holes

Total Drilling,

feetNumber of Intervals

Intervals Assayed

for Copper



Childs-Aldwinkle 58 45,634 2,501 2,380 2,042 656Mammoth-Keel 82 138,556 11,884 11,666 11,472 6,224American Eagle 92 205,243 19,974 19,783 15,754 10,352

Drillhole locations at Copper Creek are shown in Figure 14-1. Numbered areas 4 through 6 illustrate the limits of the Childs-Aldwinkle, Mammoth, and American Eagle areas as defined in the block model used to update the Keel – American Eagle mineral resources.



December 2012

Figure 14-1: Drillhole Locations Holes are mostly vertical in the American Eagle area and spaced a few hundred feet apart on average. The holes that test the higher-grade breccias to the northwest are mostly inclined and hole spacing is highly variable. The drilling in the areas of Globe, Copper Prince, and Old Reliable were not included in the current resource model since these areas have no new data since the 2008 mineral resource estimate. Most of the deeper holes have down hole surveys that generally show deviations of less than 5 degrees. Hole diameters and recoveries were not recorded in the data base supplied to IMC.

N 6

5

4



December 2012

For the Copper Creek Keel – American Eagle model, three copper grade shell zone boundaries were interpreted by Redhawk Copper geologists on each 20ft level. These boundaries were total copper >= 0.50% (Zone 5), total copper = >0.40%, < 0.50% (Zone 4), and Total Cu >=0.30%, < 0.40% (Zone 3). These outlines were used to tag the blocks in the block model. All other blocks were in Zone 0. Composite data was “dipped” into the block model and the composites were assigned a zone code based on which grade shell they were located. Table 14-4 summarizes the drilling by the grade shell domain.

Table 14-4 Composite Statistics by Ore Zone Boundaries

Grade Shell Total Drilling, ft

Number of Intervals

Intervals Assayed for

Copper


Molybdenum


Silver Zone 5 28,003 1,385 1,384 1,298 724 Zone 4 12,890 638 637 566 369 Zone 3 23,010 1,144 1,138 1,010 665 Zone 0 333,850 16,061 12,822 10,907 6,437

Outside Model 263,763 13,027 9,354 5,120 2,552 Total 659,517 32,255 25,335 18,901 10,747

14.3 Compositing, Grade Statistics Assays were composited into 20ft bench composites to match the 20ft level height in the resource model. Copper and molybdenum assays and composite statistics are compared in Table 14-5. Table 14-6 summarizes 20ft level composite statistics by defined grade zone.

Table 14-5 Assay & 20ft Bench Composite Statistics, All Data

Copper, % Molybdenum, %

Number Mean St. Dev. Max. Number Mean St. Dev. Max

Assays 56,099 0.321 0.774 23.70 41,570 .0058 0.031 2.15

Composites 25,335 0.290 0.573 9.55 18,901 0.0055 0.022 1.19 Mean composite grades are lower than mean assay grades because assay intervals tend to be shorter in higher-grade zones.



December 2012

Table 14-6 20ft Bench Composites Statistics by Grade Zones

Grade Zone Copper, % Molybdenum, %

Number Mean St. Dev. Max. Number Mean St. Dev. Max.

Zone 5 1,384 0.818 0.497 4.81 1,298 0.019 0.034 0.300

Zone 4 637 0.401 0.066 1.15 566 0.009 0.013 0.091

Zone 3 1,138 0.313 0.046 .459 1,010 0.007 0.009 0.080

Zone 0 12,822 0.242 0.501 8.75 10,907 0.004 0.024 1.186 Figure 14-2 shows log-transformed cumulative frequency plots of 20ft composite copper and molybdenum grades for all Copper Creek samples. Both distributions are effectively lognormal with no indication of high-grade outlier populations.

Figure 14-2 20ft Composite Cumulative Frequency, Copper and Molybdenum, All Data



December 2012

Figure 14-3 shows log-transformed cumulative frequency plots of 20ft composite copper grades by grade shell zone. The Zone 0 (No_Zone on the plot) includes drill hole composites within the Mammoth and Childs-Aldwinkle breccias which were not modeled by the grade shells. The higher grade composites within these breccias account for the kink in the cumulative frequency curve for this zone. This is also present in Figure 14-4 for molybdenum, although more gradual.

Figure 14-3: 20ft Composite Cumulative Frequency, Copper, by Zone



December 2012

Figure 14-4 shows log-transformed cumulative frequency plots of 20ft composite molybdenum grades by ore zone. Distributions are lognormal in all zones.

Figure 14-4: 20ft Composite Cumulative Frequency, Molybdenum, by Zone

Reviews failed to detect any very-high-grade “outlier” copper or molybdenum composites, so no cap grades were applied before grades in the model were estimated. 14.4 Variograms, Distribution of Mineralization Copper variograms at Copper Creek were looked at separately in all the defined grade zones. Reasonable results were obtained with covariance variograms run on 20ft copper composites within each of these zones. A combined zone variogram is shown in Figure 14-5. The results of the variograms are summarized in Table 14-7.



December 2012

Table 14-7 Covariance Copper Variograms, 20ft Composites

Range (ft) Nugget Sill

All Zones - All horizontal directions

280

0.06

0.166

All Zones - Vertical 330 0.08 0.166 All Zones - Omnidirectional 290 0.06 0.166

Zone 3 – All horizontal 356 0.001 0.002 Zone 3 – Vertical 372 0.00 0.002

Zone 3 – Omnidirectional 341 0.001 0.002 Zone 4 – All horizontal 384 0.002 0.004

Zone 4 - Vertical 262 0.002 0.004 Zone 4 - Omnidirectional 294 0.002 0.004 Zone 5 – All horizontal 355 0.12 0.247

Zone 5 - Vertical 278 0.13 0.247 Zone 5 - Omnidirectional 222 0.11 0.247

These ranges are restricted in the horizontal distances by the size of the ore zone boundaries. Zone 3 has the longest vertical range. In Zones 4 and 5 the vertical range is shorter than the horizontal range. Molybdenum variograms were not constructed because molybdenum has a lesser economic contribution to the overall copper equivalent value and the molybdenum grade tends to track copper grade.



December 2012

Figure 14-5: Omnidirectional Covariance Copper Variogram, 20ft Copper Composites – All Zones



December 2012

The distribution of copper mineralization relative to drilling at Copper Creek is illustrated in Figures 14-6 and 14-7, which show 20ft composite copper grades on EW section 635500N in the American Eagle area and EW section 636500N through the Mammoth-Keel/American Eagle area (both section looking north).

