SRK Big Chunk NI43-101 Part B

Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp Big Chunk Project, Alaska
61 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration
10 Exploration (Item 12)

Exploration to date in the Big Chunk project has consisted of geochemical surveys, geophysical surveys, reconnaissance geologic mapping, and drilling in the north central and a few other areas in the Big Chunk South block of claims and in the Big Chunk North block of claims.
10.1 Geophysical Surveys and Investigations

Geophysical surveys completed to date in the Big Chunk project consist of airborne magnetic surveys, Induced Polarization (IP) ground surveys, and airborne ZTEM surveys. 10.1.1 Airborne Magnetic Survey in 2004 An airborne magnetic survey covering a total of 18,168 line kilometers (11,289 line miles) was completed in 2004 by McPHAR Geosurveys Inc. over the Big Chunk project, Alaska, on behalf of Liberty Star Gold Corp (Klein, 2004a, b, c, d, e, f) (Figure 10-1). Lines were flown by a fixedwing aircraft at 250 m (820 ft) line spacing interval in a N92.5E direction with tie lines at 1,000 m interval. The survey used a Drape surface at ~90 m (395 ft) above terrain. The survey covered approximately 1.407 square miles. The survey also covered Northern Dynastys Pebble Cu-AuMo deposit. Several detail lines at 125 m interval were flown over the deposit (Figure 10-2). 10.1.2 U.S. Geological Survey Investigations In 2007, the USGS began collaborative studies with Northern Dynasty Minerals at the Pebble deposit that have included application of geophysical methods (Minsley and others, 2008; Anderson and others, 2009; Bedrosian and others, 2009; Shah and others, 2009) and a variety of geochemical techniques (Fey and others, 2008, 2009). Three geophysical surveys were flown in a northwest-southeast direction at one mile intervals at an elevation of about 300 m above the ground at the Pebble deposit and near the Big Chunk property. The merged image of these three surveys shows northwest-southeast trends that can be associated with large regional breaks (Figure 10-3) (Klein, 2004e). The geochemical surveys of soil, water, stream sediment, vegetation, heavy-mineral concentrate, till, and rock samples from the deposit area included (1) porphyry copper indicator minerals (PCIMs), (2) hydrogeochemistry, and (3) soil geochemistry using a wide variety of sample media and extraction methods. The geochemical data were published in Fey and others (2008, 2009) and preliminary findings were summarized in Eppinger and others (2009), Kelley and others (2009), and Smith and others (2009). 10.1.3 Ground IP in 2004 and 2005 Thirty days of ground geophysics with dipole-dipole and Reconnaissance IP (RIP) was conducted by McPHAR Geosurveys Inc. at the Big Chunk project in August and September of 2004 (Figure 10-4). Approximately 26 miles of dipole-dipole was completed and 30 RIP stations were measured over an area of 13 square miles. A few small areas of IP response were detected with the RIP survey. IP response was measured on all four IP lines at White Sox. These results indicate the presence of disseminated metallic material with consistent readings above 30 msec or mrad (Klein, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f).
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

Big_Chunk_NI43-101_173300-02_jr_20110420_draft 2011_6_24
December 31, 2010
Geophysical surveys over the Big Chunk area in 2005 identified a mineralized area in the White Sox area. Four months of IP surveys fully delineated the IP response at White Sox. Additional IP surveys were completed in areas to the north, east, and south of the 2004 geochemical survey (Figure 10-5). Ground IP at Big Chunk by Zonge Engineering (Zonge and others, 2005) acquired IP/resistivity data in frequency domain, on 27 lines using a dipole-dipole array with a dipole length of 150 meters. The survey comprised approximately 170 line-kilometers (106 line-miles) of coverage. Instrumentation consisted of a two Zonge model GDP-32II multiple purpose receivers. This instrument is a backpack-portable, 16 bit, microprocessor-controlled receiver that can gather data on as many as six channels simultaneously. The electric-field signal was measured at the receiver site using non-polarizing ceramic porous-pot electrodes connected to the receiver with insulated 14-gauge wire. The transmitter was a Zonge GGT-10 transmitter. The GGT-10 is a constantcurrent 10 kW transmitter, which was controlled by an XMT-32 transmitter controller. Power for the transmitter was provided by a Zonge ZMG-9 generator equipped with a Zonge VR-1 voltage regulator. Transmitter-receiver synchronization was maintained with identical crystal oscillators, synchronized each morning before data acquisition. Line locations were established by Liberty Star and Zonge Engineering personnel using handheld GPS systems. All locations are recorded in the delivery digital data set. Survey coordinates are given in UTM Zone 5, WGS-84, meters. Electrical resistivity and induced polarization data were collected on the Big Chunk project from June 4 to September 25, 2005. All data were collected using 150 m dipoles in a dipole-dipole configuration. The dipole-dipole array was chosen partly for logistical reasons. Two separate receiver systems were used to increase the field productivity during the limited Alaskan field season. Using dipole-dipole arrays allowed data collection on both sides of the transmitter dipole, which would be problematic using a pole-dipole array. Routine data processing consisted of the following steps: The raw instrument dumps were reviewed to evaluate the data quality. Data noted as spurious by the operator or individual measurements, which are obvious outliers with respect to multiple repeat measurements, were flagged and removed from further processing. Raw data files (.raw) were processed via the SHRED program to produce an intermediate (.fld) file. The output (.fld) file had a single record containing all data for each individual stack or data block taken for each data channel. The individual measurements were averaged for each data point in the TDAVG and CRAVG programs and output in a column-based ASCII file (.avg) with a single averaged value for chargeability and resistivity for each data point. Black-and-white pseudosections were generated at this step, and checked for reciprocity. The .AVG files then were input into S2DIP, for twodimensional smooth-model inversions of the IP and Resistivity data. Output from S2DIP of modeled and observed data were input into S2DPLT for generation of color sections in GEOSOFT Montaj map file formats. The averaged data were converted to a GEOSOFT format .DAT file format and Geosoft databases created. The data was inverted for a smooth two-dimensional resistivity and induced polarization structure using the program TS2DIP developed by Zonge Engineering (MacInnes and Zonge, 1996). The two-dimensional, smooth-model inversions produced a cross-section that more closely represents an image of the electrical properties of the subsurface than does the pseudosection plots of the data. The program included the effect of two-dimensional topography. The forward calculations were based on the finite element method. The R2DIP program is an extension to programs described by Tripp, Hohmann and Swift (1984), Wannamaker and others
December 31, 2010
(1987), and Wannamaker (1992). The program was extended to allow distortion of the finite element mesh to the topographic surface, inversion with smoothness constraints and to accommodate long model sections. Initial models can also be constrained by geologic information, if available. The data was presented as color pseudosections of observed chargeability, 3-pt decoupled phase, and apparent resistivity plotted with the results of the two-dimensional inversions at a scale of 1:15,000. IP and resistivity inversion results and data are shown in separate plots. For each plot, the bottom pseudosection shows the observed data, and the top section shows the smooth-model inversion results. Line and electrode locations are presented in plan view at a scale of 1:100,000. No health or safety incidents or accidents occurred during the course of this survey. No environmental damage was sustained as a direct result of the survey progress (Zonge and others, 2005). 10.1.4 Z-axis Tipper Electromagnetic (ZTEM) Survey in 2009 AFMAG, a new type of electromagnetic, aeromagnetic geophysical survey system became available in 2009. This method is a passive electromagnetic method that uses natural electromagnetic sources and measurement of dip angle to contrast with areas surrounding a good conductor, such as a massive sulfide body (Robinson, 1988). This method allows mapping of geology using resistivity contrasts, in combination with magnetometer data. Liberty Star hired Geotech Ltd. to perform one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) Z-axis Tipper Electromagnetic (ZTEM) geophysical surveys over the Big Chunk project mineral claims. This section is summarized from their report (Geotech, 2010). The surveys covered 315.2 square kilometers (121.7 sq. miles) and consisted of north-south lines spaced 250 meters apart (820 feet) (Figure 10-6). One line had 2-D inversion performed on it and 1,256 line kilometers (780 line miles) had 1-D inversion performed on them. The ZTEM geophysical surveys consisted of helicopter-borne AFMAG Z-axis Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM) system and aeromagnetics using a cesium magnetometer (Figure 10-7). A total of 1,256 line kilometers of geophysical data were acquired during the survey (Geotech, 2010). In a ZTEM survey, a single verticaldipole air-core receiver coil is flown over the survey area in a grid pattern or linear profile, similar to regional airborne EM surveys. Two orthogonal, air-core horizontal axis coils are placed close to the survey site to measure the horizontal EM reference fields. Data from the three coils are used to obtain the Z/X and Z/Y Tipper (Vozoff, 1972) components at six frequencies in the 30 to 360 Hz band. The ZTEM was used to map geology using resistivity contrasts and magnetometer data were also collected to help map geology using magnetic susceptibility contrasts (Geotech, 2010). The survey was flown using a Eurocopter Aerospatiale (Astar) 350 B2 helicopter. The airborne ZTEM receiver coil measures the vertical component (Z) of the EM field. The receiver coil is a Geotech Z-Axis Tipper (ZTEM) loop sensor which is isolated from most vibrations by a patented suspension system and is encased in a fiberglass shell. It is towed from the helicopter using a 90 meter long cable (Figure 10-7). The cable is also used to transmit the measured EM signals back to the data acquisition system. The two Geotech ZTEM base station receiver coils measure the orthogonal, horizontal X and Y components of the EM reference field. They are set up perpendicular to each other and roughly oriented according to the flight line direction. The ZTEM base station receiver coil measures the total field component of the EM field using 3 mutually perpendicular dipole coil sensors. The
December 31, 2010
receiver coils are a Geotech Tri-Axis loop sensor, which is isolated from most vibrations by a patented suspension system and is encased in a fiberglass shell. The coil has three mutually perpendicular loops each having a 3.5 meter diameter. During the survey the base station receiver coils were installed south of the survey block in an isolated area (59 59' 38.93" N, 155 36' 18.78" W). The coils were oriented perpendicular to each other; coil A was oriented at an N 185 E direction, with coil B oriented at a N 275 E direction. The magnetic sensor utilized for the survey was a Geometrics split-beam optically pumped cesium vapor magnetic field sensor, mounted in a separate bird, and towed on a cable at a mean distance of 57 meters below the helicopter (Figure 10-7). The magnetometer sends the measured magnetic field strength as nanoTesla (nT) to the data acquisition system via the RS-232 port. A Terra TRA 3000/TRI 40 radar altimeter was used to record terrain clearance. The antenna was mounted beneath the bubble of the helicopter cockpit. The navigation system used was a Geotech PC104 based navigation system utilizing a NovAtel CDGPS (Canada-Wide Differential Global Positioning System Correction Service) enabled Propak V3-RT20 global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. Geotechs Navigate software, using a full screen display with controls in front of the pilot, allows him to direct the flight. As many as 14 GPS and two CDGPS satellites may be monitored at any one time. The horizontal positional accuracy or circular error probability (CEP) is 1.8 m; with CDGPS active, it is 0.6 m. The power supply and the data acquisition system are mounted on an equipment rack which is installed into the helicopter. Signal and power wires are run through the helicopter to connect on to the tow cable outside. The tow cable supports the ZTEM and magnetometer birds during flight via a safety shear pin connected to the helicopter hook, with a quick disconnect safety feature. A Geotech data acquisition system recorded the digital survey data on an internal compact flash card. A combined magnetometer/GPS base station was utilized on this project. A Geometrics Cesium split-beam vapor magnetometer was used as a magnetic sensor with a sensitivity of 0.001 nT. The base station was recording the magnetic field together with the GPS time at 1 Hz on a base station computer. The base station magnetometer sensor was installed175 feet behind the Red Quill Lodge (59 45.4595' N, 154 49.5234' W), away from electric transmission lines and moving ferrous objects such as motor vehicles. The base station data were backed-up to the data processing computer at the end of each survey day. In-field data processing and quality control were done on a flight by flight basis by a qualified data processor. Processing steps and check up procedures are designed to assure the best possible final quality of ZTEM survey data. 10.1.5 Two-dimension Inversions of ZTEM Results Two-dimension inversions of the ZTEM results were performed over selected lines using the Geotech Zvert2d software developed by Phil Wannamaker, U. of Utah, for Geotech Ltd. The aeromagnetic data was corrected for diurnal variations. It models the In-line (Z/X) Tipper response (in-phase and quadrature) from 30-360Hz. The corrected magnetic data was interpolated between survey lines using a random point gridding method to yield x-y grid values for a standard grid cell size of 25 meters. The Minimum Curvature algorithm was used to interpolate values onto a rectangular regular spaced grid. 2D inversion modeling converts the airborne ZTEM tipper data to equivalent resistivity-depth sections, extending from surface to 2km depths. Every second line was inverted, for a total of 60 lines (Figure 10-8).

