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

NEWS RELEASE July 6, 2022

Faraday Copper Announces Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

for the Copper Creek Project in Arizona; Measured and Indicated

Mineral Resources Exceed 3.9 Billion Pounds of Copper

July 6, 2022 – Vancouver, British Columbia – Faraday Copper Corp. (“ Faraday” or the “Company”)

(CSE:FDY) is pleased to announce an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) for the Copper Creek

project, located in Arizona, U.S. (“Copper Creek”). The MRE was prepared by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc.

(“SRK”) in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) Definition

Standards and National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”).

Paul Harbidge, President and CEO, commented “The delivery of the first combined open pit and

underground resource for Copper Creek marks another key milestone in the advancement of the project.

With over 355 million tonnes of Measured and Indicat ed Mineral Resources, the project has the potential

to provide a U.S. domestic supply of copper for de cades, supporting the decar bonization of the global

economy.”

“The geological model, completed earlier this year, provided the foundation to accurately segregate and

estimate the updated resources. The deposit remain s open along strike and at depth. With the recent

completion of the 6,000 metre Phase I drilling program, which was not included in this MRE, there exists

the potential for an increase to the resources as part of the technical work for the upcoming Copper Creek

Preliminary Economic Assessment, expected to be issued in Q2 2023.”

Mineral Resource Estimate Highlights

 Measured Mineral Resources: 65. 1 million tonnes (“Mt”) at a gr ade of 0.61% copper, 0.011%

molybdenum and 1.7 g/t silver containing 872.9 m illion pounds (“Mlbs”) of copper, 15.7 Mlbs of

molybdenum, and 3.5 million ounces (“Moz”) of silver, or 927.3 Mlbs copper equivalent (“CuEq”)1,

including open pit resources of 38.9 Mt at a grade of 0.72% CuEq;

 Indicated Mineral Resources: 290.0 Mt at a grade of 0.47% copper, 0.007% molybdenum and 1.2

g/t silver containing 3,034.2 Mlbs of copper, 47. 2 Mlbs of molybdenum, and 11.0 Moz of silver, or

3,199.0 Mlbs CuEq, including open pit resources of 45.7 Mt at a grade of 0.46% CuEq;

 Inferred Mineral Resources: 75.0 Mt at a gr ade of 0.38% copper, 0.007% molybdenum and 0.8 g/t

silver containing 634.9 Mlbs of copper, 12.0 Mlbs of molybdenum, and 2.0 Moz of silver, or 673.5

Mlbs CuEq, including open pit resources of 29.3 Mt at a grade of 0.36% CuEq;

 For the combined resource, 82.6% of the tonnage is within the Measured and Indicated category;

 Amenable to a combination of open pit and bulk underground extraction methods; and

 This MRE, together with the pending results of t he 2022 Phase I drill program, will form the basis

for the Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) expected by the end of Q2 2023.

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

Page 2

Mineral Resource Estimate

This MRE for Copper Creek is based on data with a cut-off date of April 30, 2022 and excludes the majority

of drill results currently pending from the Phase 1 drill program. This MRE is reported with an effective date

of July 6, 2022, in Table 1.

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

Category Tonnes

(Mt)

Grade Contained Metal

Cu Mo Ag CuEq Cu Mo Ag CuEq

(%) (%) (g/t) (%) (Mlbs) (Mlbs) (Moz) (Mlbs)

Open Pit (OP)

Measured 38.9 0.68 0.010 1.8 0.72 584.2 8.7 2.2 614.6

Indicated 45.7 0.44 0.007 0.9 0.46 446.4 7.2 1.3 467.8

M&I 84.6 0.55 0.009 1.3 0.58 1,030.6 16.0 3.6 1,082.5

Inferred 29.3 0.35 0.004 0.8 0.36 224.6 2.9 0.8 233.0

Underground (UG)

Measured 26.1 0.50 0.012 1.5 0.54 288.7 7.0 1.3 312.7

Indicated 244.4 0.48 0.007 1. 2 0.51 2,587.8 39.9 9.7 2,731.1

M&I 270.5 0.48 0.008 1.3 0.51 2,876.5 46.9 11.0 3,043.8

Inferred 45.6 0.41 0.009 0.9 0.44 410.3 9.2 1.3 440.5

Total (OP + UG)

Measured 65.1 0.61 0.011 1.7 0.65 872.9 15.7 3.5 927.3

Indicated 290.0 0.47 0.007 1. 2 0.50 3,034.2 47.2 11.0 3,199.0

M&I 355.1 0.50 0.008 1.3 0.53 3,907.1 62.9 14.5 4,126.3

Inferred 75.0 0.38 0.007 0.8 0.41 634.9 12.0 2.0 673.5

Notes to Table 1:

 The Mineral Resources in this estimate were calc ulated using the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and

Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines (CIM, 2014) prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions

and adopted by CIM Council.