Figure 14-6: 20ft Composite Copper Grade, Section 635500N, American Eagle

0-0.3% Blue, 0.3-0.4% Green, 0.4-0.5% Orange, >0.5% Pink, Black=Unassayed



December 2012

Figure 14-7: 20ft Composite Copper Grade, Section 636500N, Mammoth-Keel & American Eagle

(Mammoth-Keel on left, American Eagle on right) 0-0.3% Blue, 0.3-0.4% Green, 0.4-0.5% Orange, >0.5% Pink, Black=Unassayed



December 2012

Drilling at American Eagle is reasonably evenly-spaced, and on the Figure 14-6 section it defines a broadly continuous mineralized zone at depth which is open in some directions. Drilling outside of the higher grade intersections has intervals which were not assayed. Redhawk continues to add to the drill hole data base with new drilling and the assaying of intervals in previous drilled holes which were not assayed. This is an ongoing program to make the data base more complete. 14.5 Grade Estimation The Copper Creek underground model extends from 63,3860N to 63,8400N, from 40,1000E to 40,800E and from -100 to 3800 ft elevation. With a model block size of 20x20x20ft it contains 350 columns, 227 rows and 195 tiers for a total of 15,492,750 blocks. This model was developed to update the mineral resource for the Keel – American Eagle porphyry. The 20x20x20 ft block was selected as a reasonable mining unit for a room and pillar underground mining approach which is being considered for the porphyry zones. The block model extends into the breccia areas, but mineral resources for these areas are tabulated for the 2008 block models and thus were not modeled even though they fall within this block model framework. 14.5.1 Selection of Grade Estimation Operator IMC's experience in porphyry copper deposits where mined-model comparisons are available shows that a higher-power inverse distance operator is usually needed to match the model grade distribution to the blast hole grade distribution, and that the blast hole grade distribution is usually best matched when this operator “splits the difference” between ordinary kriging (OK), which tends to overstate tons and understates grade, and nearest-neighbor polygons (NNP), which tends to understate tons and overstate grade. Using these criteria it was found that an inverse distance to the fourth power (ID4) operator was appropriate for Copper Creek. Figure 14-8 compares the copper block grade distributions obtained using this operator with the distributions obtained using ordinary kriging (OK) and nearest-neighbor polygons (NNP) in the Copper Creek model for initial block model runs.



December 2012

Figure 14-8 Model Block Grade Distributions: OK (Green), NNP (Blue), ID4 (Red) 14.5.2 Internal Boundaries and Grade Estimation Searches Grade shell zone boundaries were interpreted and digitized by the Redhawk geologists. This information was assigned to the block model and to the composite data. Figure 14-9 shows the 1980 bench with the grade zone boundaries and the 20ft composites for that bench. Zone 3 is total copper >=0.30% and < 0.40%, zone 4 is total copper >=0.40% and < 0.50% and zone 5 is total copper >= 0.50%.



December 2012

Figure 14-9: Grade zone boundaries with composites on the 1980 Bench

Zone 3 is blue, Zone 4 is green, Zone 5 is red. Copper, molybdenum and silver were estimated using a 350ft by 350ft horizontal and 275ft vertical search and a maximum/minimum of 12/2 20ft composites in all three zones. The number of composites from a single drillhole was restricted to 6 composites. Blocks in Zone 3 were estimated with composites in Zones 3 and 4. Blocks in Zone 4 were estimated with composites in Zones 3, 4, and 5. Blocks in Zone 5 were estimated with composites in Zones 4 and 5. Blocks in Zone 0 were not estimated. This estimation did not assign grades to all the blocks within the grade shells. A second estimation pass was made in Zones 3, 4, 5 with the search radius expanded to 800ft by 800ft horizontal and 275ft vertical to fill in more of the blocks within the shell zones, but the results of this pass were not included in the mineral resource estimate. 14.5.3 Treatment of Unassayed Intervals Within the grade shells used to estimate the porphyry mineral resource there are a total of 3,167 composites of which 3,159 have values for copper (99.7%), 2,874 has values for molybdenum (90.7%) and 1,758 have values for silver (55.5%). Copper is the largest contributor to the copper equivalent calculation, followed by molybdenum and silver making a minor contribution. The copper grades are



December 2012

complete throughout the grade shell zones and molybdenum has coverage of 90%. No default values have been assigned to either the assay or composite data bases. 14.5.4 Model Results In the zone assigned blocks 9% of the composite intervals that are assayed for copper are not assayed for molybdenum, 841,594 blocks in the IMC model are assigned copper grades, 838,024 blocks are assigned molybdenum grades and 213,683 blocks are assigned silver grades. At a 0.5% copper cutoff, however, almost all of the blocks that are assigned copper grades are assigned molybdenum grades (318,882 vs. 316,128). Silver has fewer assigned at 122,388 blocks.

Block grade distributions in the IMC model are summarized in the following figures. Figure 14-10: Block copper grades along the 635500N drillhole composite grade section shown in Figure 14-6. Figure 14-11: Block copper grades along the 636500N drillhole composite grade section shown in Figure 14-7. Figure 14-12: Block copper grades on the 1980 bench showing ore zone boundaries, drillhole composite grade bench shown in Figure 14-9. Figure 14-13: Plan map showing grade-thickness of copper in model blocks Figure 14-14: Plan map showing grade-thickness of molybdenum in model blocks These figures include measured, indicated and inferred blocks.