December 31, 2010
10.2 Interpretation of Geophysical Investigations

10.2.1 Interpretation of IP Surveys The geophysical characteristics or signature of the Pebble deposit was used to interpret and select targets from the magnetic data set (Figure 10-1) on the Big Chunk property. The targets consist of Cu-Au-Mo porphyry and Cu-Au skarn deposits. The 2010 magnetic data set, Induced Polarization (IP) results published by Northern Dynasty, and digital geologic maps were used in this target selection process (Liberty Star file data). The biotite-pyroxenite body centered approximately 5 km south-southwest of the Pebble deposit (A on Figure 10-19) shows a strong magnetic high of ~10,000 nT, resulting from its high magnetite content of up to 20%. The mapped outline of this intrusive body correlates well with that of the magnetic high. The dacite intrusive centered approximately 8 km west-southwest of the Pebble deposit (B) shows a relative magnetic low. The Kaskanak granodiorite is a large mass of medium to coarse-grained granodiorite (C) that generally shows elevated, but varying, magnetic values (Klein, 2004a). The magnetic values and their character to the northwest of the deposit (D) show strong similarities to the large area along the common boundary between Big Chunk and Northern Dynasty (E) (357,500E 6,330,000N). This large magnetic anomaly (+1000 nT contour) hosts Northern Dynastys 52 Porphyry and 37 Cu-Au skarn zones. Limited available geology suggests there is a mafic border phase granodiorite (at 358,000E 6, 632,500N) and sediments/hornfels in the southeast (362,000E 6,630,000N). Mafic volcanic rocks (andesites, basalt etc.) show moderate magnetic values (above the 0-contour), but also show lower values, so these rocks do not show a specific signature (Klein, 2004a). The Pebble deposit occurs along the slope of higher magnetic values to the northwest, which are most likely a result of the presence of hornfels and gabbro. The Induced Polarization (IP) anomaly outlined by Northern Dynasty is open to the south; it straddles an area of the higher (in the west) and somewhat lower magnetic values (in the east). The western side of the IP high correlates more or less with the east edge of the Kaskanak batholith (granodiorite-quartz monzonite) (C). The IP anomaly covers the biotite-pyroxenite intrusive (A), but its highest values (possibly related to the highest percentage of pyrite) are to its north and south. The Pebble Cu-Au-Mo deposit correlates with moderate high IP values along the edge of higher values. It is typical that a Cu-porphyry deposit is not associated with the highest IP values (representing normally propylitic or strong-pyrite alteration), but instead is associated with more intermediate IP values (Klein, 2004a). Northern Dynasty refers to the high IP zone (> 20 mrad contour) as the Multi Phase Intrusive Corridor. The IP data suggests strongly that it reflects a late stage pervasive overprint. Northern Dynasty shows in its report (Rebagliati and others, 2003) that there is ground magnetic data near the 37 Cu-Au skarn. The N-S lines are 50 m apart and a walking magnetometer was used. The results generally compare very well with those of the airborne data, but show many local shortwave anomalies, which is typical for skarn emplacements of pyrite and more economic Cuminerals as part of the various alteration sequences. The strongest IP values to the north of the deposit correlate with higher magnetic values. It is most likely that these higher magnetic values reflect primary magnetite, because this magnetic character continues west of the IP high. The same is assumed for the magnetite in the biotite-pyroxenite intrusive. The IP values in the south

December 31, 2010
are not as high as those in the north, suggesting that there is less pyrite there. The IP anomaly also appears wider and more regular suggesting less variation in alterations (Klein, 2004a). The biotite-pyroxenite and dacite intrusive rocks near the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo deposit show specific magnetic signatures, although other rock types do not. The Pebble deposit occurs on the flank of a magnetically active, moderately high area. It is on the east side of the magnetic high, possibly bounded by a north-south fault that is also visible in the IP data, which suggests that it is a post-mineralizing fault (Klein, 2004a). The Pebble Cu-Au-Mo deposit does not show a distinguishable magnetic signature or IP anomaly. The IP anomaly mapped by Northern Dynasty is 20 km long and open to the south. The location of the deposit within this anomaly is not unique. The IP/Res technique has proven to be the proper tool to detect and outline porphyry deposits worldwide. The response of a deposit is normally part of a much larger IP anomaly caused by the whole system of the various mineralizing events. That Pebble does not show a specific defined response should be no reason not to use that technique on the Big Chunk property (Klein, 2004a). 10.2.2 Interpretation of Airborne Magnetic Results The airborne magnetic data over the Big Chunk property shows that magnetic highs swing more or less from northeast to southwest through the area (Figure 10-1). Upwarding the data from different levels strengthen the idea of a wide band of more mafic rocks (intrusive and extrusive) trending approximately N30E through the area. The trend is compatible with the structural trend in the area. Several faults can be interpreted with considerable offsets (Klein, 2004b). The airborne magnetic data collected over the Big Chunk property and surrounding areas (approximately 3,650 sq km) show numerous faults crossing the area and a variety of rock types (Klein, 2004d). Most of the Big Chunk property is covered by areas of low topographic relief, so variations in aircraft elevation were therefore not severe and indicate that the derivative images accurately reflect the geology. The various derivatives show numerous northwest-southeast oriented faults and or structures, especially in the northern part of the area where strong gradients are present (Figure 10-20). Three pronounced magnetic lows have an arcuate trend in an eastwest direction through the property. The northern one (marked B) separates strong magnetic east-west oriented rocks to the south from less magnetic rocks in the north. The overall impression is that this is a fault, not an intrusive contact. The second one (C) is further to the south and does not separate rocks of a different composition, but is bounded on the east (C1) and west (C2) by defined negative anomalies. The western one (C2) may be caused by basalt. A dike may therefore cause the more linear low at C. The negative character of C, C1 and part of C2 may indicate a reversed polarity during their time of cooling. The third zone is less consistent, but may also relate to basalts (located at ~6,645,000N). The three magnetic anomalies are tentatively interpreted as a mafic border phase of the granodiorite along the border with Pebble in the south. It is most likely that a porphyry system caused destruction of primary magnetite. Thus, the best potential is in areas of lower and possibly smoother magnetic values (Figure 10-20) (Klein, 2004c, 2004d). The three geophysical surveys by the USGS show northwest-southeast trends that can be associated with large regional breaks (Figure 10-3). A 15 km-wide block shows approximately 20 km of movement in a northwest direction (Klein, 2004e).

December 31, 2010
Airborne magnetic data of the Target II area (Figure 10-5) was interpreted at a 1:20,000 scale. Target II is surrounded by various intrusive and extrusive rock types and may be the remnant of a small caldera with parts removed through faulting (Klein, 2004e). Various faults and six different rock types are interpreted based on magnetic amplitudes and shapes of anomalies (Figure 10-21). In an area of 13 square miles in the north central part of the Big Chunk South claims (White Sox area), a few small areas of IP response were detected with the RIP survey. These results indicated the presence of disseminated metallic material with consistent readings above 30 msec or mrad. 10.2.3 Interpretation of ZTEM Results Geotechs report on the ZTEM geophysical survey indicates there are at least 6 to 7 signatures that are consistent with porphyry copper responses. Resistivity features were detected in the Big Chunk South Block that are similar to typical potassic-alteration cores and pyritic-propylitic halos over known porphyry systems. Geotech Ltd. reported that there are three and perhaps four porphyry-like geophysical targets that correspond to geochemical targets. Based on the geophysical results obtained, a number of interesting structures were identified across the property. The magnetic results may also contain worthwhile information in support of exploration targets of interest. Geotech recommended a detailed interpretation of the available geophysical data, in conjunction with the geology, based on structure and possibly using inversion and modeling techniques prior to ground follow up and drill testing. The 2D analysis of one ZTEM inversion line crossed a circular (electromagnetic) EM feature consistent with a typical porphyry copper system defined in original testing of the ZTEM system in southeast Arizona. This 2D model slows a typical low responsive area, which could correspond to an ore mineral core zone with a surrounding responsive cylinder representing a pyrite halo typical of porphyry systems. Resistivity features were defined that resemble typical potassic-altered core and pyritic-propylitic halos over known porphyry systems, extending to great depth (>1 km or 3,000 feet). These anomalies are in the size range of the footprint of the nearby Pebble deposit. 10.2.4 Two-dimension Inversions of ZTEM Results Porphyry copper signatures are highly variable but tend to be associated with either a) pronounced resistivity highs, associated with K-rich altered core, surrounded by resistivity lows associated with pyrite-propylitic alteration, or b) basinal shaped resistivity lows, associated with strong pyrite-propylitic alteration systems (i.e., Pebble deposit). Intrusive bodies and porphyries tend to be recognized by their circular to elliptical shapes that can be recognized in ZTEM plan maps (Total Divergence DT) then correlated with ground geochemistry and then further characterized using ZTEM 2d resistivity inversion. Ground geochemical anomalies in Big Chunk Block were compared against ZTEM airborne tipper AFMAG survey results (Geotech Ltd, 2010). At least 6-7 areas with anomalous circular to elliptical resistivity and magnetic signatures have been identified that are consistent with Porphyry Copper responses (Figure 10-22). Comparison against ZTEM 2D resistivity inversion results have defined resistivity features that resemble typical potassic-altered core and pyriticpropylitic halos over known porphyry systems, extending to great depth (>1km). There are seven areas of interest (Figure 10-23) identified by the 2D ZTEM survey (Figure 10-24 through Figure
December 31, 2010
10-29). Further ground follow-up and geologic mapping are recommended, including IP/Resistivity methods, to better characterize and validate these airborne results. 3D ZTEM & Magnetic inversions are also recommended (Legault, 2010). A comparison of the ZTEM results at Pebble (Pare and Legault, 2010) (Figure 10-30) with the ZTEM results at Big Chunk are very favorable. The 30Hz DT image indicates more resistive rocks in the center that correlate with the mineralized potassic-altered core; and the lower resistivities outside the deposit coincide with the surrounding clay-altered pyrite halo. Both Pebble West and East are well detected in the ZTEM results (Pare and Legault, 2010).
10.3
Geochemical Surveys
Liberty Star collected and had ACME Laboratories (ACME) analyze 11,641 geochemical samples during the field seasons of 2004 (Table 6-1) and 2005 (Table 6-2). Locally, 2,420 additional samples were analyzed in the field for a few elements. Liberty Star had ALS-Chemex analyze 92 drill core samples. Samples were shipped to Shea Clark Smiths laboratory near Reno, Nevada for grinding, splitting, and packaging. These samples were then shipped by air to Vancouver, Canada. These samples were analyzed by ACME, which is a Certified Assay Laboratory with complete Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) methods, duplicate and reference samples for 64 elements for each sample for a total of 704,000 trace metal assays. These data were processed by Liberty Star personnel and were digitally referenced to maps. Field work in 2004 consisted of surface sampling of rocks (Figure 10-9), soil (Figure 10-10), stream sediment (Figure 10-11), and vegetation (Figure 10-12) (Table 6-1). Water samples were collected and analyzed for fluorine in a field lab for rapid response to fluorine anomalies. Regional multi-element anomalies were highlighted based on percentile evaluation of many of the elements. Dot plots by percentiles were made for each of six interesting elements and then polygons were hand drawn for each anomaly/target area. The process began with the commodity metals of Au (Figure 10-13), Cu (Figure 10-14), and Mo (Figure 10-15). Later, As (Figure 10-16), mercury (Figure 10-17), and uranium (Figure 10-18) were reviewed and existing polygons were expanded (Smith and Schaefer, 2004). The laboratory sample preparation, lab procedures, and lab equipment were reviewed by Shea Clark Smith and found to be of good quality (Smith and Schaefer, 2004). Characteristics noted in the field during sampling included species of plant, sample type (twigs), trunk diameter, plant height, nearest geologic unit, soil moisture, terrain, number of plants sampled, and aspect of sample site. Further analysis of these data revealed that species of plants, plant size, and soil moisture were found to be possible influences on vegetation results. Box plots by species showed that species controls element values in the vegetation sampling program. Species appears to be a significant enough of a control on element values to warrant normalization of all the results by species. A mean and standard deviation was calculated for each element by species and then the following Z score formula was applied to all the results [Z=(value - mean)/SD]. These Z score values were used in all the anomaly/target analysis work. Thus, the geochemical results were normalized by species (Smith and Schaefer, 2004).