 All dollar amounts are presented in U.S. dollars.

 Pit shell constrained resources with reasonable prospec ts for eventual economic extraction (“RPEEE”) are stated

as contained within estimation domains above 0.23% CuEq cut-off grade. Pit shells are based on an assumed

copper price of $3.80/lb, assumed moly bdenum price of $13.00/lb, assumed s ilver price of $20. 00/oz and overall

slope angle of 47 degrees based on preliminary geotechnical data. Operating cost assumptions include mining cost

of $2.25/tonne (“t”), processing cost of $7.95/t, General & Administrative (“G&A”) costs of $1.25/t, and Treatment

Charges and Refining Charges (“TCRC”) and Freight costs of $6.50/t.

 Underground constrained resources with RPEEE are stated as contained within estimation domains above 0.31%

CuEq cut-off grade. Underground bulk mining footprin ts are based on an assumed copper price of $3.80/lb,

assumed molybdenum price of $13.00/lb, assumed silver price of $20.00/oz, underground mining cost of $9.25/t,

processing cost of $7.00/t, G&A costs of $1.25/t, and TCRC and Freight costs of $6.50/t.

 Average bulk density assigned by domain: 2.33 g/cm3 for all near-surface breccias; 2.40 g/cm3 for the Mammoth

breccia; 2.56 g/cm3 for the Keel breccia, porphyry mineralization and all other areas outside of breccias.

 Variable metallurgical recovery by metal and domain are considered for CuEq, as follows: copper recovery of 92%,

85% and 60% within sulphide, transitional and oxide material, respectively; molybdenum recovery of 78% and 68%

for sulphide and transitional material, respectively; silv er recovery of 50% and 40% for sulphide and transitional

material, respectively.

 CuEq is calculated by domain based on the above variable recovery. For example, sulphide CuEq = [(Cu grade/100

*0.92 Cu recovery *2204.62 *3.8 Cu price) + (Mo gr ade/100 *0.78 Mo recovery *2204.62 *13 Mo price) + (Ag

grade*0.50 Ag recovery*20 Ag price/31.10348)] / (0.92 Cu recovery *2204.62 *3.8)*100.

 Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty

that all or any part of the Mineral Reso urces will be converted into Mineral Reserves in the future. The estimate of

Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environment al permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical,

marketing or other relevant issues.

 All quantities are rounded to the appropriate number of significant figures; consequently, sums may not add up due

to rounding.

Page 3

The near-surface mineralized breccias were subjected to partial in-situ oxidization that transformed part of

the sulphides into secondary copper oxides. Three domains are recognized within the open pit resource,

referred to as Oxide, Mixed, and Sulphide. The underground resources stated in Table 1 are comprised of

only sulphide mineralization. The Copper Creek ope n pit Mineral Resources are reported by domain in

Table 2.

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

Category Domain Tonnes

(Mt)

Grade Contained Metal

Cu Mo Ag CuEq Cu Mo Ag CuEq

(%) (%) (g/t) (%) (Mlbs) (Mlbs) (Moz) (Mlbs)