December 2012

Figure 14-10: Copper Block Grade, East-West Section at 635000N, American Eagle 0-0.3% Blue, 0.3-0.4% Green, 0.4-0.5% Orange, >0.5% Pink, Blank=Un-estimated



December 2012

Figure 14-11: Copper Block Grade, East-West Section at 636500N, Keel - American-Eagle 0-0.3% Blue, 0.3-0.4% Green, 0.4-0.5% Orange, >0.5% Pink, Blank=Un-estimated



December 2012

Figure 14-12: Copper Block Grades, Bench 1980 0-0.3% Blue, 0.3-0.4% Green, 0.4-0.5% Orange, >0.5% Pink, Blank=Un-estimated

N



December 2012

Figure 14-13 Grade-Thickness Copper in Model Blocks, Feet x Percent, Copper > 0.5%

100-200 Blue, 200-500 Green, 500-1,000 Orange, >1,000 Pink (Map Grid is 1000 x 1000 ft)

N



December 2012

Figure 14-14 Grade-Thickness Molybdenum in Model Blocks, Feet x Percent, Copper > 0.5% 5-20 Blue, 20-50 Green, 50-100 Orange, >100 Pink

(Map Grid is 1000 x 1000 feet)

N



December 2012

14.5.5 Resource Classification The classification of the mineral resource for the Keel – American Eagle porphyry started with all the resource being classified as inferred if the copper grade was estimated for a block. The confidence was increased as further restrictions were applied based on the number of composites or drill holes used to estimate a block’s grades. Resources were initially classified as indicated where composites with copper values from three or more holes were present, within the search ellipse and the number of composites within the search ellipse was twelve or greater. Additionally for Zone 3, a block was classified as indicated if there were five or more holes present, within the search ellipse. For Zones 4 and 5 a block was classified as indicated if there were four or more holes present, within the search ellipse. The three-hole-minimum criterion for the zones is supported by kriging variances, which are a measure of the errors to which individual block grade estimates are subject. Figure 14-15 plots kriging variance against the number of drillholes in the search for each zone, these show kriging variance increasing gradually as the number of holes within the search decreases from twelve to three but increasing more rapidly as the number falls below three. This inflection defines the three-hole minimum as an appropriate confidence threshold for segregating inferred from indicated material.

Figure 14-15 Kriging Variance Vs. Number of Holes in Search Ellipsoid



December 2012

Figure 14-15 (Continued)

0.0008

0.0013

0.0018

0.0023

0.0028

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Copper Creek Zone 4

kvar

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Copper Creek Zone 5

kvar



December 2012

The indicated classification was sub-divided into measured and indicated by using the number of drill holes within a shorter distance from the block center. To be classified as measured there either had to be six or more drillholes used to estimate a block or there had to be 3 drill holes within 200 feet of the block. The final resource classifications are strictly applicable only to copper grades, but since molybdenum and silver make only a comparatively small economic contribution the classifications have also been applied to these grades as well. Resource classification results are summarized in Figures 14-13 and 14-14, which show indicated and inferred blocks along the east-west sections at 635500N and 636500N drillhole composite grade sections used in Figures 14-5, 14-6, 14-8 and 14-9 and in the copper grade-thickness plan maps above a 0.5% cutoff shown in Figure 14-15 (measured plus indicated) and Figure 14-16 (inferred).



December 2012

Figure 14-16: Resource Classification, Section 635500N, American Eagle Blue = Inferred, Green = Indicated, Red = Measured



December 2012

Figure 14-17: Resource Classification, Section 636500N, Mammoth-Keel & American Eagle Blue = Inferred, Green = Indicated, Red = Measured



December 2012

Figure 14-18: Grade-Thickness Copper, Feet-Percent, Measured & Indicated Blocks, Copper > 0.5% 100-200 Blue, 200-500 Green, 500-1,000 Orange, >1,000 Pink

(1000 ft by 1000 ft grid)

N



December 2012

Figure 14-19: Grade-Thickness Copper, Feet-Percent, Inferred Blocks, Copper > 0.5% 100-200 Blue, 200-500 Green, 500-1,000 Orange, >1,000 Pink

(1000 ft by 1000 ft grid)

N



December 2012

14.6 2008 Breccia Resource Models The mineral resources are summarized here and described in detail in the Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) report titled: “Copper Creek 2008 Mineral Resource, Pinal County, Arizona, USA, Technical Report”, dated October 28, 2008 and filed on SEDAR on October 29, 2008. The five breccia deposits (Copper Prince, Globe, Old Reliable, Childs-Aldwinkle and Mammoth) contain copper mineralization with associated molybdenum (moly), gold and silver, in potentially economic concentrations. The drilling used for the mineral resource estimates (the footage is only what is within each model area and does not include the total footage of drilling from the surface) is:

• Mammoth Breccia 63 surface drill holes totaling 95,745 feet • Childs-Aldwinkle Breccia 85 surface holes and 6 underground holes totaling 90,064 ft • Old Reliable Breccia 49 surface holes, 61 underground holes, 31 channel

samples totaling 41,913 feet • Copper Prince 18 surface holes totaling 8,438 feet • Globe 23 surface holes totaling 16,054.8 feet

The five breccia models used the outlines of the breccia bodies as limits to the grade estimates. There is isolated mineralization to the exterior of the breccia bodies and the estimate of grade of this mineralization was made using a polygonal estimation with a limited search distance. The Childs and Mammoth grade models were estimated using indicator kriging and the Old Reliable, Globe and Copper Prince grade models used ordinary kriging. Block size in the breccias is 15’ x 15’ x 15’ based upon the assumption of the potential for blast-hole cut and fill mining methods. 14.7 Mineral Resource Tonnages were calculated assuming a constant density of 12.5 cu ft/ton (2.56 g/cc). Resources were classified as measured, indicated or inferred based on the number of holes within the search ellipse. In preparing this estimate IMC has assumed that all of the data supplied to it, including assay and survey data, are correct to within normally-accepted limits of error. The mineral resource in Table 14-8 is tabulated at different copper equivalent (CuEq) cutoffs for each of three areas:

• The near surface Old Reliable breccia is tabulated using a 0.40% CuEq cutoff to reflect a potential open pit resource. This resource has been confined within a pit shell based on process plus G&A costs of $10.00/ton and mining costs of $2.00/ton.





December 2012

The copper equivalent grade is based on the metal prices and estimate of recoveries for copper, molybdenum, silver and gold (estimated in the breccia deposits only). Metal Price Recovery Copper $2.75/lb 90% Molybdenum $12.00/lb 80% Silver $20.00/oz 90% Gold $1100/oz 40% The copper equivalent calculations are: Keel – American Eagle: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag (opt) Breccia Deposits: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag (opt) + 8.89 x Au (opt)




Moly, %

Silver, opt

Gold, opt

CuEq, %





Keel – Am. Eagle

0.50%


Table 14-9 is a summary of the Breccia deposits by the individual deposits at the 0.75% CuEq cutoff. Table 14-10 shows the Keel – American Eagle porphyry at different cutoff grades to show the distribution of mineralization with the mineral resource at 0.50% CuEq cutoff highlighted.