December 31, 2010
10.4 Interpretation of Geochemical Surveys

Liberty Stars geochemical data were processed and digitally referenced to maps, so that Liberty Star and its consultants could identify porphyry targets by their trace metal fingerprints. These data identified twelve geochemical targets that showed characteristics of porphyry Au-Cu-Mo deposits (Smith and Schaefer, 2004). Based on the dot plots by percentiles for Au, Cu, and Mo, and As, Hg, and U, several multi element targets of interest were identified on the property (Figure 10-31 and Figure 10-32) (Smith and Schaefer, 2004). Pebble and six other areas were identified from the biogeochemical data as regional target areas. These areas were preliminarily named: Pebble, Northwest, North, Northeast, Central, West, and Southwest. The three northern-most areas (Northwest, North, and Northeast) were sampled to chemically characterize the observed airborne magnetic anomalies. The biogeochemistry results revealed that the magnetic anomalies are predominantly due to Mo, Mo-Cu, and Cu-Mo-Au mineralization, respectively. Northwest (Figure 10-33) is dominated by biogeochemical concentrations of Mo, which is likely to have been widely dispersed from its primary source. Copper is anomalous at Northwest in higher-relief terrain and exhibits far less dispersion. Antimony occupies the highest ground and lies outbound of both the Cu and Mo anomalies. Isolated zones of Ag and Zn relate to areas of Mo-enrichment. Limited sample density provides only a sketch of the full potential of this area. Mo and Cu anomalies at North (Figure 10-34), like those at Northwest, are spatially related, but are not co-spatial. Dispersion of Mo does not seem to be as prevalent as at Northwest, which might be due to higher elevation topography and less boggy conditions at North. Arsenic and ZnHg anomalies are found south of the Mo core and might be the result of primary or secondary alteration. Limited sample density provides only a sketch of the full potential of this area. Zonation at Northeast (Figure 10-35) indicates a significant likelihood of ore-grade mineralization. A Cu-Au core is co-spatial with Zn, Hg, As, and Sb. Dispersion is minimal in this high-relief terrain. Another Cu core is co-spatial with As and Hg. The more frequent and widely distributed occurrence of Hg and As suggests deep mineralization might occur. Limited sample density provides only a sketch of the full potential of this area. West (Figure 10-36) offers the greatest potential for Au discovery. A very large area is cospatially dominated by Au; this area lies slightly outbound of a more central Sb anomaly. The area is dominated by impressively large to less extensive Au anomalies that might suggest the entire West block is mineralized or that this low-lying, poorly drained topography has enhanced metal dispersion. A few discrete mineralized structures in this area may be the primary source. Gold and antimony anomalies dominate the north half of the West block. General orientation of these features is north-northeast. This orientation is corroborated by the linear trend of Cu-Zn concentrations that occur east of the Au-Sb zone. Silver, As, Pb, mercury, and uranium lie further outbound. The central part of the West block contains Mo-Cu-Zn concentrations that might define an intrusive (porphyry) center. Several elements are co-spatial and zonation is more complicated. This seems to be the zone of intersection between north-northeast structures that predominate in the north block, and south-southeast structures that predominate in the south block. Anomalous Cu-Zn concentrations occupy more discrete and linearly distributed areas east of the Au-Sb zone. Silver, As, Pb, mercury, and uranium lie yet further outbound. Mo-Cu-Zn concentrations increase east and south of the dominant Au-Sb anomaly. Further south, a very

December 31, 2010
large area of As-enrichment is associated with Au, and south of that area is an area of Cu-Zn-Mo enrichment, with more discrete zones of Cu-Au and Cu-Au-As concentration. Large areas of anomalous Mo and more limited areas of anomalous Cu dominate the Central (Figure 10-37) area. A large area of As-enrichment and another area of Sb-enrichment were also identified. The As and Sb zones could be outer alteration halos of the more centrally located CuMo zones. Gold is spatially associated with some of the As zones. Anomalies were also detected in the Southwest area (Figure 10-38). Anomalies are broad and diffuse in part because the topography is low-relief and poorly drained and has contributed to metal mobility. Despite extreme aqueous dispersion that undoubtedly prevails at West, there is a suggestion that structures, as revealed in the biogeochemical data, strike due north to north-northeast in the north part of the block, and due south to south-southeast in the south part of the block. Structural intersections of these two sets might offer the best locations for ore. Detailed, line-by-line inspection of biogeochemical patterns will be necessary to clearly and accurately define these structural and zonational trends. West offers the greatest potential for Au discovery. Central is a magnetic anomaly that lies within the Big Chunk claim block, which made it an early candidate for drilling at White Sox. The magnetic anomaly is due to Cu and Mo mineralization. Outbound of many of these Cu-Mo cores lie associated halos of Au, As, Sb, Hg, Zn, and more concise zones of Ag and Pb concentrations. Gold anomalies are spatially associated with some of the As zones (Smith and Schaefer, 2004). Correlating the anomalous areas based on the ZTEM anomalies with the anomalous geochemical areas resulted in eight numbered areas that warrant further exploration, in addition to the interpreted pyrite halo at the Big Chunk North area (Figure 10-39).

December 31, 2010
Source: Klein, 2004b
Figure 10-1 Airborne magnetic map of the Big Chunk project

December 31, 2010
PEBBLE WEST
PEBBLE EAST
Big Chunk project
3275 West Ina Road, Suite 240 Tucson, Arizona 85741 520-544-3688 SRK JOB NO.: 173300.02 FILE NAME: 10-2 Airborne magnetic contours near the Pepple deposit
Airborne magnetic contours near the Pebble deposit

Big Chunk, southwestern Alaska
DATE: APPROVED: FIGURE: REVISION NO.
Internal Control No. 8
June 2011
JR
10-2
Source: Klein, 2004d
Figure 10-3
Big Chunk airborne magnetic data superimposed on U.S. Geological Survey surveys

December 31, 2010
Big Chunk project
3275 West Ina Road, Suite 240 Tucson, Arizona 85741 520-544-3688 SRK JOB NO.: 173300.02 FILE NAME: 10-4 Big Chunk IP geophysical lines
Big Chunk IP geophysical lines on the airborne magnetic base map showing drill hole locations
Big Chunk, southwestern Alaska
DATE: APPROVED: FIGURE: REVISION NO.
Internal Control No. 8
June 2011
JR
10-4
Source: Klein, 2004e
Figure 10-5 Airborne magnetic data for Big Chunk geophysical Target II area

December 31, 2010
Source: Liberty Star data files, superimposed on a Google Earth image
Figure 10-6
ZTEM flight paths over Big Chunk project area on Google Earth image

December 31, 2010
Source: Geotech, 2010
Figure 10-7
Helicopter-borne ZTEM configuration at Big Chunk project

December 31, 2010
Source: Geotech, 2010 (Claim boundaries are as of May 2010)
Figure 10-8
Total magnetic intensity grid from ZTEM survey at the Big Chunk project

December 31, 2010
Source: Smith and Schaeffer, 2004
Figure 10-13 Au percentiles in Big Chunk claim area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-14 Cu percentiles dot plot in Big Chunk claim area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-15 Mo percentiles dot plot in Big Chunk claim area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-16 As percentiles dot plot in Big Chunk claim area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-17 Mercury percentiles dot plot in Big Chunk claim area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-18 Uranium percentiles dot plot in Big Chunk claim area

December 31, 2010
Source: Klein, June 2004d (Claim boundaries are as of May 2010)
Figure 10-20 Interpretation of airborne magnetic map of the Big Chunk project including digital terrain and target areas

December 31, 2010
Source: Klein, June 2004e (Claim boundaries are as of May 2010)
Figure 10-21 Interpretation of airborne magnetic data for Big Chunk geophysical Target II area

December 31, 2010
Source: Geotech Ltd., April 2010 (Claim boundaries are as of May 2010)
Figure 10-22 Interpretation of magnetic highs and lows and resistivity highs and lows

December 31, 2010
Source: Geotech Ltd., April 2010
Figure 10-23 3D view of ZTEM 2D resistivity inversion and anomalous areas of interest

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-24 Interpretation of ZTEM magnetic data for Area 1 in Big Chunk area

December 31, 2010

December 31, 2010

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-27 Interpretation of ZTEM magnetic data for Area 4 & 5 in Big Chunk area

December 31, 2010

December 31, 2010

December 31, 2010
Source: Pare and Legault, 2010
Figure 10-30 ZTEM total divergence of in-phase tipper at 30Hz at Pebble

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-31 Regional multi-element geochemical anomalies by priority

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-32 Regional multi-element anomalies in named areas by priority

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-33 Element anomalies in the Northwest anomaly area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-34 Element anomalies in the North anomaly area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-35 Element anomalies in the Northeast anomaly area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-36 Element anomalies in the West anomaly area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-37 Element anomalies in the Central anomaly area

December 31, 2010
Figure 10-38 Element anomalies in the Southwest anomaly area

December 31, 2010
11 Drilling (Item 13)

Based on IP geophysical surveys, four drillholes were completed by Quest Drilling of Aldergrove, British Columbia, Canada in the White Sox area in the north central part of the Big Chunk South property position in 2004. Additional exploration holes were drilled by Connors Drilling of Montrose, Colorado, in the Big Chunk project in the North and South block of claims in 2005. These consisted of diamond drillholes with total depths from 34 to 218 m (715 ft) (Appendix C).
11.1 Type and Extent of Drilling

Thirty-one diamond drillholes were drilled, many with anomalous results. In 2004, four diamond drillholes, totaling 1,329 feet, were completed in the White Sox area. These drillholes included DDH BC1001, DDH BC1002, DDH BC1003, and DDH BC1004. In 2005, an additional six drillholes were drilled in the north central portion of the Big Chunk South block of claims in Alaska in 2005. These drillholes consisted of DDH BC1006, DDH BC1007, DDH BC1016, DDH BC1017, DDH BC1030, and DDH BC1031. Also in 2005, three additional diamond drillholes were drilled in other parts of the Big Chunk South claim block. These included DDH BC1018 in the northwest part, DDH BC1020 in the western part, and DDH BC1021 in the southern portion of the South claim block. An additional twelve drillholes were drilled in the Big Chunk North block of claims in Alaska in 2005. These drillholes consisted of DDH BC1009, DDH BC1010, DDH BC1011, DDH BC1012, DDH BC1013, DDH BC1014, DDH BC1015, DDH BC1023, DDH BC1026, DDH BC1027, DDH BC1028, and DDH BC1020.
11.2 Results of Drilling

In the 2004 drilling in the White Sox area, visible Cu mineralization was noted in two drillholes and visible molybdenite was noted in several places in one hole. Low grade Au was also noted with the other mineral intercepts. This mineralization and the associated alteration may indicate a porphyry Cu-Mo system. Drill logs and results of the drilling are discussed in Section 9.

December 31, 2010
Table 11-1
DDH #
Drillhole locations at the Big Chunk project

Northing (m) 6658179 6657205 6657215 6656378 6657419 6657201.249 6657205.912 6658997.118 6676838.179 6676813.503 6681028.092 6676783.596 6676346.956 6677250.469 6676798.677 6656021.148 6655967.483 6653998.928 6646001.384 6638053.603 6680036.692 6676816.212 6680990.745 6675967.329 6679316.926 6660013.998 6659983.641 Easting (m) 365275 365574 365828 365102 366339 366701.574 364196.311 364200.287 350942.538 346474.664 352642.183 350353.306 350914.608 350992.886 351297.748 361767.065 361244.369 348503.905 347803.3 350414.439 346501.675 349343.57 352042.45 350813.89 348264.52 364167.91 365492.71 Total Depth (m) 90.47 34.44 206.35 73.76 196.29 115.37 149.96 104.24 133.2 166.42 218.24 187.91 172.52 155.45 254.2 167.94 90.22 116.43 178.61 81.08 142.04 184.71 109.42 57.61 74.98 81.99 90.22 Date 10/23/2004 10/24/2004 10/26/2004 10/29/2004 6/16/2005 6/23/2005 7/3/2005 7/4/2005 7/8/2005 7/12/2005 7/16/2005 7/22/2005 7/25/2005 7/27/2005 7/30/2005 8/3/2005 8/6/2005 8/8/2005 8/13/2005 8/18/2005 8/21/2005 8/31/2005 9/3/2005 9/6/2005 9/9/2005 9/12/2005 9/14/2005
DDH BC1001 DDH BC1002 DDH BC1003 DDH BC1004 DDH BC1005 DDH BC1006 DDH BC1007 DDH BC1008 DDH BC1009 DDH BC1010 DDH BC1011 DDH BC1012 DDH BC1013 DDH BC1014 DDH BC1015 DDH BC1016 DDH BC1017 DDH BC1018 DDH BC1020 DDH BC1021 DDH BC1023 DDH BC1026 DDH BC1027 DDH BC1028 DDH BC1029 DDH BC1030 DDH BC1031 UTMZ5N-WGS84
Source: Liberty Star file data

December 31, 2010
Table 11-2
Summary of results of diamond drillhole logs, Big Chunk project

Geology Notes Alteration mostly fracture controlled propylitic; weak silica veining to weak stockwork quartz weak hornfels, cut by silica stockwork veins; silicified breccia in basal mudstone Assays Cu >100, most 200400ppm; Zn, Pb, Ag low, Mo -some 1020ppm Cu low <50ppm; Zn high 100-200ppm; Pb low; Ag 0.5ppm
BC Area HoleID North
BC1009 diorite 21-37m; feldspar porphyry 37 to total depth (td) of 133m BC1010 mudstone 14-120m, 147-td 166m; dacite intrusive at 69-70, 73-76 & 106-109m; feldspar porphyry 101110m & 137-141m; diorite 110-138m &147m BC1011 light to dark gray mudstone 48-td 218m; BC1012 grey, medium grained, equigranular diorite 14-td 188m; porphyritic diorite; fractured
North
North North
weak hornfels silicified- quartz veining, fracture controlled propylitic along fractures & disseminated
Cu low <100ppm; Ag 10-30ppm Cu 100-1200ppm, most >150ppm; low Zn & Pb & Ag, Mo 100ppm in 3 spots, low Au <1ppm at 135m Cu 150-400ppm; low Zn, very low Pb & Ag, Cu 100-100ppm; Zn low <50ppm, Pb background; Mo some to 50 ppm; Ag 0.1-.3ppm Cu 150-500ppm; very low Zn, Pb, Ag; Au at 210-224m <0.1ppm
North
BC1013 intrusive breccia 24-td fracture controlled 173m; diorite at 50-52, 106- propylitic, moderate 115, and 120-121m; disseminated veins; BC1014 porphyritic diorite, medium-grained, 23td155m; andesite dike at 102m BC1015 diorite 15-34m; intrusive breccia 34-58, 62-86, 95100; argillite 58-62,100118, 178-185, 217-255; feldspar porphyry 118-127, 1343-139m; dacite intrusive 127-134, 143-162m; BC1023 siltstone 0-td 142m fracture controlled propylitic; weak dissemination; some carbonate alteration fracture controlled propylitic; weak hornfels in argillite, carbonate alteration in diorite;
North
North
North
weak hornfels alteration; strong massive carbonate alteration;
Cu <2100ppm; Zn ~100ppm; Ag .2.4ppm; Au .1-.5 ppm; many intervals not sampled