Measured

Oxide 2.5 0.51 0.005 1.38 0.51 28.0 0.3 0.1 28.0

Mixed 5.8 0.59 0.005 1.24 0.61 75.1 0.6 0.2 77.3

Sulphide 30.7 0.71 0.012 1. 93 0.75 481.0 7.9 1.9 509.3

Total 38.9 0.68 0.010 1.79 0.72 584.2 8.7 2.2 614.6

Indicated

Oxide 5.7 0.38 0.007 1.17 0.38 48.3 0.9 0.2 48.3

Mixed 8.6 0.46 0.007 1.03 0.48 86.5 1.4 0.3 91.0

Sulphide 31.3 0.45 0.007 0. 84 0.48 311.7 5.0 0.8 328.5

Total 45.7 0.44 0.007 0.91 0.46 446.4 7.2 1.3 467.8

M&I

Oxide 8.2 0.42 0.006 1.23 0.42 76.3 1.1 0.3 76.3

Mixed 14.3 0.51 0.006 1.11 0.53 161.6 2.0 0.5 168.3

Sulphide 62.0 0.58 0.009 1. 38 0.61 792.7 12.8 2.7 837.8

Total 84.6 0.55 0.009 1.32 0.58 1,030.6 16.0 3.6 1,082.5

Inferred

Oxide 5.6 0.29 0.004 0.73 0.29 35.5 0.5 0.1 35.5

Mixed 8.3 0.31 0.005 0.82 0.33 57.1 0.8 0.2 59.9

Sulphide 15.5 0.39 0.004 0. 86 0.40 132.0 1.5 0.4 137.6

Total 29.3 0.35 0.004 0.82 0.36 224.6 2.9 0.8 233.0

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

The RPEEE pit shells and underground shapes used to constrain the respective estimates, as well as grade

distributions, are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

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

CuEq grade

Page 4

Figure 2: RPEEE underground shapes used to constrain the underground MRE, and grade

distribution above 0.2% CuEq grade

Sensitivity Analysis

The results of grade sensitivity analysis are present ed below to illustrate the continuity of the grade

estimates at various cut-off increments and the sensitivity of the potentially minable resource to changes in

cut-off grade. The reader is cautioned that figures in the following tables should not be misconstrued as

Mineral Resource or confused with the Mineral Resource Statement reported above. These figures are only

presented to show the sensitivitity of the block model estimated grades and tonnnages to the selection of

cut-off grade. The sensitivity analysis for Measured and Indicated blocks have been separated from Inferred

blocks for reporting. Combined material type (oxide, mixed, and sulphide) sensitivity results by classification

category for the open pit Mineral Resource are shown in Figure 3 and Table 3.

The grade-tonnage data presented below for open pit s ensitivity reports tonnes and grade of the pit

constrained mineral resource at various cut-off increments.

Page 5

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

Resources

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

equivalency.

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

Open Pit Mineral Resources

Measured and Indicated Inferred

Cut-off Grade

(CuEq %)

Tonnes

(Mt)

CuEq Grade

(CuEq %)

Contained Metal

(CuEq Mlb)

Tonnes

(Mt)

CuEq Grade

(CuEq %)

Contained Metal

(CuEq Mlb)

0.10 153.0 0.39 1, 315.7 60.8 0.25 332.9

0.20 94.1 0.54 1, 127.6 32.9 0.34 249.8

0.23 84.6 0.58 1,082.5 29.3 0.36 233.0

0.30 63.4 0.69 958. 7 14.5 0.46 146.7

0.40 44.3 0.83 813. 3 6.9 0.59 89.7

0.50 32.6 0.97 697. 5 3.4 0.75 55.2

0.60 24.7 1.11 603. 0 2.0 0.89 38.5

The underground resource has been constrained usin g commercial software packages to define the

potential mineable limits (i.e. footprint volumes) applicable to the resource using defined economic

assumptions. Multiple footprint volumes were optimized at different costs to approximate sensitivity of the

resource to changes in CuEq cut-off grade. As bulk underground mining is not selective, all material within

each of the underground block cave footprints are reported. Sensitivity results by classification category for

the underground resource are shown in Table 4.

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

Underground Mineral Resources

Measured and Indicated Inferred

Cut-off Grade

(CuEq %)

Tonnes

(Mt)

CuEq Grade

(CuEq %)

Contained Metal

(CuEq Mlb)

Tonnes

(Mt)

CuEq Grade

(CuEq %)

Contained Metal

(CuEq Mlb)

0.20 737.8 0.37 5,981. 9 618.5 0.28 3,802.2

0.31 270.5 0.51 3,043.8 45.6 0.44 440.5

0.40 148.4 0.61 1, 987.7 3.6 0.50 42.3

0.50 57.0 0.78 976. 4 1.4 0.71 21.0

Page 6

Copper Creek Project Overview

Copper Creek is a 100% owned project located ~120 road kilometres (“km”) northeast of Tucson, Arizona,

and ~24 km northeast of the town of San Manuel, Ariz ona. The current resource area is ~3 km in length

and open in all directions. The property consists of ~41 square km of contiguous patented and unpatented

mining claims and state prospecting permits. The area is in a mining friendly and politically stable jurisdiction

with extensive infrastructure including power, rail, water, roads, and access to skilled personnel.

The property is in the prolific southwest porphyry co pper region at the projected intersection of a major

northwest belt of copper deposits (Ray, Miami/Globe, Superior/Resolution, Johnson Camp) and a major

east-northeast belt of copper deposits (San Manuel/Kalamazoo, Silver Bell, Lakeshore, Safford, Morenci).