December 2012

Table 14-9 Individual Breccia Deposits at 0.75% CuEq Cutoff

Breccia CuEq Cutoff ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt Au, opt

Childs 0.75 830 2.26 1.88 0.067 0.188 0.006Prince 0.75 253 2.07 2.02 0.003 0.086 0.001Globe 0.75 38 1.20 1.17 0.004 0.032 0.000

Mammoth 0.75 3,341 1.46 1.40 0.001 0.136 0.001Total 0.75 4,462 1.64 1.52 0.013 0.142 0.002

ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt Au, opt


Mammoth 0.75 242 2.78 2.71 0.001 0.161 0.001Total 0.75 1,272 2.07 1.86 0.035 0.111 0.003

ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt Au, opt

Childs 0.75 1,560 2.14 1.79 0.063 0.153 0.005Prince 0.75 450 2.00 1.94 0.005 0.079 0.001Globe 0.75 141 1.13 1.10 0.003 0.051 0.001

Mammoth 0.75 3,583 1.55 1.49 0.001 0.138 0.001Total 0.75 5,734 1.74 1.60 0.018 0.135 0.002

Breccia CuEq Cutoff ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt Au, opt


Mammoth 0.75 49 2.38 2.34 0.002 0.101 0.000Total 0.75 774 2.29 2.09 0.038 0.082 0.003

Measured

Indicated

Measured + Indicated

Inferred



December 2012

Table 14-10 Keel – American Eagle Mineral Resource by Cutoff Grade

CuEqCutoff ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt

1.00 7,893 1.44 1.24 0.038 0.170.75 15,179 1.16 1.00 0.028 0.140.60 24,873 0.97 0.85 0.021 0.110.55 27,682 0.93 0.81 0.020 0.110.50 29,765 0.90 0.79 0.020 0.100.45 31,595 0.88 0.77 0.019 0.100.40 35,404 0.83 0.73 0.018 0.09CuEq

Cutoff ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt

1.00 15,907 1.33 1.20 0.026 0.070.75 41,561 1.03 0.95 0.017 0.050.60 79,995 0.86 0.79 0.014 0.040.55 97,517 0.81 0.75 0.013 0.030.50 115,218 0.76 0.70 0.012 0.030.45 131,157 0.73 0.68 0.011 0.030.40 151,686 0.69 0.63 0.011 0.03CuEq

Cutoff ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt

1.00 23,800 1.36 1.21 0.030 0.110.75 56,740 1.07 0.96 0.020 0.080.60 104,868 0.88 0.81 0.016 0.060.55 125,199 0.83 0.76 0.014 0.050.50 144,983 0.79 0.72 0.013 0.050.45 162,752 0.76 0.69 0.013 0.040.40 187,090 0.72 0.65 0.012 0.04

CuEqCutoff ktons CuEq, % Cu, % Mo, % Ag, opt

1.00 10,923 1.34 1.24 0.020 0.070.75 29,675 1.03 0.93 0.019 0.070.60 58,034 0.86 0.78 0.016 0.050.55 73,190 0.79 0.72 0.015 0.040.50 85,841 0.75 0.68 0.014 0.040.45 98,952 0.71 0.65 0.014 0.030.40 136,222 0.63 0.58 0.012 0.02

Inferred

Measured

Indicated

Measured + Indicated



December 2012

14.8 Uncertainties The resource estimates assume that the copper and molybdenum at Copper Creek occurs entirely in the form of sulfides. However, approximately 10% of the intervals at Copper Creek are assayed for acid soluble copper, and acid soluble/total copper ratio values in these intervals indicate that significant oxidation is present down to depths of at least 500 feet in the Globe, Copper Prince, Old Reliable and Peripheral areas, although oxidation in Childs-Aldwinkle, Mammoth and American Eagle is mostly superficial. Table 14-11 summarizes mean acid soluble/total copper ratios by depth range and deposit. (Ratios of over 0.1 are indicative of some oxidation, ratios of over 0.2 are indicative of significant oxidation and ratios of over 0.5 are indicative of dominant oxidation. Blank cells signify no data.) This work is from the June 2012 technical report and has not been updated with the additions to the drill hole data base. Table 14-11 Acid Soluble to Total Copper Ratio, Assays, Total Copper Greater Than 0.10%

Area 0-100ft 100-200 200-400 400-600 600-800 800-1000 >1000 1. Globe 0.69 0.26 0.28 0.28

2. Copper Prince 0.56 0.28 0.20 0.32 0.15 3. Old Reliable 0.42 0.37 0.25 0.18 0.22

4. Childs-Aldwinkle 0.33 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.08 0.04 5. Mammoth 0.21 0.08 0.08

6. American Eagle 0.24 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.07 0. Peripheral 0.53 0.65 0.25

The current resources make no allowance for lower mill recoveries in oxidized or partially-oxidized material because the distribution of oxidation could not be defined in the model (the acid soluble copper data are not extensive enough and the assay data base contains no “oxide” variable). However, the Globe, Copper Prince and Old Reliable deposits contain only a small percentage of the total resource, so the impacts are unlikely to be appreciable, but should be kept in mind as the project moves forward.



December 2012

15.0 MINERAL RESERVES No mineral reserve has been estimated and none is being reported in this document or past documents. No Pre-Feasibility study has been completed on Copper Creek which will be required to develop a statement of mineral reserves.



December 2012

16.0 MINING METHODS The K D Engineering Co., Inc. (KDE) scoping study dated 12 March 2010 evaluated a small tonnage underground operating which would feed a process plant at 2,500 tons per day (tpd) and expanding later to 10,000 tpd. The current resource is much larger in size than that used in the KDE study and thus a large scale mining approach will need to be considered. Redhawk has determined to proceed with a larger scale underground mining approach for the Keel – American Eagle porphyry. Open pit mining will be used for the Old Reliable breccia.



December 2012

17.0 RECOVERY METHODS Section 19 of the KDE March 2010 Scoping Study has been updated and revised to include the results of metallurgical testing completed in the interim and are reported in Section 13 of the current report. It is anticipated that the recovery method for the majority if not all of the Copper Creek resource will be by flotation of a copper-molybdenum concentrate and subsequent separation to a copper concentrate and molybdenum concentrate for sale. The sizing of a facility to handle the current resource and subsequent engineering to design the facility has not been done.