December 31, 2010
Table 11-2
Continued
Alteration Assays Cu 100-300ppm; little core sampled, Zn <50 ppm; Ag <.1ppm
BC Area HoleID Geology Notes North
BC1026 greywacke 7-64, 68-104, strong hornfels alteration 114-122, 140-172; in greywacke, silicified porphyritic dacite 64-68, dacite, 132-134m; gabbro 104-114, 122-132,133-136, 165-167, 172-184m; porphyritic dacite 64-67, 132-133m BC1027 quartz diorite 38-72, 8082m; porphyritic dacite 7280, 100-td 109mm; siltstone 82-88m; greywacke 8899m; BC1028 biotite hornfels 35-58m, glacial till 0-35m carbonate alteration in quartz diorite; fracture controlled propylitic in porphyritic dacite strong hornfels alteration in biotite hornfels
North
most not sampled, Cu 50-400ppm; Zn 100200ppm; Pb <10ppm, Ag, 0.1-0.3ppm minor Cu 100200ppm, Zn ~50ppm, Pb<10ppm, Ag<0.2ppm most not sampled
North
North
BC1029 granodiorite, medium grained, equigranular to slightly foliated 16-td75m BC1024 no graphical log available BC1025 no graphical log available BC1001 greywacke & interbedded argillite 4-41 m; silty argillite, thin carbonaceous greywacke 41-td 90.5 BC1002 biotite hornfels 8-td 34 m; with gabbro dike at 13-16 m
carbonate alteration, traces, patchy, weakly iron stained
North North South
fracture controlled propylitic 28-40m
Cu&Zn ~100ppm; Ag~.1-.2ppm; Pb<5ppm; Au<.05ppm, mostly 0
South
fracture controlled Cu~100-300ppm; propylitic 13-15, 25-34m; Zn~100ppm; drilled in fault zone Ag~.1ppm; Pb<10ppm; Au mostly 0 moderate hornfels alteration; fracture controlled propylitic 7176m in diorite Cu 80-300ppm, some>500; Zn<100; Ag0-50ppm spotty Cu 100ppm; Zn<100ppm; Pb<5ppm; Ag0.1ppm
South
BC1003 biotite hornfels 3-td 206 m; with gabbro dikes at 6-7, 49-56; diorite porphyry dikes 71-76 m
South
BC1004 glacial till 0-42m; fracture controlled greywacke with propylitic 70-74 m interbedded black argillite 42-62 m; argillite 62-td 74m; diorite porphyry dikes at 50-55m and 67-69m

December 31, 2010
Table 11-2
Continued
Alteration Assays Cu 200-500ppm; little Zn, Pb, Mo 2040ppm; Ag spotty to 0.5 ppm Cu 200-380ppm in diorite; Zn 100 ppm in argillite Cu 100-200ppm; Zn 50-100ppm; spotty Ag & Pb; Au.05 ppm at 130m Cu low (<100ppm); Zn 150-200ppm; Pb 10-40ppm, Ag .2.5ppm Cu very low; Zn moderate <100 ppm; Pb 200 ppm; Ag 0.10.5ppm Cu, Pb very low, Zn <100, Ag <0.1; much not sampled core not analyzed
BC Area HoleID Geology Notes South
BC1005 diorite, stockwork veined 6- weak silica veining in 120m; argillite 120diorite; weak hornfels td196m; highly fractured alteration in argillite BC1006 argillite 3-14, 62-td 115m; weak hornfels in argillite; grey, equigranular fractured strong disseminated diorite 14-62m; silicification in diorite BC1007 diorite 7-td150m; moderately to strongly fractured BC1008 argillite 12-td 104m; brecciated & some sandstone at 66 m BC1016 grey, equigranular to slightly porphyritic diorite 17-td 168m; porphyritic andesite dike 42m BC1017 mudstone 4-52m; diorite 23-24m; felsic dike 52-63, 88-td 90m; calcareous sedimentary unit 68-88m BC1018 dacite flows 13-24m; latite 24-43; dacite flows 43-td 124m BC1020 dacite intrusive 29-46m; aplite 46-48m; granodiorite48-89m; quartz diorite 89-td 179m BC1030 biotite hornfels, black fractured 17-td82m; dacite intrusive 66-67m argillic & carbonate alteration, fracture controlled propylitic; some carbonate alteration weak hornfels, weak quartz veining; some carbonate disseminated in veins fracture controlled propylitic; moderate disseminated veins; some carbonate moderate disseminated veins fracture controlled propylitic, weak to strong disseminated veins, silicified some carbonate alteration
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
iron stained - massive to patchy concentrated in fracture zones
Cu very low 5 ppm; Zn, Pb, Ag better
South
carbonate alteration, most not sampled, moderate as veinlets & some Au (.15ppm) at selvages, fracture 66m controlled propylitic in dacite intrusive; moderate patchy skarn in72-77m weak patchy leaching along fractures in hornfels; chloritized diorite much not sampled, low Cu, Pb, Zn~100ppm
South
BC1031 biotite hornfels, fractured, 9-td90m; diorite 23-25m
South
BC1019 no graphical log available

December 31, 2010
Table 11-2
BC Area South
Continued
HoleID Geology Notes BC1022 no graphical log available moderate iron oxide staining; carbonate alteration at td most core not analyzed; some Zn, Pb, little Ag; no Cu, Mo analyses Alteration Assays
Southwest BC1021 glacial till 0-43m; quartz monzonite 43-td 81m;

December 31, 2010
12 Sampling Method and Approach (Item 14)

This section describes sampling methods and quality of drilling data, as documented by in the Liberty Star data files, as well as those for the geochemical sampling program.
12.1 Drillhole Samples

Drilling the exploration diamond drillholes in 2004 was done by Quest Drilling company of Aldergrove, British Columbia, and by Connors Drilling of Montrose, Colorado. 12.1.1 Sampling Methods The drill core was transported to a core examination facility in Iliamna by helicopter daily. The drill core was washed, then logged by experienced geologists employed by Big Chunk at the core logging facility in Iliamna. The drill core was sawed in half lengthwise with a diamond saw and the half not analyzed was stored in ultraviolet (UV) protected plastic trays in a core storage rack in a permanent core storage facility at Iliamna. The split core was relogged at 10-foot intervals, bagged in heavy muslin bags, and shipped by air freight to Shea Clark Smith's lab in Reno, Nevada, where it was crushed and split with a Jones sample splitter, which was cleaned after every use. The split samples were put in new standard 200 gram sample containers and were sent by air freight to the ACME lab in Vancouver, Canada. The coarse rejects were disposed of, but the split core is stored in Big Chunk's permanent core storage facility at Iliamna and would be available for re-analysis. 12.1.2 Sample Quality Standard QA/QC procedures were used in the drill core sampling program.
12.2 Geochemical Samples

The geochemical sampling in 2004 and 2005 at Big Chunk was designed and supervised by Shea Clark Smith. The sampling methods and quality are described in this section (Smith, 2010). 12.2.1 Sampling Methods The field geochemical sampling program employed pocket personal computers (PCs) equipped with GPS to record details of the geologic samples. Recordings of samples were made digitally using time-stamped GPS, which offered less error than hand written sampling notations. This method was used to locate sample points and record all sample data on drop down menus that included rock type, soil type, plant type (with a library of images of plant types and rock types), and other geologic data. Sampling personnel were trained to uniform sampling procedures, were required to record all mandated data before moving to the next site, and were assigned to locations by pre-mapped GPS locations. No repeat samples numbers were allowed by the pocket PC. The data were downloaded to the Camp Server and transmitted via the internet to the main server in Tucson for processing. The sample data from the pocket PCs were downloaded each night by a charger-communication cradle to a local server, which eliminated illegible handwriting and duplicate numbers. The data were transmitted overnight by broadband to Tucson. The pocket PCs were recharged each night to be ready for sampling the next day.

December 31, 2010
Field personnel were instructed to prune 10-15 pencil sized twigs from around one tree or as many trees (up to three) that were within 10 meters of the survey station. Tree health was an important factor, and stressed trees were not sampled. Twigs, with or without leaves, were placed in numbered cloth bags with sample tag. Any leaves or needles were removed at the sample preparation lab. Samplers were to keep vegetation samples in separate back pack compartments from soil or sediment samples. Vegetation samples were never shipped with soil or sediment samples, and always in plastic liners. Vegetation, stream sediment, and soil samples were shipped by air cargo, from Anchorage, Alaska, to Reno, Nevada, airport to airport. Samples were picked up by Shea Clark Smith and conveyed directly to MEG Laboratories in Washoe Valley, Nevada. Biogeochemical samples comprising twigs of Alder (Alnus), Willow (Salix), Spruce (Picea), and a low ground cover that was called Low Alder, were air dried, randomized, completely dried in modified microwave ovens, and then finally macerated to -0.5 mm in a Wiley Mill. A subsample of the milled tissue was sent to ACME (Vancouver, British Columbia) for multi-element analysis (Code: 1-gram, 1VE-MS, Basic Suite) by modified aqua regia digestion and inductively coupled plasma / mass spectrometry (ICP/MS). Gold was also reported from this analysis, without ashing prior to analysis. Submittals to Acme Laboratories consisted of about 100 samples that included two standards and two replicates (laboratory duplicates) that were randomly placed approximately every 25 samples. These, in addition to randomizing the sample numbers, were used to monitor sample preparation and analytical quality. These data were reviewed by Shea Clark Smith prior to use for interpretation. Any data that were deemed to be unrealizable were flagged and noted as such. Stream sediment samples were dried at 90 C for 12 hours, randomized, disaggregated, and sieved in stainless steel screens. The -325 mesh fraction was analyzed at Acme Laboratories for a suite of 37 elements (Code: 15 g, 1F-MS) by ICP/MS after an aqua regia digestion. These data were reviewed by Shea Clark Smith prior to use for interpretation. Any data that were deemed to be unrealizable were flagged and noted as such. Soil samples were dried and sieved (-80 mesh) in the field camp and analyzed there for mercury using a Jerome Mercury Detector. Then they were shipped to MEG Laboratories where they were randomized and where standards and replicates were placed approximately every 25 samples. Then they were shipped to ACME for ICP/MS analysis of 37 elements (Code: 1 g, 1FMS) after an aqua regia digestion. These data were reviewed by Shea Clark Smith prior to use for interpretation. Any data that were deemed to be unrealizable were flagged and noted as such. Sample rejects and archive pulps were stored in a locked and gated facility with access only by Shea Clark Smith and his supervisory staff. Mercury was detected from the 80 mesh soil fraction using the Jerome 301 Hg Detector. Samples were dried between 30-40C for 3 days, manually disaggregated, and sieved -80 mesh. Then, a 4.0 to 4.5 gram aliquot was weighed into a thermally sterilized glass vial and sealed with a Teflon septum. The vial was heated for about 70 minutes (64 to 80 minutes) on a thermostatically controlled hotplate at 150C. The saturated Hg vapor was extracted from the headspace of each vial and injected into a calibrated Jerome 301 Hg Detector. The reading was recorded and the amount of mercury (ppb) was calculated. Method detection limit was 0.5 ppb Hg. The data was keypunched into a spreadsheet, reviewed by the analyst, and submitted to the
December 31, 2010
project geologist for entry into the database and plotting. Qualitative data, such as the visible organic character of the soil, identified those samples with elevated Hg concentrations that were not necessarily related to economic targets (Smith, 2004). Fluoride was analyzed with a Thermo-Orion Specific Ion Electrode and combination pH/ ISE meter (Orion 290A+). pH readings were temperature corrected, but fluoride measurements were not. Fluoride ions were stabilized in solution with Orion TISAB III (with CDTA) in ratio of 10:1. Samples were analyzed at room temperature, the same ambient temperature as the calibration standards (Orion 1 ppm and 2 ppm in TISAB III). Fluoride concentrations were reported in ppm. Method detection limit was 0.02 ppm. The data was keypunched into a spreadsheet, reviewed by the analyst, and submitted to the project geologist for entry into the database and plotting (Smith, 2004). 12.2.2 Sample Quality The geochemical field sampling methods were reviewed and analyzed for field sampling quality control procedures and field sample characteristics by Shea Clark Smith (Smith and Schaefer, 2004). Quality control factors associated with lab procedures and lab equipment were reviewed and found to be good. Analytical element spreads were reviewed by batch over time to detect if there were systematic shifts in the results by batch over time. No significant quality control issues were found and the data appeared to be of good quality (Smith and Schaefer, 2004). This analysis defined sample characteristics that required normalizing and data that needed to be removed from the target definition because of data quality issues. Species was found to control analytical results for many elements, so vegetation data was normalized based on species. Plant size was also found to be a possible control, as smaller plants, trunk diameter, and average height tended to have most of the higher analytical results. Higher soil moisture content was found to control Mo (Mo) and manganese (Mn) content, in that samples collected in drainages and swamps had significantly higher Mo and Mn contents. Box plots by species showed that species controls element values in the vegetation sampling program. Species appeared to be significant enough of a control on element values to warrant normalization of all the results by species. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each element by species and then the following Z score formula was applied to all the results; Z=(value - mean)/SD. These Z score values were used in all the anomaly/target analysis work (Smith and Schaefer, 2004).