The project hosts a porphyry copper deposit in addition to high-grade, near-surface, breccia mineralization.

With over 200,000 m of historical drilling and modest past production, the Company believes significant

exploration upside remains. There are over 400 known breccia occurrences mapped at surface, of which

only 35 have been drilled and 14 are included in the MRE.

Geological Model

The geological model (see news release dated May 12, 2022) was used to constrain the mineralization in

the MRE. The geological model is based on the relogging of approximately 15,000 metres (“m”) of historical

core, observations from new drilling, short wave in frared spectral data and mult i-element geochemistry.

This data was modeled in Seequent Leapfrog Geo™ to generate three-dimensional wireframe models.

Moreover, the Copper Creek geological model and MRE are delineated at surface by newly acquired

detailed one-metre contour topography.

The Copper Creek batholith intruded Paleocoene Glory Hole volcanics and Proterozoic to Paleozoic

sedimentary rocks and is the main mineralization host. Some of the breccias also crosscut the Glory Hole

volcanics. The batholith is compositionally zoned a nd contains a shallowly west dipping monzogranite

domain at depth and a dioritic border phase with the bulk being granodioritic composition. Four main types

of granodiorite to quartz diorite porphyry dykes and plugs have been recognized. These largely intruded as

narrow steeply dipping dikes and plugs before and during mineralization.

The underground resource occurs largely in early halo porphyry style veins and magmatic cupola zones,

while the open pit resource is dominantly hosted in magmatic-hydrothermal breccias. Hypogene copper is

predominantly contained in chalcopyrite and bornite.

Data Verification

The data used in this MRE is supported by indust ry standard Quality Assurance and Quality Control

(“QA/QC”) procedures, such as the insertion of certified standards and blanks into the sample stream and

the utilization of certified independent analytical laboratories for all assays. Historical QA/QC data and

methodology on the project were reviewed and will be summarized in the NI 43-101 technical report. No

significant QA/QC issues were discovered during review of the data.

All geological data used in the MRE was reviewed and verified by Berkley Tracy, PG, CPG, P.Geo, SRK

Principal Consultant. Mr. Tracy visited the Copper Creek project from March 7 to 10, 2022. The site visit

included:

 Review of the geology, available outcrop ex posures, and general geological understanding;

 Review of historical and recent drill core and procedures used to collect, record, store and analyze

project exploration data;

 Independent audit of the drilling, logging and samp ling techniques in practice during Faraday’s

Phase 1 drill campaign; and

 Observation of drill hole location s and an overview of claim/property boundaries in the field.

Page 7

SRK compared a portion of the original laboratory data certificates, geological logs and downhole deviation

surveys to entries in the Faraday database. The database subset was compared line-by-line to the

fundamental data and no material errors were observed during the review. The verification data was chosen

randomly and contained over 11,100 m of drilling in 13 drill holes, which represents approximately 5% of

total drilling. Additional discussion on the data verification will be included in the NI 43-101 technical report

for the MRE.

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology

Sixteen individual breccias were modeled in Leapfrog Geo™ software (version 2021.2.4) by Faraday and

verified as suitable estimation domains by SRK. Fourteen of these breccias contained mineralization above

cut-off grade and were included in the MRE. Samples were analyzed for potential outlier capping by metal

on a global basis and no top cuts were applied. Historical sample collection was in imperial units and

averaged 3.05 m per sample. Raw assay samples were averaged into 6.10 m composites broken on breccia

domain boundaries with residual lengths up to 3.05 m added to the previous interval. Certain historical drill

holes were selectively sampled within the breccias during previous drilling campaigns and any unsampled

intervals were ignored during primary compositing.

The estimation was constrained within discrete breccia domains interpreted by Faraday based on

geological logging and assay grades. Grade estimation was based on parent block dimensions of 20 m in

X-Y-Z and sub-blocked along the domain boundaries to 1 m in X-Y-Z. The sub-blocked resource models

and block grade estimates were created using Leapfrog Edge™ software (version 2021.2.4).

The resource was estimated for copper, molybdenum and silver using inverse distance weighting cubed

and considering hard boundaries at the breccia unit outer contacts. The grade estimation evaluated all

parent blocks with centroids within the estimation domains and sub-blocks are coded based on the parent

block centroid. Estimation outside of the defined breccia units, within the deeper porphyry-style

mineralization and “halo” zones around the near-surface breccias, considered a 5 m soft boundary with the

breccia units. Bulk density was scripted by general domain, based on analysis of specific gravity

measurements collected by Faraday and previous project operators.