December 2012

18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE The infrastructure requirements for a mining operation at Copper Creek were discussed in the KDE Scoping Study of March 2010 and the general requirements of process plant, tailings storage, waste rock storage, roads, water and power remain as general requirements. The potential size of the project has changed greatly and thus the quantities required for power and water for example are unknown. As the project becomes better defined in a potential larger size, the project infrastructure will be determined at that time. The material changes to the project envisioned do not exceed the known capacity of the local infrastructure capabilities. It is the opinion of Redhawk and its consultants that water resources, power and transportation will be available for the project. The San Manuel mine operated for several decades in the immediate vicinity and the general infrastructure which supported that operation is still in place.



December 2012

19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS Redhawk has not entered into any contracts with respect to Copper Creek, nor has it developed any detailed market studies.



December 2012

20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY

IMPACT Table 20-1 is extracted from the KDE March 2010 Scoping Study (Table 20.3.1.1 in the KDE report). The major permits required for Copper Creek have not changed. The scope of each permit and the time/cost to acquire these permits is very likely to change with the enhanced size of the project. At this time no estimates have been made as to the extent of those changes. An Aquifer Protection Permit for an exploration decline was applied for and was approved in August 2009.

Table 20-1 Environmental Permitting Analysis for Copper Creek Project

Table 20.3.1.1 Environmental Permitting Analysis for Copper Creek Project

Permit Effort Agency Description/

Assumptions

Estimated Cost (US$; permitting costs only; does not include

engineering, well installation, etc.)

Estimated Timeframe

Schedule Start Point

Right-of-Way Access

Arizona State Land Department

Assumes that roadway widening or other significant modification will be required for access; includes resource surveys

25,000 12 months Availability of road designs

MPO/NEPA Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Assumes that level of impacts will require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

250,000 2 to 4 years Availability of location and operating information for federal land facilities

CWA Section 404/NEPA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

For all discharges of fill to waters; assumes an individual permit will be required for waste dump and dewatering pond

150,000 18 to 24 months

Completion of JD; submittal of application; preparation of mitigation plan, alternatives analysis, etc.

Endangered Species Act Compliance

Lead federal agency

Required for all federal actions; assumes informal consultation for potential impacts to one or more species

25,000 6 months Availability of locations of operations and Phase I design information

National Historic Preservation Act Compliance

Lead federal agency and SHPO

Includes Class I and Class III survey, treatment plan, and coordination. Data recovery not included

85,000 12 months Availability of disturbance boundary

Aquifer Protection Permit

ADEQ APP needed for waste or tailings associated with the decline construction; monitoring well installation required

40,000 12 to 15 months

Submittal of application with baseline data and basic engineering



December 2012

Table 20.3.1.1 Environmental Permitting Analysis for Copper Creek Project

Permit Effort Agency Description/

Assumptions

Estimated Cost (US$; permitting costs only; does not include

engineering, well installation, etc.)

Estimated Timeframe

Schedule Start Point

Reclamation Plan State Mine Inspector

Needed for mining disturbances over 5 acres on private land.

10,000 3 months Availability of general arrangement, and geotechnical and geochemical information

Dam Safety Permit

ADWR Needed for jurisdictional impoundments (greater than 25 ft embankment height or greater than 50 ac-ft storage capacity); permit process may begin once detailed designs are completed

Unknown (generally costs are prepared by registered civil engineer)

6 to 9 months

Completion of detailed designs

Stormwater General Permits

ADEQ Triggered by having qualifying stormwater discharges to Waters of the US

20,000 2 months Availability of general arrangement

Air permit ADEQ/Pinal County

Title V permit required for the mill with new source review (NSR), and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements; includes some modeling

125,000 24 to 36 months

Availability of detailed emissions and ambient air information, submittal of application

Individual NPDES ADEQ Assumes that process water will be discharged from the facility to waters of the US

15,000 6 months Availability of locations of operations and design information

Total 745,000+ Up to 4 years



December 2012

21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS KDE provided an estimate of capital and operating costs for a 2,500 tpd expanding to 10,000 tpd operation in its March 2010 Scoping Study. The project is currently envisioned as a much larger project and the costs estimated in March 2010 no longer apply. No cost estimates have been made with respect to the current resource.



December 2012

22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The economic analysis presented in the March 2010 Scoping Study prepared by KDE was for a small project based on the initial underground mining of the breccias, and expanding into the higher grade zone of the lower porphyry at a later date. This project provided an IRR of 20.4% using $2.75/lb copper. The resource has been expanded since that study and a large, bulk mining project is envisioned. The March 2010 economic analysis no longer applies to the future evaluation of the Copper Creek resource. No economic analysis has been made with respect to the current resource.



December 2012

23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES The Copper Creek Property lies within the porphyry copper metallogenic province of the southwestern United States. There are several large adjacent properties that have been or still are major producers of copper. The San Manuel/Kalamazoo deposit lies within 15 miles of the Copper Creek Property and the Ray Mine lies approximately 50 miles north of the property. San Manuel was a major underground copper mine until its closure, with production in excess of 50,000 short tons per day. ASARCO Ray is a large open pit copper mine that is still in operation. Within the Copper Creek Property, there has been historic copper production as discussed in Section 6, History. Mining in the Childs-Aldwinkle breccia was as recently as 1965 with the majority of mining done between 1933 and 1938. This mining occurred in the central and southern fingers of the breccia pipe. The resource estimate for the Childs-Aldwinkle presented in this report is in the north finger and the breccia body below the three fingers. There is no evidence of historic mining in the area of the resource estimate. Mining in the Old Reliable occurred in 1972 when the upper portion of it was rubblized with one major blast and the broken rock was leached for copper. The leaching operation continued through 1981 with about 12 million pounds of copper recovered. Some of the post leaching drilling shows remaining copper within the rubblized zone. Redhawk is currently exploring an area north of Copper Creek which is referred to as Copper Creek North. This area shows the potential for copper mineralization.



December 2012

24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION No additional information or data is required for the presentation of the mineral resource at this time. Work is ongoing at Copper Creek which will add to the data base and knowledge of the project.



December 2012

25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS The results of the December 2012 mineral resource estimate is an updated resource particularly in the deeper porphyry based on the potential mining approach being underground versus an open pit approach used for the June 2012 mineral resource. The mineral resource in Table 25-1 is tabulated at different copper equivalent (CuEq) cutoffs for each of three areas:

• The near surface Old Reliable breccia is tabulated using a 0.40% CuEq cutoff to reflect a potential open pit resource. This resource has been confined within a pit shell based on process plus G&A costs of $10.00/ton and mining costs of $2.00/ton.