December 31, 2010
Table 12-1
Analyte Silver Silver Aluminum Arsenic Gold Gold Gold Boron Barium Beryllium Bismuth Calcium Cadmium Cerium Cobalt Chromium Cesium Copper Iron Gallium Germanium Hafnium Mercury Indium Potassium Lanthanum Lithium Magnesium Manganese Molybdenum Sodium Niobium Nickel Phosphorus Phosphorus Lead Rubidium Rhenium Sulfur Antimony Scandium Selenium Tin Strontium Tantalum
Types of analyses of drill core samples and laboratories, Big Chunk project
unit ppb ppm % ppm oz per ton ppb ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm ppb ppm % ppm ppm % ppm ppm % ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Ag_ppb_MS Ag_ppm_MS Al_pct_MS As_ppm_MS Au_opt_FA Au_ppb_MS Au_ppm_ICP B_ppm_MS Ba_ppm_MS Be_ppm_MS Bi_ppm_MS Ca_pct_MS Cd_ppm_MS Ce_ppm_MS Co_ppm_MS Cr_ppm_MS Cs_ppm_MS Cu_ppm_MS Fe_pct_MS Ga_ppm_MS Ge_ppm_MS Hf_ppm_MS Hg_ppb_MS In_ppm_MS K_pct_MS La_ppm_MS Li_ppm_MS Mg_pct_MS Mn_ppm_MS Mo_ppm_MS Na_pct_MS Nb_ppm_MS Ni_ppm_MS P_pct_MS P_ppm_MS Pb_ppm_MS Rb_ppm_MS Re_ppm_MS S_pct_MS Sb_ppm_MS Sc_ppm_MS Se_ppm_MS Sn_ppm_MS Sr_ppm_MS Ta_ppm_MS method Acme X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ALS
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X

December 31, 2010
Table 12-1
Analyte Tellurium Thorium Titanium Titanium Thallium Uranium Vanadium Tungsten Yttrium Zinc Zircon
Continued
ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Lab Te_ppm_MS Th_ppm_MS Ti_pct_MS Ti_ppm_MS Tl_ppm_MS U_ppm_MS V_ppm_MS W_ppm_MS Y_ppm_MS Zn_ppm_MS Zr_ppm_MS Acme X X X X X X X X ALS X X X X X X X X X X
Source: Liberty Star file data FA = fire assay ICP/MS = Inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry opt = ounces per ton ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion % = percent ACME = Acme Laboratories of Vancouver, B.C. ALX = ALS Chemex of Vancouver, B.C.

December 31, 2010
13 Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security (Item 15)

Industry standards were followed in the sample preparation, analyses, and security procedures for the geochemical sampling and drill core preparation and analyses.
13.1 Historic Sample Preparation

Exploration of the Big Chunk properties began in 2003 and all of these data are included in the current report. No historic samples had been collected previous to that time. This report summarizes the current exploration program.
13.2 Sample Assaying Procedures

Standard Multispectral (MS) assaying procedures were used in the Big Chunk geochemical sampling program (Acme Analytical Brochure, 2004). Specific packages at Acme that were used for the geochemical sampling program included those for Code:1-gram, 1VE-MS, Basic Suite, Code: 15 g, 1F-MS, and Code: 1 g, 1F-MS. The sample assaying procedures for drill core followed standard operating procedures for drill core.
13.3 Geochemical Sampling Procedures

Liberty Stars geochemical sampling program was designed to have geophysical and geochemical targets well defined for drilling by early September, 2004. To accomplish this geochemically, a combination of in-field and laboratory analyses guided exploration through the early- and mid-summer months, using sample media that were part of the natural landscape. Industry standard methods of geochemical sampling were used (Smith, 1986; Smith and Fournier, 1986). The Iliamna District (Donlin Creek & Pebble Districts) is a low-relief, glaciated terrain of moraine deposits, low energy streams, marshes, and numerous kettle lakes. In short, the area is waterlogged, so water and water-related sample media were the focus of the geochemical program. The potential for ore discovery through variably thick overburden is dramatically improved where the occurrence of deep water/mineral interaction brings anomalous water concentrations to the surface. The cross-section of ground water that is weathering an ore deposit is larger than mineral exposures of the same deposit at the surface. Mineralized ground water will subsequently mineralize selective horizons of surface soils, trees, shrubs and aquatic mosses. On the other hand, stream sediments, heavy mineral concentrates, and conventional soil programs alone will be far less likely to succeed (Smith, 2010). The geochemical program was based in part on the results of an orientation survey over the Pebble ore body. Earlier work at Pebble (and over other porphyry systems) indicated that mercury may be an important pathfinder to porphyry systems and satellite precious metal deposits. The Big Chunk geochemical program included in-field mercury detection using welldocumented methods developed by Buseck and McNerny (Smith, 2010). These mercury results gave the exploration team daily guides to possible ore occurrences. Mercury can occur as a mineral in soil, or as a gas that originates from deeply buried mineralization, so both near surface and very deep mineralization may be detected.

December 31, 2010
The Pebble orientation survey determined the viability of biogeochemistry in the Big Chunk terrain. A huge literature resource on the use of trees and shrubs is available from work that has been done in Canada and Alaska, which in part was the basis for use of biogeochemistry at Big Chunk. Black Spruce dominates the northern half of the Big Chunk Claim Block, and is selectively available further south. Low shrubs, including crowberry, Labrador tea, and others are available everywhere. Metal uptake by plants from ground water is very well documented. Roots provide large capture zones for metals that travel ionically, and rooted plants have been used to detect mineralization at depths of several hundred feet in areas of upwelling that are often associated with major and minor geological structures. There are also case histories on the use of aquatic bryophytes (mosses) as surrogates for stream sediment sampling. These mosses grow in streams and sample both ions in water and detritus over life spans of 5-20 years. They survive high energy spring thaws, and effectively trap very fine silt fractions that can indicate mineralization several kilometers from an upslope source. Mosses were tested during the Pebble orientation survey where major and minor streams transect the survey area. In addition, water samples from streams and kettle lakes are likely to guide the exploration team to major porphyry occurrences. An in-field method for fluorine analysis was used to give daily guidance toward areas of halogen enrichment associated with hydrothermal mineralization and apatite/tourmaline related to porphyry systems. Wet soils were also tested for fluorine and pH using this same analytical method (Smith, 2004).
13.4 Factors Impacting Accuracy of Results

The analysis of the geochemical samples of vegetation and soil defined sample characteristics that required normalizing and data that needed to be removed from the target definition because of data quality issues. Gold results associated with a particular sampler who was wearing a Au ring, against stringent company policy, were excluded from the data set for target definition. As plant species and plant size controlled analytical results for many elements, vegetation data was normalized based on species. Higher soil moisture content was observed to control Mo and Mn content, in that samples collected in drainages and swamps had significantly higher Mo and Mn contents (Smith and Schaefer, 2004).

December 31, 2010
14 Data Verification (Item 16)

Geochemical data from the soil and vegetation sampling program were found to be of good quality by Smith and Schaeffer (2004). Similar verification of the assay data on the drill core remains to be performed.
14.1 Project Quality Controls and Quality Assurance

Forty-three reports from ACME related to Liberty Stars Big Chunk geochemical program were inspected for QA/QC anomalies (Smith and Schaeffer, 2004). These included 30 submittals related to vegetation analysis, and 13 submittals related to either soil or sediment analyses. The analytical reports were assessed for accuracy (based on blind and non-blind standards), precision (based on blind and non-blind replicate pairs and duplicates), intra-lab contamination (based on blind blanks), and systematic error as might be revealed by plots of the randomized submittal. This represents about two-thirds of the total that were reported by Acme Laboratories. This assessment related to vegetation submittals L104001V L104039V, and soil and sediment submittals L10402S, L104012S, L104021S, L104022S, L104031S 33S, L104036S, L104047S 49S, L104055S L104056S. In general, standard reference materials blindly located by MEG into the submittals, and those non-blindly placed by Acme Laboratories all report within expected ranges. Blind replicate pairs placed into the submittals by MEG, and non-blind duplicates that were placed by Acme Laboratories compare well between pairs. Quartz sand was used as the Blank, and it consistently reports exceptionally low concentrations for most metals. Profile plots of the randomized submittals reveal isolated occurrences of systematic error, but nothing that suggests gross error either during sample preparation or analysis. Highlights of the QA/QC anomalies that were found are detailed in the remainder of this report. Very few reports reveal errors in accuracy, precision, or intra-lab contamination. However, systematic error as revealed by profile plots of the randomized submittals shows repeated systematics for Ba, Cr, S, and Se. These elements should not be used for targeting purposes since baseline shifts and wandering trend lines in the randomized plots indicate these elements to be unreliable. Also, B, Co, and Sb less occasionally show systematic patterns in the randomized plots, and on a submittal-by-submittal basis could be used (but with extreme care). Other elements reveal systematic patterns, but these are very minor and only very occasional. Three submittals contained poor matches between blind replicate pairs: L104022S_A403366, L104036S_A403725, and L104034V_A403657. It has been suggested to Acme Laboratories that these mismatches could be the result of a tray having been turned around, a pipeting error, a clerical error, or some other mechanical or human error. The Acme QA Manager investigated these three anomalies. From the assessments conducted to date, ACME data appears to be exceptionally accurate, precise, and generally reliable for targeting purposes. Special care must be exercised when using Ba, Cr, S, Se, and B, Co, and Sb (Smith, 2004).

December 31, 2010
14.2 Check Assay Sample Preparation and Results

No check assays have been performed on drill core samples from the Big Chunk project. However, split core from the 2004 and 2005 drillholes are stored in a permanent core storage facility in Iliamna, Alaska, should confirmation assays be required. This core is stored in ultraviolet-protected plastic trays and was in good shape when checked in 2010 by Liberty Star. They are available for check assaying. SRK was not able to verify the condition of the core samples, but will do so in a later site visit. SRK was not able to assess the accuracy of the assay results on the graphical drill logs, as the original lab reports and chain of custody forms are stored in inaccessible boxes in a packed storage facility. This is a deficiency in the verification of assays that can be addressed at a later time. QA/QC was done on the geochemical samples from the 2004 and 2005 sampling program. The work was found to be of good quality (Smith, 2006). Similar QA/QC on the drill core assays was not readily available, so will need to be assessed at a later date.

December 31, 2010
15 Adjacent Properties (Item 17)

The Pebble deposit adjoins the Big Chunk South claim block on the southeast and it is owned by Northern Dynasty, along with Anglo American, Rio Tinto, and Mitsubishi. This deposit is surrounded on the north and south by claims owned by Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Corp. (Freeport), although they discontinued work in Alaska in 2009. The Big Chunk South claims surround the Freeport claim block on the north and west (Figure 1-3). Since 2007, four major companies have taken positions on land surrounding Liberty Stars Big Chunk claims. These companies include Rio Tinto, which is a 19.8% owner of Northern Dynasty as announced January 30, 2007. Mitsubishi Corporation has reported that they have acquired an 11% share position in the Pebble project. Anglo American announced on August 1, 2007, that they would buy into a 50:50 partnership on the Pebble Project with Northern Dynasty by contributing up to $1.43 billion towards engineering, permitting, and construction of the Pebble mine. Anglo American and Northern Dynasty state that Pebble is becoming the largest porphyry CuAu-Mo resource in the world with about 4 billion tons of mineralized rock averaging 1.32% Cu equivalent grade. Northern Dynasty Minerals and Anglo American indicate that a feasibility study on the Pebble deposit is anticipated by 2011, and that commercial production is anticipated by 2015. The immediately adjacent Pebble Cu-Au deposit is the target type sought by Liberty Star on the Big Chunk Project. The presence of defined mineral resources at the Pebble deposit on lands immediately adjacent to the Big Chunk property is in no way indicative that a mineral deposit of similar size or grade does occur or will be found on the Big Chunk Project.

December 31, 2010
16 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing (Item 18)

No mineral processing and or metallurgical testing have been done at the Big Chunk project, as the project is currently in the exploration phase. Any porphyry copper discovery should be amenable to well known metallurgical recovery methods that are used in porphyry copper deposits throughout the world.

December 31, 2010
17 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates (Item 19)

The Big Chunk Project is an early stage, conceptual, district-scale, exploration project. At this stage of the project, mineral resource and mineral reserves have not been defined for the Big Chunk Project.
17.1 Drillhole Database

Limited exploration drilling was conducted on several exploration targets that were chosen based on IP anomalies. ZTEM geophysical surveying in 2009 identified six to twelve anomalous areas that may indicate the presence of a porphyry Cu-Au system. However, only two of the favorable ZTEM anomalies were intersected in 4 of the 27 drillholes in the 2004 and 2005 drilling program. The drillhole database is shown graphically in Appendix C.

December 31, 2010
18 Other Relevant Data and Information (Item 20)

SRK is not aware of any other relevant data or information that affects the potential to pursue continued exploration on the Big Chuck land holdings. While the Big Chunk Project is currently an early stage exploration property, SRK recommends that the following areas be considered for proactive involvement by Liberty Star, should there be exploration successes in the planned programs in 2011/2012: Continue Liberty Star's ongoing efforts (since 2004) of community and public relations with respect to Big Chunks activities to keep the local (close by) population informed in the event that the level of exploration should dramatically escalate (This would continue efforts such as the 2005 regional meeting with James Briscoe and local residents); Develop relationships with the local Native Corporations with respect to surface use and access, as part of the overall Public and Community Relations; and Obtain additional baseline environmental data, particularly groundwater quality data. This would continue the extensive stream sediment, water, soil, and plan sampling programs previously done (11,000 samples and over 700 assays of 64 elements).