A two-pass search was used to optimize block estimati on, so that well-informed blocks are interpolated

using a tighter search ellipse than less informed blocks. The estimation search neighborhood was defined

for individual breccia units based on the copper data population, as the key economic variable. Estimation

parameters for the minor elements we re identical to copper. To assess the impact of missing data,

additional copper variables were estimated using null and nominal assignments for unsampled data in

separate composited data sets. Un-estimated blocks outside of the search neighborhood were scripted with

null values equal to one-half of the lower limit of detection.

The selection criteria used for search ellipsoid si ze, number of samples and other conditions are derived

based on data spacing to ensure appropriate interpolation, as well as visual and statistical evaluation,

during iterative trial estimation runs. Across all brecci as, the estimation is informed by an average of nine

composites from at least two drill holes with averag e sample distance of 49 m, although this varies for

individual estimation domains. Outside of the breccias, the estimation is informed by an average of 11

composites at average sample distance of 134 m.

Limited historical mining has occurred at Copper Cr eek, mainly in the Old Reliable and Childs-Aldwinkle

breccias. Block grades were depleted in the model according to available records of historical mining, which

have inherent limitations.

For Mineral Resource classification a confidence variable was defined as follows:

 Class 1 reflects the highest confidence in grade and potential measured classification. These

blocks were estimated with seven or more comp osites in three or more drill holes. The average

distance to samples is 40 m or less within breccia domains and 60 m outside.

Page 8

 Class 2 reflects potential indicated classification. Bl ocks are estimated with four or more composites

from two or more drill holes. The average distance to samples is 80 m or less within breccia

domains and 100 m outside.

 Class 3 reflects potential inferred classification. Bl ocks are estimated with two or more composites

from at least one drill hole. The average distance to samples is 200 m or less.

Class 4 delineates blocks within the modelled estima tion domains that are not classified as Mineral

Resources. These areas of the model may have exploration potential.

Technical Report

The effective date of the Mineral Resource Estimate is July 6, 2022. A NI 43-101 technical report prepared

by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days of this news release and will be

available at that time on the Faraday website.

For readers to fully understand the information in this news release they should read the technical report

in its entirety when it is available, including all qua lifications, assumptions, exclusions and risks. The

technical report is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of

context.

Qualified Persons

The scientific and technical information contained in this news release pertaining to Copper Creek has been

reviewed and approved by the following qualified persons under NI 43-101:

 Geology and Mineral Resources: Berkley Tracy, PG, CPG, P.Geo, SRK Principal Consultant;

 Geology: Dr. Thomas Bissig, P.Geo., Far aday's Vice President of Exploration; and

 Mining: Zach Allwright, P.Eng., Faraday’s Vice President of Projects and Evaluations.

The qualified persons have verified the information di sclosed herein, including the sampling, preparation,

security and analytical procedures underlying such in formation, and are not aware of any significant risks

and uncertainties that could be expected to affect the reliability or confidence in the information discussed

herein. Also see the discussion under the heading “Data Verification”.

Market Making Services

Faraday has retained PI Financial Corp. (“PI”) to pr ovide Market Making services in accordance with

Canadian Stock Exchange (“CSE”) policies in order to make a two-sided market, contribute to market

liquidity and depth, and maintain activity in the mark et for the Company. PI will trade securities of the

Company on the CSE for the purpose of maintaining an orderly market of Faraday securities.

In consideration of the services pr ovided, Faraday will pay PI a monthly cash fee of C$4,000. PI will not

receive shares or options as compensation. However, PI and its clients may have or may acquire a direct

interest in the securities of Faraday. Faraday and PI are unrelated and unaffiliated entities. PI is a member

of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organiza tion of Canada and can access all Canadian stock

exchanges and alternative trading systems. The capital and securities required for any trade undertaken

by PI as principal will be provided by PI. The agreement will have a minimum term of 3 months, upon

which Faraday may terminate the agreement on 30 days notice.

About Faraday Copper

Faraday Copper is a Canadian exploration company focused on advancing two copper projects in The

United States of America. The Copper Creek project, located in Arizona, is one of the largest undeveloped

copper projects in North America with open pit and bulk underground mining potential. The Contact Copper

project, located in Nevada, provides potential fo r a low-cost open pit, heap leach, oxide project. The