The copper equivalent grade is based on the metal prices and estimate of recoveries for copper, molybdenum, silver and gold (estimated in the breccia deposits only). Metal Price Recovery Copper $2.75/lb 90% Molybdenum $12.00/lb 80% Silver $20.00/oz 90% Gold $1100/oz 40% The copper equivalent calculations are: Keel – American Eagle: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag(opt) Breccia Deposits: CuEq% = Cu% + 3.875 x Mo% + 0.3636 x Ag(opt) + 8.89 x Au(opt)



December 2012




Moly, %

Silver, opt

Gold, opt

CuEq, %





Keel – Am. Eagle

0.50%




December 2012

26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following work is envisioned to carry the Copper Creek project forward through the end of the first or second quarter of 2013. IMC agrees with the work plan.

• Based on the December 2012 mineral resource, evaluate the best underground mining approach to develop the resource.

• Continue the assaying of older drill holes un-assayed intervals to fill in the drill hole data base.

• Evaluate the placement of future drill holes to upgrade the inferred category resource to at least an indicated category.

• Continue with the metallurgical test work. • Continue with the evaluation of water sources. • Continue work on the geologic model of the deposits. • Evaluate locations for tailings and waste rock storage. • Define the next steps for underground mining..

No budget for the above work plan has been reviewed by IMC.



December 2012

27.0 REFERENCES Proffett, J.M., 2009, High grades in porphyry copper deposits and their relationship to emplacement depth of magmatic sources: Geology, v. 37, p. 675-678. METCON Research, Copper Creek Project – Preliminary Open Cycle Flotation Study (Variability Flotation Testing), June 2012; Document No. Q718-03-028.01 K D Engineering Co., Inc., Redhawk Copper, Inc. – 2,500 – 10,000 tpd Scoping Study, 12 March 2010, Document No. Q400-02-028.01 (filed on SEDAR) Independent Mining Consultants, Inc., Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Update, Pinal County, Arizona, USA – Technical Report, June 25, 2012 (filed on SEDAR) Independent Mining Consultants, Inc., Copper Creek 2008 Mineral Resource, Pinal County, Arizona, USA – Technical Report, October 28, 2008 (filed on SEDAR) Michael Jacobs, personal communication, regarding sample preparation procedures



December 2012

28.0 DATE AND CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR The date of this report is January 31, 2013.



December 2012

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR HERBERT E. WELHENER

I, Herbert E. Welhener of Tucson, Arizona, do hereby certify that as the author of the Technical Report called “Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource – Pinal County, Arizona, USA”, dated January 31, 2013; I hereby make the following statements:

1. I am currently employed by and carried out this assignment for Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) located at 3560 E. Gas Road, Tucson, Arizona, USA, phone number (520) 294-9861.

2. This certificate applies to the Technical Report titled “Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource – Pinal County, Arizona, USA”, dated January 31, 2013 (the “Technical Report”).

3. I graduated with the follow degree from the University of Arizona: Bachelors of Science – Geology, 1973.

4. I am a Qualified Professional Member (Mining and Ore Reserves) of the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America (#01307QP), a professional association as defined by NI 43-101. As well, I am a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (# 3434330RM).

5. I have worked as a mining engineer or geologist for 39 years since my graduation from the University of Arizona.

6. I am familiar with NI 43-101 and by reason of my education, experience and affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and I am a Qualified Person (as defined in NI 43-101). I am a founding partner, Vice President and Principal Mining Engineer, of Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. since 1983.

7. I am responsible for the technical report titled “Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource – Pinal County, Arizona, USA”, dated January 31, 2013. I last visited the property on September 10, 2011.

8. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of this Technical Report. The nature of my involvement is as a consultant to Redhawk Resources, Inc. in the preparation of previous mineral resource estimates and author of Technical Reports on those mineral resources in 2006, 2007, October 2008 (“Copper Creek 2008 Mineral Resource, Pinal County, Arizona, USA, Technical Report”, dated October 28, 2008 and filed on SEDAR on October 29, 2008) and June 2012 (”Copper Creek 2012 Mineral Resource Update, Pinal Country, Arizona, USA, Technical Report”, dated June 25, 2012 and fined on SEDAR on June 26, 2012).

9. I am independent of Redhawk Resources, Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. 10. That, as of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and

belief, the Technical Report contains all the scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make this Technical Report not misleading.

11. I have read NI 43-101 and I certify that the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

12. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites assessable by the public.



December 2012

Signed and dated 1st day of February, 2013 at Tucson, Arizona (signed) “Herbert E. Welhener” Herbert E. Welhener, SME RM 3434330


Redhawk Copper, Inc. A-1 Copper Creek December 2012 Mineral Resource

December 2012

APPENDIX A – COPPER CREEK CLAIMS

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #

008-114648 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit008-114649 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit008-114650 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115641 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115642 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115643 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115644 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115646 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115647 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115648 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115649 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115650 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115651 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115652 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit08-115653 State Redhawk Copper, Inc Prospecting Permit



December 2012

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #Fortuna Pat #4059 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 1Good Luck Pat #4059 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 2Wedge Pat #4059 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 3Old Reliable Pat #4059 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 4Gulch Pat #4059 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 5Mogul Pat #3263 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 6Childs Pat #3263 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 7Childs 1 Pat #3263 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 8Childs 2 Pat #3263 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 9Childs 3 Pat #3263 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 10Longstreet Pat #3263 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 11Aldwinkle Pat #3263 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 12Grand View Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 13Veta Rica Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 14Russett Dyke Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 15Rainbow Ledge Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 16Mineral Hill Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 17Four Metals Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 18Cuprite Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 19Lucky Joe Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 20Silver Saddle Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 21Iron Dyke Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 22Deep Lode Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 23Golden Spur Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 24Mineral Reef Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 25Vulcan Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 26Jewel Pat #4179 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 27Buster Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 28Sallie Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 29Bonanza Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 30Big Bill Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 31Rolla Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 32Pawtucket Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 33Badger Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 34Prudential Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 35Michigan Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 36Minnesota Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 37Bay State Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 38Summit Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 39Nelli Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 40Assembly Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 41American Girl Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 42Independence Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 43Superior Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 44Annie I Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 45Little Rhody Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 46Christopher Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 47Dorothy Pat #3118 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 48Hoop Up Pat #2619 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 49Eureka Mine Pat #2620 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 50Globe Mine Pat #2620 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 51Copper Giant Mine Pat #2620 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 52Copper Prince Mine Pat #2620 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 53Red Bird No. 1 Pat #4123 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 54Red Bird No. 2 Pat #4123 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 55Red Bird No. 3 Pat #4123 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 56Red Bird No. 4 Pat #4123 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 57Red Bird No. 5 Pat #4123 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 58Red Bird No. 6 Pat #4123 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 59Thornwood Pat #4123 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 60Zilla Pat #4122 Redhawk Copper, Inc Patented 61