December 31, 2010
19 Interpretation and Conclusions (Item 21)

General interpretations (Smith and Schaeffer, 2004) suggest that there is more information to be obtained from the surface and vegetation geochemical database and that it should now be compared to drill and geophysical data. In particular, drill data and geophysical data provide cross-sectional information that should be linked to plan-view (spatial) trends represented in the hydrogeochemical, biogeochemical, and soil geochemical data. Also, numerous structural and lithologic indicators from the IP and resistivity data should be compared to correlative trends in the biogeochemical and soil geochemical data. Specific recommendations by Shea Clark Smith at Big Chunk include the following: Drill test geochemical anomaly on the line (near 6634000N) that did not have favorable geophysical response, but which is geochemically anomalous with respect to potential deposit zoning; Additional biogeochemical sampling to verify Au anomalies; Use the geochemical data from Pebble West and East to create a training-set for comparison to similar exposed signatures in Big Chunk; Assay core from DH18 (Bel Aire) for Au and pathfinders to determine if biogeochemical Au anomaly might be related to bedrock mineralization. Additionally, look at more pathfinder data from biogeochem and soil (Hg, Sb) to determine if this Au anomaly is possibly placer or lode. Look at soil data to determine if this Au originates from hills to the east by either glacial or supergene weathering; Baltusrol is a major target area requiring further attention to biogeochem northwest of Point Grey, stream sediment sampling south of Baltusrol, and biogeochem southeast of Baltusrol. Detailed comparisons to IP and Res is needed; and The Silver Leaf biogeochem anomalies need to be drill tested, because they overlie compelling Mag and IP anomalies, and are the nearest to Pebble of any other Big Chunk anomalies.
The Big Chunk project is a district-scale exploration project with multiple porphyry-sized Cu-Au deposits as the targets. The geochemical anomalies that coincide with the ZTEM geophysical anomalies are targets that should be explored. The similarity of Big Chunk rock types and propylitic and silicic alteration to that of the adjacent Pebble deposit, and the presence of anomalous amounts of Cu, Zn, Ag, and some Au in the exploration drillholes are additional evidence that these targets should be explored. SRKs preliminary examination of the evidence indicates that Liberty Stars approach to exploration is valid.

December 31, 2010
20 Recommendations (Item 22)

Recommendations for future work programs, the approximate timeline, and estimated costs are provided below.
20.1 Recommended Phase I Work Programs

SRK recommends an aggressive Phase I scout drilling program be conducted on the six to twelve favorable ZTEM anomalies and geochemical anomalies in the Big Chunk North and Big Chunk South claim blocks. After the most favorable target is determined, definition drilling as Phase II can proceed on that target to define a potential ore body. 20.1.1 Recommended Phase Ia Work Program 3D ZTEM Analysis Further analysis of the ZTEM favorable anomalies should be planned to determine the best of the six to twelve favorable targets. A preliminary 2-D analysis was performed on the ZTEM data and a similar 3-D analysis should be performed on the data. This will result in a better threedimensional view of the target areas. An analysis of the 3-D ZTEM data in combination with the soil and vegetation geochemical data obtained in the 2004-2005 geochemical sampling program, will indicate the most favorable locations for the diamond drillholes. 20.1.2 Recommended Phase Ib Work Program Scout Drilling Because the expense of setting up a field camp with helicopter and airplane support is similar for a small drilling program as it is for a large drilling program, it is more efficient to spread that fixed cost over a large number of drillholes. Several drillholes are recommended in each target area, as mineralization throughout a porphyry Cu-Au system is not uniform. Typical porphyry Cu-Au systems contain zoning patterns arranged around a central core or around certain structures or plutons. Determining this zoning pattern will require several drillholes per target area. A field camp is planned at a large lake that is informally called Squiggle Lake by Big Chunk. It is near the staging area used by Northern Dynasty, which is informally called Big Wiggly Lake (also known as Butterfly Lake). Obtaining drilling and water permits are planned to be managed by a permitting service, such as Wildcat Permitting Services of Anchorage, Alaska, which handled the permits for the 2004-2005 drilling program. Four drill rigs are planned to be operated simultaneously, with planned total depths of 200 to 1,000 m (656 to 3,280 feet). This drilling program will require support by two to three helicopters for transporting some personnel, drill core, and equipment from the base camp to the drill sites. A Beaver aircraft is planned for transporting personnel and fuel from Iliamna to the base camp. During drilling, a hand-held Niton X-ray fluorescence instrument will be used on the core to give preliminary indications of favorable stratigraphic and igneous units observed in the drill core. Drill core will be flown to the current permanent core storage facility at Iliamna. There, core will be sawed in half with a diamond saw and one-half will be stored in ultraviolet-protected core trays in the protected permanent core storage facility. The core half to be assayed will be sent to Shea Clark Smiths facility for crushing, grinding, and splitting to the 200 g sample size required by the testing laboratory. ACME in Vancouver, Canada was used in the 2004-2005 drilling with excellent results. This preliminary process facilitates rapid return of assay results from the testing laboratory. These processes were followed with success in the 2004-2005 drilling program.
December 31, 2010
Standard core handling procedures will be followed, with security and chain of custody procedures followed, per Canadian NI 43-101 requirements. Total recommended budget for Phase Ia and Phase Ib work, during a 12 month period is estimated at approximately $25.0 million, as detailed in Table 20-1. The objective of such an aggressive program is twofold: To test in the initial drilling program all prospective targets with several drillholes. This approach allows for initial screening of all targets to allow for selection of the best targets for follow-up. It avoids being side-tracked by preliminary encouraging results on drill results from one of only three targets tested in year one, when other perhaps better targets are not drilled until a second or perhaps third year. To promote maximum efficiency in the field programs. Logistically, it may take a minimum of $2 to $3 million per year to provide helicopter and fixed-wing plane support for a remote drilling camp, whether $2 million or $20 million is spent on drilling. Extending the Phase Ib program over two or three years adds to the cost of this fixed amount each year to run a remote field/drill camp. Liberty Star has therefore elected to accelerate the Phase Ib program into one year, at minimal incremental cost.
20.2 Recommended Phase II Work Program Definition Drilling

After the best target is determined by the scout drilling, all future drilling efforts can be directed to this target to define ore to the measured and indicated range. A Phase II program of definition drilling on a discovery could cost in excess of $100 to $200 million. This would involve establishing year-round camp facilities for year-round drilling and feasibility related studies. A four-year plan will include year-round definition drilling and work to finalize a bankable feasibility study, obtain permitting, and perform mine design and mine construction.

December 31, 2010
Table 20-1
Big Chunk proposed Phase 1 (2011) exploration schedule

$ Expense Timing 240,000 May 2012
Activity Geochemical sampling - 1,000 plant samples @ $100/sample for collection, assay, and interpretation to fill in current anomalies Geophysics 3-D ZTEM analysis Claims rental (due November 30th each year) Field planning and contracts Field work 2 helicopters & 1 pontoon plane - $14,000 per day minimum Field work 4 diamond drill rigs operating 24 hrs. per day for 7 days per week for 7 months (30 weeks) Field work field camp leased & contracted Field work geologists and ancillary personnel Field work assays including shipping and sample preparation Compile results and write technical report Environmental costs Contingency costs General and administrative Total estimated expenses
Source: updated from Liberty Star Business Plan
$ 400.000 $ 300,000 $ 60,000 $ 2,660,000
April 2012 Nov. 2012 Mar. 2012 May 15Oct. 1, 2012
$10,032,000 May 15-Oct. 1, 2012 $ 1,214,000 $ 631,000 $ 760,000 $ 200,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,303,000 $ 25,000,000 May 15-Oct. 1, 2012 May 15-Oct. 1, 2012 May 15-Oct. 1, 2012 June-Nov. 2013 Feb. 2011-Jan.-2013 Feb. 2011-Jan.-2013 Feb. 2011-Jan-2013 Feb. 2011-Jan-2013

December 31, 2010
22 References (Item 23)

Anderson, E.D., Eppinger, R.G., and Kelley, K.D., 2009, Using regional geochemistry, geology, aeromagnetics, Landsat, and digital elevation models (DEM) to define favorable areas for porphyry-style mineralization in southwestern Alaska: Proceedings of the 24th International Applied Geochemistry Symposium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, June 1-4, 2009, p. 345-348. Bedrosian, P., Anderson, E., Minsley, B., Shah, A., Kelley, K., and Lang, J., 2009, Deposit-scale geophysics at the Pebble deposit, SW Alaska (abs.): Geological Society of America Annual meeting, Program with Abstracts, v. 41, p. 493. Bouley, B.A., St. George, P., and Wetherbee, P.K, 1995, Geology and discovery at Pebble Copper, a copper-gold porphyry system in southwest Alaska, in Schroeter, T.G., ed., Porphyry deposits of the northwestern cordillera of North America: CIM Special Volume 46, p.422-435. Casselman, M.J., 2001, Summary report on the Pebble copper-gold porphyry project: National Instrument 43-101 compliant report prepared for Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., November 6, 2001, 26 p. Casselman, M.J., and Osatenko, M.J., 1996, Memorandum on Pebble geology with project recommendations: Cominco Ltd. Internal Memorandum, September 30, 1996. Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L, 1973, Surficial deposits of the Iliamna Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1368-A, 64 p. Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L., 1980, Stratigraphy, structure, and economic geology of the Iliamna Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1368-B, 86 p. Engebretson, D. C., Cox, A., and Debiche, M., 1987, Reconstructions, plate interactions, and trajectories of oceanic and continental plates in the Pacific basin, in Monger, J., and Francheteau, J., eds., Circum-Pacific orogenic belts and evolution of the Pacific Ocean basin: Geodynamic Ser., American Geological Union, Washington, D. C., vol. 18, p. 1927. Eppinger, R.G., Fey, D.L., Kelley, K.D., Smith, S.M., and Giles, S.A., 2009, A hydrogeochemical exploration study at the Pebble deposit, Alaska: Proceedings of the 24th International Applied Geochemistry Symposium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, June 1-4, 2009, p. 365-368. Ferguson, C.A., 2005, A reconnaissance of the geology of the upper Koktuli river drainage basin, southwest Alaska: private report to Liberty Star Uranium & Gold, Inc., November 2005, 5 p., 1 figure. Fey, D.L., Granitto, M., Giles, S.A., Smith, S.M., Eppinger, R.G., and Kelley, K.D., 2008, Geochemical data for samples collected in 2007 near the concealed Pebble porphyry CuAu-Mo deposit, SW Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 2008-1132, 153 p. Fey, D.L., Grinitto, M., Giles, S.A., Smith, S.M., Eppinger, R.G., and Kelley, K.D., 2009, Geochemical data for samples collected in 2008 near the concealed Pebble porphyry CuAu-Mo deposit, SW Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 2009-1239, 74 p.
December 31, 2010
Geotech Ltd., 2010, Report on a helicopter-borne Z-Axis Tipper Electromagnetic (ZTEM) and aeromagnetic geophysical survey: Report submitted to Liberty Star Uranium and metals Corp., February 2010, 22 p., 6 appendices. Gleason, W. M., 2009, Pebble Project moves forward after election victory: Mining Engineering, January 2009, p. 38-41. Goldfarb, R.J., 1997, Metallogenic evolution of Alaska, in Goldfarb, R.J., and Miller, L.D. (eds.), Mineral Deposits of Alaska: Society of Economic Geologists, Monograph 9, p. 434. Gregory, M.J., and Lang, J.R., 2009, Hydrothermal controls on copper sulphide speciation, metal distribution and gold deportment in the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, southwest Alaska, in Williams, P.J., Oliver, N., and Rusk, B., eds., Smart science for exploration and mining: Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial SGAG Meeting, Townsville, Australia, p. 524-526. Haeussler, P. J., and Saltus, R. W., 2004, 26 km of offset on the Lake Clark fault since late Eocene time: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1709-A, 4 pp. Haslinger, R.J., Payne, J.G., Price, S., and Rebagliati, C.M., 2003, Summary report on the Pebble porphyry gold-copper project: SEDAR Report, May 2004. Hodgson, S., Northern Dynasty Mines Pebble project: a strategic resource for Alaska: Mining Engineering, April 2007, p. 29-35. Jones, D.L., Silberling, N.J., Coney, P., and Plafker, G, 1987, Lithotectonic terrane map of Alaska (west of 141st meridian): U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-1874-A, scale 1:2,500,000. Keith, S.B., 2003, MagmaChem model book: MagmaChem Exploration Inc., Sonoita, AZ (www.magmachem.com). Kelley, K.D., Lang, J., and Eppinger, R.G., 2010, Exploration geochemistry at the giant porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, Alaska: Society of Economic Geologists Newsletter, January 2010, no. 80, p. 1, 18-23. Kelley, K.D., Eppinger, R.G., Smith, S.M., and Fey, D.L., 2009, Porphyry copper indicator minerals (PCIMs) in glacial till samples from the giant Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit: exploration significance: Proceedings of the 24th International Applied Geochemistry Symposium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, June 1-4, 2009, p. 361364. Kirkham, R.V., 1997, Giant Cu and Au porphyry deposits: geological parameters and economic importance: presented at technical session at the Annual Convention and Trade Show of the Prospectors and Developers Assoc. of Canada, Sun., March 9, 1997. Kirkham, R. V., and Sinclair, W.D., 1996, Porphyry copper, gold, molybdenum, tungsten, tin, silver, in Eckstrand, O.R., Sinclair, W.D., and Thorpe, R.E., eds., Geology of Canadian mineral deposit types: Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, no. 8, p. 421446 (also, Geological Society of America, the Geology of North America, v. P-1).