December 2012

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #Albatross No. 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316126 1Albatross No. 17 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316134 2Albatross No. 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316127 3Albatross No. 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316128 4Albatross No. 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316129 5Albatross No. 5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316130 6Albatross No. 6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316131 7Albatross No. 7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316132 8Albatross No. 8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316133 9American Eagle Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33893 10Angusto Lode Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33894 11Aurora Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33895 12Buzzard No. 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316119 13Buzzard No. 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316120 14Buzzard No. 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316121 15Buzzard No. 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316122 16Buzzard No. 5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316123 17Buzzard No. 6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316124 18Buzzard No. 7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316125 19Buzzard No. 8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352176 20C.C. 11 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335184 21C.C. 12 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316098 22C.C. 8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335182 23C.C. 9 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335183 24Camino Lode Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33904 25Center Star Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316095 26Clark No. 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316112 27Copper Cliff Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33951 28Copper Reef No. 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316113 29Copper Reef No. 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316114 30Copper Reef No. 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316115 31Copper Reef No. 5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33955 32Copper Ridge Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33956 33Copper Trail # 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33957 34Copper Trail # 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33958 35Copper Trail # 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33959 36Copper Trail # 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33960 37Crow 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335144 38Crow 10 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335153 39Crow 11 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335154 40Crow 12 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335155 41Crow 13 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335156 42Crow 14 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335157 43Crow 15 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335158 44Crow 16 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335159 45Crow 17 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335160 46Crow 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335145 47Crow 20 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335161 48Crow 21 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335162 49Crow 22 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335163 50Crow 23 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335164 51Crow 24 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335165 52Crow 25 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335166 53Crow 26 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335167 54Crow 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335146 55Crow 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335147 56Crow 5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335148 57Crow 6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335149 58Crow 7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335150 59



December 2012

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #Crow 8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335151 60Crow 9 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335152 61Fraction Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33961 62Granite Hill Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33873 63Hercules Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316110 64H-N Fraction 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316111 65Jay Bird Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316109 66Jupiter Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33964 67Kimbro Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33965 68Kimbro Eastern Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33966 69Lone Trail Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316108 70Mars Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33968 71Mary #1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316100 72Middle March Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316107 73Minnesota Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316106 74Morningside Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316105 75Navajo No. 7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316096 76Navajo No. 8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316097 77North Star Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 33986 78North Star No. 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316116 79North Star No. 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316117 80North Star No. 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316118 81NS #1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352301 82Paloma Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316103 83Paloma Fraction Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316104 84Parrot 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352164 85Parrot 10 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352173 86Parrot 11 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352174 87Parrot 12 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352175 88Parrot 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352165 89Parrot 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352166 90Parrot 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352167 91Parrot 5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352168 92Parrot 6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352169 93Parrot 7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352170 94Parrot 8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352171 95Parrot 9 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352172 96PF Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352300 97Redondo Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316102 98Siskon 65 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335174 99Siskon 66 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335175 100Siskon 67 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335176 101Siskon 68 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335177 102Siskon 69 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335178 103Siskon 70 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335179 104Siskon 71 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335180 105Siskon 72 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335181 106Siskon No. 34 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34022 107Siskon No. 35 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34023 108Siskon No. 36 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34024 109Siskon No. 37 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34025 110Siskon No. 38 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34026 111Siskon No. 39 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34027 112Siskon No. 40 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316135 113Siskon No. 41 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34029 114Siskon No. 42 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316136 115Siskon No. 44 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316137 116Siskon 46 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335168 117Siskon 48 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335169 118



December 2012

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #Siskon 51 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335170 119Siskon No. 52 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34036 120Siskon No. 53 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316138 121Siskon No. 54 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34038 122Siskon No. 55 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34039 123Siskon No. 56 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316139 124Siskon No. 57 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316140 125Siskon No. 58 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316141 126Siskon 59 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335171 127Siskon 60 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335172 128Siskon 64 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 335173 129Siskon No. 82 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34066 130Siskon No. 83 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316142 131Siskon No. 84 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316143 132Siskon No. 85 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316144 133Siskon No. 87 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316145 134Siskon No. 88 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34071 135Swallow 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 337099 136Swallow 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 337100 137Swallow 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 337101 138Swallow 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 337102 139Swallow 5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 337103 140Swallow 6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 337104 141Swallow 7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 337105 142Velasquez Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34072 143Velasquez Fraction Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34073 144Velascoquez Wedge Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34074 145Venus Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 34075 146Whippoorwill Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 316101 147Wren 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352161 148Wren 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352162 149Wren 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 352163 150Hawk #1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342788 151Hawk #10 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342797 152Hawk #11 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342798 153Hawk #12 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342799 154Hawk #13 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342800 155Hawk #14 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342801 156Hawk #15 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342802 157Hawk #2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342789 158Hawk #3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342790 159Hawk #4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342791 160Hawk #5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342792 161Hawk #6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342793 162Hawk #7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342794 163Hawk #8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342795 164Hawk #9 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC 342796 165WREN-7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371135 166WREN-6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371134 167WREN-5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371133 168WREN-4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371132 169WREN-8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371136 170WREN-9 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371137 171WREN-10 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371138 172WREN-11 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371139 173WREN-12 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371140 174WREN-13 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371141 175WREN-14 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371142 176WREN-15 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371143 177



December 2012

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #WREN-16 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371144 178WREN-17 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371145 179WREN-18 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371146 180WREN-19 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371147 181WREN-20 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371148 182WREN-21 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371149 183WREN-22 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371150 184WREN-23 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371151 185WREN-24 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371152 186WREN-44 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371153 187WREN-45 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371154 188WREN-46 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371155 189WREN-47 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371156 190WREN-48 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371157 191WREN-49 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371158 192WREN-50 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371159 193WREN-51 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371160 194WREN-52 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC371161 195WREN-25 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373192 196WREN-26 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373193 197WREN-27 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373194 198WREN-28 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373195 199WREN-29 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373196 200WREN-30 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373197 201WREN-31 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373198 202WREN-32 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373199 203WREN-33 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373200 204WREN-34 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373201 205WREN-35 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373202 206WREN-36 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373203 207WREN-37 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373204 208WREN-38 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373205 209WREN-39 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373206 210WREN-40 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373207 211WREN-41 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373208 212WREN-42 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373209 213WREN-43 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC373210 214Chapo #1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC349078 215Zella A Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC79732 216