December 31, 2010
Klein, J., 2004a, Liberty Star Gold Corp., Big Chunk Project, Alaska, interpretation note #1, Comparison of geology and geophysical data near the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo deposit: private report submitted to Liberty Star on June 5, 2004, 9 p. Klein, J., 2004b, Liberty Star Gold Corp., Big Chunk Project, Alaska, interpretation note #2, the Big Chunk caldera: private report submitted to Liberty Star on June 7, 2004, 15 p. Klein, J., 2004c, Liberty Star Gold Corp., Big Chunk Project, Alaska, interpretation note #3, derivatives and filtered magnetic maps: private report submitted to Liberty Star on June 9, 2004, 9 p. Klein, J., 2004d, Liberty Star Gold Corp., Big Chunk Project, Alaska, interpretation note #4, interpretation of the airborne magnetic data over the Big Chunk property: private report submitted to Liberty Star on June 17, 2004, 5 p. Klein, J., 2004e, Liberty Star Gold Corp., Big Chunk Project, Alaska, Interpretation Note #5, Regional structures near the Big Chunk property: private report submitted to Liberty Star on June 21, 2004, 2 p. Klein, J., 2004f, Liberty Star Gold Corp., Big Chunk Project, Alaska, interpretation note #6, interpretation of airborne magnetic data over the Big Chunk Property Target II area: private report submitted to Liberty Star on June 27, 2004, 5 p. Lang, J.R., 2003. Preliminary field, petrographic and geochemical evaluation of controls on Au mineralization in the Pebble Copper district, southern Alaska: Report prepared for Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., November 2, 2003. Lang, J., Payne, J., Rebagliati, m., Roberts, K., Oliver, J., and McLauglin, J., 2007, The supergiant Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry deposit, southwest Alaska: Arizona Geological Society, Ores and orogenesis, p. 120-121. Legault, J.M., 2010, 2D resistivity inversion analysis ZTEM helicopter EM Survey, Big Chunk Block, Iliamna, Alaska: private report for Liberty Star Uranium Inc., by Geotech Ltd., Aurora, Ont., Canada, 15 p. Lipman, P.W., and Sawyer, D.A., 1985, Mesozoic ash-flow caldera fragments in southeastern Arizona and their relation to porphyry copper deposits: Geology, v. 13, p. 652-656. Minsley, B., Eppinger, R.G., and Brown, P., 2008, Linking self-potential and geochemical signatures over a large porphyry mineral deposit: American Geophysical Union, EOS Transactions, v. 89, no. 53, Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract GP52A-06. Nokleberg, W.J., Plafker, G., and Wilson, F.H., 1994, Geology of south-central Alaska, in Plafker, G., and Gerg, H.C., editors, The geology of Alaska: Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. G-1, p. 311-366. Northern Dynasty Minerals, 2011, Pebble www.northerndynastyminerals.com/i/pdf/ndm/NDM-FactSheet-feb2011.pdf) Facts:
Pare, P., and Legault, J.M., 2010, Ground IP-resistivity, and airborne Spectrem and helicopter ZTEM survey results over Pebble copper-moly-gold porphyry deposit, Alaska: Society of Exploration Geophysics, SEG Denver Annual Meeting, p. 1734-1738.

December 31, 2010
Plafker, G., and Berg, H.C., 1994, Overview of the geology and tectonic history of Alaska, in Plafker, G., and Gerg, H.C., editors, The geology of Alaska: Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. G-1, p. 989-1021. Plafker, G., Nokleberg, W.J., and Lull, J.S., 1989, Bedrock geology and tectonic evolution of the Wrangellia, Peninsular, and Chugach terranes along the trans-Alaska crustal transect in the northern Chugach Mountains and southern Copper River basin, Alaska: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 94, p. 4255-4295. Rebagliati, C.M., and Haslinger, R.J., 2003, Summary report on the Pebble copper-gold porphyry project: Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., SEDAR Report, January 2003. Rebagliati, C.M., and Haslinger, R.J., 2004, Summary report on the Pebble copper-gold porphyry project: Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., SEDAR Report, January 2004. Rebagliati, C.M., and Lang, J., 2008, Geology and exploration history of the super-giant Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry deposit, Alaska (abs.): International Geology Congress, Oslo, August 6-14, 2008, v. 33, MRD 40. Rebagliati, C.M., and Payne, J.G., 2005, Summary report on the Pebble copper-gold porphyry project: Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., SEDAR Report, March 2005. Rebagliati, C.M., and Payne, J.G., 2006, Summary report on the Pebble copper-gold porphyry project: Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., SEDAR Report, March 2006. Rebagliati, C.M., and Payne, J.G., 2007, Summary report on the Pebble copper-gold porphyry project: Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., SEDAR Report, 118p. Rebagliati, C.M., Lang, J.R., Titley, E., Gaunt, D., Rennie, D., Melis, L., Barratt, D., and Hodgson, H., 2008, Technical report on the 2007 program and update on metallurgy and resources on the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project, Iliamna Lake area, southwestern Alaska, USA: Northern Dynasty Minerals, SEDAR report, 81 p. Rennie, D., and Srivaslava, R.M., 2005, Technical Report on the Pebble deposit, Alaska, USA: Report prepared for Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd. Richard, Kenyon, and Courtright, J.H., 1966, Structure and mineralization at Silver Bell, Arizona, in Titley, S.R., and Hicks, C., eds., Geology of the porphyry copper deposits: Tucson, University of Arizona Press, p. 158-163. Robinson, E.S., 1988, Basic Exploration Geophysics: John Wiley & Sons. Sawyer, D.A., and Lipman, P.W., 1983, Silver Bell Mts., Arizona: Porphyry copper mineralization in a Late Cretaceous caldera (abs.): EOS (American Geophysical Union Transactions), v. 64, p. 874. Schrader, C.M., Crowe, D., Turner, K., and Stein, H.J., 2001, 40Ar/39Ar and Re-Os geochronology of the Pebble Copper Cu-Au-Mo porphyry deposit, southwest Alaska: Geological Society of America, Program with Abstracts, A 27798. Shah, A., Bedrosian, P., Anderson, E., Kelley, K., and Lang, J., 2009, Geophysical data used to characterize the regional setting of the Pebble porphyry deposit in southwest Alaska: Geological Society of America Annual meeting, Program with Abstracts, v. 41, p. 493.

December 31, 2010
Sillitoe, R.H., 2000, Gold-rich porphyry deposits: descriptive and genetic models and their role in exploration and discovery: Society of Economic Geologists Reviews, Vol. 13, 2000, pp. 315-345. SME, 2007, The SME guide for reporting exploration results, mineral resources, and mineral reserves: The 2007 SME Guide, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, 47 p. Smith, S.C., 1986, Base metals and mercury in bryophytes and stream sediments from a geochemical reconnaissance survey of Chandalar Quadrangle, Alaska: J. Geochemical Exploration, v. 25, p. 345-365. Smith, S.C., and Fournier, R.E., 1986, Biogeochemical and soil geochemical methods applied to massive sulfide exploration at Parmachenee, Maine: Rubey Volume V, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp.183-201. Smith, S.C., and Schaeffer, 2004, Geochemical program at Big Chunk, Alaska: private report to Liberty Star Uranium and Metals, 2 p. Smith, S.C., 2004, Geochemical program at Big Chunk, Alaska: private report to Liberty Star Uranium and Metals, 2 p. Smith, S.C., 2006, Further geochemical surveying at Big Chunk & Bonanza Hills: private report to Liberty Star Uranium & Metals, June 20, 2006. Smith, S.C., 2006, Geochemical sampling at Big Chunk and Bonanza Hills: presentation to Alaska Mining Association. Smith, S.C., 2010, Sample preparation, analyses, and security: private report to to Liberty Star Uranium & Metals, December 22, 2010, 2 p. Smith, S.M., Eppinger, R.G., Fey, D.L., Kelley, K.D., and Giles, S.A., 2009, An orientation soil survey at the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo porphyry deposit, Alaska: Proceedings of the 24th International Applied Geochemistry Symposium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, June 1-4, 2009, p. 381-384. Vozoff, K., 1972, The magnetotelluric method in the exploration of sedimentary basins: Geophysics, v. 37, p. 98-141. Wahrhaftig, Clyde, 1965, The physiographic provinces of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 482, 52 p. Wallace, W.K., 1984, Mesozoic and Paleogene tectonic evolution of southwestern Alaska Range, southern Kuskokwim Mountains region: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 16, No. 5, p. 339. Wannamaker, P.E., Stodt, J.A., and Rijo, L., 1987, PW2D, finite element program for the solution of magnetotelluric responses of two-dimensional earth resistivity structure, Univ. of Utah, Res. Inst., Earth Science Laboratory, Report ESL-158. Watson, B.N., 1964, Structure and petrology of the eastern portion of the Silver Bell Mountains, Pima County, Arizona: Tucson, University of Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation, 168 p. Watson, B.N., 1968, Intrusive volcanic phenomena in southern Arizona, in Titley, S.R., ed., Southern Arizona Guidebook III: Arizona Geological Society, Tucson, p. 147-153.
December 31, 2010
Werdon, M.B., Szumigla, D.J., and Davidson, G., 2000, Generalized geologic map of Alaska: Alaska Dept. Natural Resources, Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Miscellaneous Publication 138, 2 p. Young, L.E., St. George, P., and Bouley, B.A., 1997, Porphyry copper deposits in relation to the magmatic history and palinspastic restoration of Alaska: Goldfarb, R.J. and Miller, L.D. (ed.), Mineral Deposits of Alaska, Society of Economic Geologists, Monograph 9, p. 306333. Zonge Geosciences, 1997, IP/Resistivity survey on the Pebble Copper Project, Iliamna, Alaska: Private report to Cominco American Inc. Zonge Geosciences, 2005, IP/Resistivity survey on the Big Chunk Project, Lake Illiamna, Alaska: private report for Liberty Star Gold, December 2005, Zonge Engineering job number 0541, 22 p.

December 31, 2010
23 Glossary
American versions of Imperial English units of measure (U.S. Customary Units) are used in this report, as these are the commonly used units of measure in the United States. Analytical results are generally reported as ounces per short ton (oz/Ton) or parts per million (ppm) for silver (Ag) and gold (Au); percent for lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and manganese (Mn); and ppm for other trace elements (1,000 ppm = 0.1%; 10,000 ppm = 1.0%).
23.1 Units of Measure

The following list of conversions is provided for the convenience of readers more familiar with the metric system. All dollar amounts used in this report are US$. LINEAR MEASURE 1 foot (ft) = 0.3048 meters 1 yard (yd) = 3.0 ft = 0.9144 meters 1 mile (mi) = 5,280 ft = 1.6093 kilometers AREA MEASURE 1 acre = 0.4047 hectares 1 square mile = 640 acres = 259 hectares WEIGHT 1 short ton (T) = 2000 pounds (lb) = 0.9072 metric tons (tonnes (t)) 1 pound (lb) = 16 ounces (oz) = 0.4536 kilograms (kg) = 14.583 troy ounces ANALYTICAL VALUES gram/tonne = 1.0 ppm = 0.02917 oz Troy/short ton = 0.03215 oz Troy/tonne oz Troy/tonne (oz/t) = 31.1035 grams/tonne (g/t) oz Troy/short ton (oz/T) = 34.2857 grams/tonne (g/t)
23.2 Acronyms and Technical Terms

The definitions of frequently used acronyms and technical terms are provided in Table 23-1. Table 23-1 Frequently used acronyms and technical terms
Definitions Atomic absorption Silver The chemical analysis of mineral samples to determine the metal content. Gold A copper- and sulfur-bearing mineral (Cu2S) a common secondary copper ore mineral. A brassy mineral (CuFeS2) the primary ore of copper. Copper Copper Equivalent Angle of inclination of a geological feature/rock from the horizontal. The surface of a fracture along which movement has occurred. Used in this report for 98,304 acres of mineral rights on State Trust Lands of Alaska
Acronyms / Technical Terms AA Ag Assay Au Chalcocite Chalcopyrite Cu CuEq Dip Fault Big Chunk

December 31, 2010
Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp Big Chunk Project, Alaska Acronyms / Technical Terms Property ft Grade ICP IP Igneous Lithology Mo mrad msec Mt NI 43-101 Oxide
Definitions (State Mineral Leases), which are within the Pebble mining district as defined by historical exploration and development work. feet The measure of concentration of copper within mineralized rock. Inductively-coupled plasma spectroscopy, an analytical procedure Induced Polarization, a geophysical survey method Primary crystalline rock formed by the solidification of magma. Geological description pertaining to different rock types. Molybdenum
Oz/Ton opt Pb Pd ppb ppm QA/QC Re RIP Sedimentary Stratigraphy Strike Sulfide
Supergene
Total Expenditure T Zn ZTEM
Million tonnes Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Minerals and mineral zone produced during the oxidation of the primary copper and iron mineralization. The term includes copper, iron, and manganese hydroxide, oxide, and silicate minerals ounces per short ton ounces per short ton Lead Palladium parts per billion parts per million Quality Assurance/Quality Control; procedures used to assure accuracy and consistency of analytical results Rhenium Resistivity Induced Polarization, a geophysical survey technique Pertaining to rocks formed by the accumulation of sediments, formed by the erosion of other rocks. The study of stratified rocks in terms of time and space. Direction of line formed by the intersection of strata surfaces with the horizontal plane, always perpendicular to the dip direction. A sulfur-bearing mineral or a zone of sulfur-bearing mineralization. At Florence, this includes copper sulfides such as chalcopyrite, bornite, and chalcocite and iron sulfides such as pyrite. Enrichment processes that occur relatively near the surface and include the predominance of meteoric water circulation with concomitant oxidation and chemical weathering. Metals that have been leached from the oxidized ore are carried downward by percolating groundwater, and react with hypogene sulfides at the supergene-hypogene boundary. The reaction produces secondary sulfides with metal contents higher than those of the primary ore. All expenditures including those of an operating and capital nature. Ton (short ton) Zinc Helicopter borne AFMAG Z-axis Tipper electromagnetic and aeromagnetics using a cesium magnetometer