Moose #2 Unpatented D&G Mining Mining Claim/lease AMC 33973 1Moose #4 Unpatented D&G Mining Mining Claim/lease AMC 33974 2Moose #6 Unpatented D&G Mining Mining Claim/lease AMC 33975 3Moose #8 Unpatented D&G Mining Mining Claim/lease AMC 33976 4

NCC 1 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408299 217 2011-046345NCC 2 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408300 218 2011-046346NCC 3 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408301 219 2011-046347NCC 4 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408302 220 2011-046348NCC 5 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408303 221 2011-046349NCC 6 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408304 222 2011-046350NCC 7 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408305 223 2011-046351NCC 8 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408306 224 2011-046352NCC 9 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408307 225 2011-046353NCC 10 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408308 226 2011-046354NCC 11 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408309 227 2011-046355NCC 12 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408310 228 2011-046356NCC 13 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408311 229 2011-046357NCC 14 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408312 230 2011-046358



December 2012

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #NCC 15 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408313 231 2011-046359NCC 16 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408314 232 2011-046360NCC 17 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408315 233 2011-046361NCC 18 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408316 234 2011-046362NCC 19 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408317 235 2011-046363NCC 20 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408318 236 2011-046364NCC 41 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411910 237 2011-090668NCC 42 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411911 238 2011-090669NCC 43 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411912 239 2011-090670NCC 44 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411913 240 2011-090671NCC 45 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411914 241 2011-090672NCC 46 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411915 242 2011-090673NCC 47 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411916 243 2011-090674NCC 48 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411917 244 2011-090675NCC 51 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408321 245 2011-046367NCC 53 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411918 246 2011-090676NCC 54 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411919 247 2011-090677NCC 55 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411920 248 2011-090678NCC 56 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411921 249 2011-090679NCC 57 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411922 250 2011-090680NCC 58 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411923 251 2011-090681NCC 59 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411924 252 2011-090682NCC 60 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411925 253 2011-090683NCC 61 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411926 254 2011-090684NCC 62 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411927 255 2011-090685NCC 63 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411928 256 2011-090686NCC 64 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411929 257 2011-090687NCC 65 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411930 258 2011-090688NCC 66 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411931 259 2011-090689NCC 67 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411932 260 2011-090690NCC 68 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411933 261 2011-090691NCC 69 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411934 262 2011-090692NCC 70 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411935 263 2011-090693NCC 71 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411936 264 2011-090694NCC 72 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411937 265 2011-090695NCC 73 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411938 266 2011-090696NCC 74 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411939 267 2011-090697NCC 75 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411940 268 2011-090698NCC 76 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411941 269 2011-090699NCC 77 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411942 270 2011-090700NCC 78 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411943 271 2011-090701NCC 79 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411944 272 2011-090702NCC 80 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411945 273 2011-090703NCC 81 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC414010 274 2012-008553NCC 82 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC414011 275 2012-008554NCC 83 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC414012 276 2012-008555NCC 84 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC414013 277 2012-008556NCC 85 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC414014 278 2012-008557NCC 86 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC414015 279 2012-008558NCC 87 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411946 280 2011-090704NCC 88 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411947 281 2011-090705NCC 89 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC411948 282 2011-090706NCC 90 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408323 283 2011-046369NCC 91 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408324 284 2011-046370NCC 92 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408325 285 2011-046371NCC 93 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408329 286 2011-046375NCC 94 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408330 287 2011-046376NCC 95 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408331 288 2011-046377NCC 96 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408332 289 2011-046378



December 2012




December 2012

Name Legal Owner Type BLM Serial # Pinal Co Rec #NCC 724 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408592 703 2011-046638NCC 725 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408593 704 2011-046639NCC 726 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408594 705 2011-046640NCC 727 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408595 706 2011-046641NCC 728 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408596 707 2011-046642NCC 729 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408597 708 2011-046643NCC 730 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408598 709 2011-046644NCC 731 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408599 710 2011-046645NCC 732 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408600 711 2011-046646NCC 733 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408601 712 2011-046647NCC 734 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408602 713 2011-046648NCC 735 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408603 714 2011-046649NCC 736 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408604 715 2011-046650NCC 737 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408605 716 2011-046651NCC 738 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408606 717 2011-046652NCC 739 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408607 718 2011-046653NCC 740 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408608 719 2011-046654NCC 741 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408609 720 2011-046655NCC 742 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408610 721 2011-046656NCC 743 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC408611 722 2011-046657NCC 21 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417514 723 2012-079445NCC 22 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417515 724 2012-079446NCC 23 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417516 725 2012-079447NCC 24 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417517 726 2012-079448NCC 25 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417518 727 2012-079449NCC 26 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417519 728 2012-079450NCC 27 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417520 729 2012-079451NCC 28 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417521 730 2012-079452NCC 29 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417522 731 2012-079453NCC 30 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417523 732 2012-079454NCC 31 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417524 733 2012-079455NCC 32 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417525 734 2012-079456NCC 33 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417526 735 2012-079457NCC 34 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417527 736 2012-079458NCC 35 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417528 737 2012-079459NCC 36 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417529 738 2012-079460NCC 37 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417530 739 2012-079461NCC 38 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417531 740 2012-079462NCC 39 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417532 741 2012-079463NCC 40 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417533 742 2012-079464NCC 693 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417534 743 2012-079465NCC 694 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417535 744 2012-079466NCC 695 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417536 745 2012-079467NCC 696 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417537 746 2012-079468NCC 697 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417538 747 2012-079469NCC 698 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417539 748 2012-079470NCC 699 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417540 749 2012-079471NCC 700 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417541 750 2012-079472NCC 701 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417542 751 2012-079473NCC 702 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417543 752 2012-079474NCC 703 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417544 753 2012-079475NCC 704 Unpatented Redhawk Copper, Inc Mining Claim AMC417545 754 2012-079476

COPPER CREEK PROPERTY MINERAL RESOURCE · 2018-12-13 · The mineral resource presented in the June...

Documents

Transcript of COPPER CREEK PROPERTY MINERAL RESOURCE · 2018-12-13 · The mineral resource presented in the June...