December 31, 2010
NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration
A Appendix A Certificate of Authors
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. Appendix A
December 31, 2010
Allan V. Moran, R.G., CPG
December 31, 2010
Allan V. Moran
Principal Geologist SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. 3275 W. Ina Rd, Suite 240 Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A. 85741 Phone: 520-544-3688 Email: amoran@srk.com
CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR I, Allan V. Moran, a Registered Geologist and a Certified Professional Geologist, do hereby certify that: 1. I am currently employed as a consulting geologist to the mining and mineral exploration industry, as Principal Geologist with SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc, with an office address of 3275 W. Ina Rd., Suite 240, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 85741. 2. I graduated with a Bachelors of Science Degree in Geological Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA; May 1970. 3. I am a Registered Geologist in the State of Oregon, USA, # G-313, and have been since 1978. I am a Certified Professional Geologist through the American Institute of Professional Geologists, CPG - 09565, and have been since 1995. 4. I have been employed as a geologist in the mining and mineral exploration business, continuously, for the past 36 years, since my graduation from university. 5. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101. 6. The Technical Report is based upon my personal review of the information provided by the issuer. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is: Vice President and U.S. Exploration Manager for Independence Mining Company, Reno, Nevada, 1990-1993 Manager, Exploration North America for Cameco Gold Inc., 1998-2002 Exploration Geologist for Freeport McMoRan Gold, 1980-1988 Gold exploration experience in Nevada from 1980 to 2000 with Freeport Exploration, Freeport McMoRan Gold, Independence Mining Company, Vista Gold, and Cameco Gold Inc. As a consultant, I completed several NI 43-101 Technical reports, 2003-2011. 7. I am responsible for the content, compilation, and editing of all sections of the technical report titled Technical Report on Exploration at the Big Chunk Project, Alaska, and dated March 25, 2011 (the Technical Report) relating to Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corps Big Chunk copper exploration project in Alaska. I have not personally visited the Project in the field. 8. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, for which the omission to disclose would make the Technical Report misleading.
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. Appendix A December 31, 2010
Jan C. Rasmussen, Ph.D., R.G.
December 31, 2010
Jan C. Rasmussen
Senior Associate Geologist SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. 3275 W. Ina Rd, Suite 240 Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A. 85741 Phone: 520-544-3688 Email: jrasmussen@srk.com
CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR I, Jan C. Rasmussen, Ph.D., a Registered Geologist do hereby certify that: 12. I am currently employed as a consulting geologist to the mining and mineral exploration industry, as a Senior Associate Geologist with SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc, with an office address of 3275 W. Ina Rd., Tucson, Arizona, USA, 85741 13. I graduated with a Bachelors of Science Degree in Geology from the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, in May 1965. I graduated with a Master of Science Degree in Geosciences from the University of Arizona in December 1969. I graduated with a Doctor of Philosophy Degree with a major in Geosciences and minor in Engineering Geology from the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA, in December 1993. 14. I am a Registered Geologist in the State of Arizona, USA, # 15,566, and have been since 1983. I am a Professional Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, and have been since 2006. 15. I have been employed as a geologist in the mining and mineral exploration business or as a geology professor or teaching, continuously, for the past 40 years, since my graduation from university in 1969 with a Master of Science in Geology. 16. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is: Consulting Geologist for MagmaChem Exploration LLC on numerous exploration projects for gold, copper, and molybdenum for various mining companies from 2001-2004 Ph.D. research and several peer-reviewed publications on porphyry copper, gold, silver, and tin deposits As a consultant with SRK Consulting from 2004-2007, I have prepared environmental permit applications for operating and closing copper operations in Arizona, and have contributed to NI 43-101 Technical reports in 2007. 17. I am responsible for the writing, content, compilation, and editing of the technical report titled NI 43-101 Technical Report on Exploration at Big Chunk Project, Alaska, USA", and dated December 31, 2010 (the Technical Report) relating to Liberty Star Uranium & Metal Corp.'s Big Chunk Project in southeastern Alaska. 18. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
Corolla K Hoag, R.G., CPG
December 31, 2010
Corolla K Hoag
Principal Geologist SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. 3275 W. Ina Rd, Suite 240 Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A. 85741 Phone: 520-544-3688 Email: choag@srk.com
CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR I, Corolla K Hoag, a Registered Geologist and a Certified Professional Geologist, do hereby certify that: 23. I am currently employed as a consulting geologist to the mining and mineral exploration industry, as Principal Geologist with SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc, with an office address of 3275 W. Ina Rd., Suite 240, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 85741. 24. I graduated with a Bachelors of Science Degree in Geology from Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington in May 1983. I graduated with a Master of Science Degree in Economic Geology from the University of Arizona in December 1991. 25. I am a Registered Geologist in the State of Arizona, USA, (#32701), and have been since 1997. I am a Professional Geoscientist in the State of Texas, USA (#10380) and have been since April 2008. I am a Professional Geologist in the State of Alaska (G614) and have been since September 2008. I am a Certified Professional Geologist through the American Institute of Professional Geologists, CPG - 11205, and have been since August 2008. 26. I have been employed as a geologist in the mineral exploration, mining, and mining consulting business for the past 25 years, since my graduation from university. 27. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101. The Technical Report on the Preliminary Economic Assessment is based upon my personal review of the information provided by the issuer. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Preliminary Economic Assessment is: Exploration and mine development geologist for a variety of companies in the Western USA, 1981-1992; Boise Cascade Minerals, Washington; U.S. Bureau of Mines (Washington RARE II mineral resource evaluations) Geologist with Freeport-McMoRan Gold Company, 1988-1989 Senior Geologist under contract to Cyprus Copper Tohono and Cyprus Copperstone, 1991-1995 Senior Geologist with BHP Copper responsible for geological feasibility studies performed to support regulatory permitting, confirm mineral resources and test technical viability of the Florence in-situ leach project from 1995 to
B Appendix B Claim Numbers and Locations

December 31, 2010
B-1 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration
Table B- 1
ADL Number 642826 642827 642839 642840 642841 642842 642843 642855 642856 642857 642858 642859 642860 642861 642862 642874 642875 642876 642877 642878 642879 642880 642881 642893 642894 642895 642896 642897 642898 642899 642900 642912 642913 642914 642915 642916 642917 642918 642919 642932 642933 642934 642935 642936 642937 642938 642939 642947
Big Chunk South claims Iliamna Recording District, Seward Meridian

Claim Name BC 338 BC 339 BC 351 BC 352 BC 353 BC 354 BC 355 BC 367 BC 368 BC 369 BC 370 BC 371 BC 372 BC 373 BC 374 BC 386 BC 387 BC 388 BC 389 BC 390 BC 391 BC 392 BC 393 BC 405 BC 406 BC 407 BC 408 BC 409 BC 410 BC 411 BC 412 BC 424 BC 425 BC 426 BC 427 BC 428 BC 429 BC 430 BC 431 BC 444 BC 445 BC 446 BC 447 BC 448 BC 449 BC 450 BC 451 BC 459 Township 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S Range 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 38W Section 6 6 6 6 4 3 3 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 24 Quarter SW SE NW NE NW NE NW SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
Table B- 1 Continued
ADL Number 642948 642949 642950 642951 642952 642953 642954 642955 642956 642957 642958 642959 642960 642964 642965 642966 642967 642968 642969 642970 642971 642972 642973 642974 642975 642976 642977 642978 642979 642980 642981 642982 642983 642987 642988 642989 642990 642991 642992 642993 642994 642995 642996 642997 642998 642999 643000 643001 Claim Name BC 460 BC 461 BC 462 BC 463 BC 464 BC 465 BC 466 BC 467 BC 468 BC 469 BC 470 BC 471 BC 472 BC 476 BC 477 BC 478 BC 479 BC 480 BC 481 BC 482 BC 483 BC 484 BC485 BC 486 BC 487 BC 488 BC 489 BC 490 BC 491 BC 492 BC 493 BC 494 BC 495 BC 499 BC 500 BC 501 BC 502 BC 503 BC 504 BC 505 BC 506 BC 507 BC 508 BC 509 BC 510 BC 511 BC 512 BC 513 Township 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S Range 38W 37W 37W 37W 37W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 38W 38W 38W 38W 38W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 38W 38W 38W 38W 38W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 35W 35W 35W Section 24 19 19 20 20 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 15 14 14 13 13 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 18 18 17 Quarter NE NW NE NW NE NW NW NW NE NW NE NW NE SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NW NE NW 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
ADL Number 643002 643003 643004 643005 643006 643008 643009 643010 643011 643012 643013 643014 643015 643016 643017 643018 643019 643020 643021 643022 643023 643024 643025 643026 643027 643028 643029 643030 643031 643032 643033 643034 643035 643036 643037 643038 643039 643040 643041 643042 643043 643044 643046 643047 643048 643049 643050 643051 Claim Name BC 514 BC 515 BC 516 BC 517 BC 518 BC 520 BC 521 BC 522 BC 523 BC 524 BC 525 BC 526 BC 527 BC 528 BC 529 BC 530 BC 531 BC 532 BC 533 BC 534 BC 535 BC 536 BC 537 BC 538 BC 539 BC 540 BC 541 BC 542 BC 543 BC 544 BC 545 BC 546 BC 547 BC 54B BC 549 BC 550 BC 551 BC 552 BC 553 BC 554 BC 555 BC 556 BC 558 BC 559 BC 560 BC 561 BC 562 BC 563 Township 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S Range 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 38W 38W 38W 38W 38W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 38W 38W 38W 38W 38W 37W Section 17 16 16 15 15 10 11 11 12 12 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 7 Quarter NE NW NE 1NW NE SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NE NW NE NW NE NW 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
ADL Number 643052 643053 643054 643055 643056 643057 643058 643059 643060 643061 643062 643063 643064 643065 643066 643067 643068 643069 643070 643071 643072 643073 643074 643075 643076 643077 643078 643079 643080 643081 643082 643090 643091 643092 643093 643094 643095 643096 643097 643098 643099 643100 643101 643102 643103 643104 643105 643106 Claim Name BC 564 BC 565 BC 566 BC 567 BC 568 BC 569 BC 570 BC 571 BC 572 BC 573 BC 574 BC 575 BC 576 BC 577 BC 578 BC 579 BC 580 BC 581 BC 582 BC 583 BC 584 BC 585 BC 586 BC 587 BC 588 BC 589 BC 590 BC 591 BC 592 BC 593 BC 594 BC 602 BC 603 BC 604 BC 605 BC 606 BC 607 BC 608 BC 609 BC 610 BC 611 BC 612 BC 613 BC 614 BC 615 BC 616 BC 617 BC 618 Township 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S Range 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 38W 38W 38W 38W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W Section 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 Quarter NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
ADL Number 643107 643108 643109 643110 643111 643112 643113 643114 643115 643116 643117 643118 643126 643127 643128 643129 643130 643131 643132 643133 643134 643135 643136 643137 643138 643139 643140 643141 643142 643143 643144 643145 643146 643147 643148 643149 643150 643151 643152 643153 643154 643162 643163 643164 643165 643166 643167 643168 Claim Name BC 619 BC 620 BC 621 BC 622 BC 623 BC 624 BC 625 BC 626 BC 627 BC 628 BC 629 BC 630 BC 638 BC 639 BC 640 BC 641 BC 642 BC 643 BC 644 BC 645 BC 646 BC 647 BC 648 BC 649 BC 650 BC 651 BC 652 BC 653 BC 654 BC 655 BC 656 BC 657 BC 658 BC 659 BC 660 BC 661 BC 662 BC 663 BC 664 BC 665 BC 666 BC 674 BC 675 BC 676 BC 677 BC 678 BC 879 BC 680 Township 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S Range 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W Section 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 Quarter SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SE SW SE SW SE SW SE 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
ADL Number 643169 643170 643171 643172 643173 643174 643175 643176 643177 643178 643179 643180 643181 643182 643183 643184 643185 643186 643187 643188 643189 643190 643198 643199 643200 643201 643202 643203 643204 643205 643206 643207 643208 643209 643210 643211 643212 643213 643214 643215 643216 643217 643218 643219 643220 643221 643222 643223 Claim Name BC 681 BC 682 BC 683 BC 684 BC 685 BC 686 BC 687 BC 688 BC 689 BC 690 BC 691 BC 692 BC 693 BC 694 BC 695 BC 696 BC 697 BC 698 BC 699 BC 700 BC 701 BC 702 BC 710 BC 711 BC 712 BC 713 BC 714 BC 715 BC 716 BC 717 BC 718 BC 719 BC 720 BC 721 BC 722 BC 723 BC 724 BC 725 BC726 BC 727 BC 728 BC 729 BC 730 BC 731 BC 732 BC 733 BC 734 BC 735 Township 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S Range 37W 37W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W Section 36 36 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 31 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 31 31 32 32 33 Quarter SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
ADL Number 643224 643225 643226 643228 643229 643230 643231 643232 643233 643234 643235 643236 643237 643238 643239 643240 643241 643242 643243 643244 643245 643246 643247 643248 643249 643250 643251 643252 643253 643254 643255 643256 643272 643273 643274 643275 643276 643277 643278 643279 643280 643281 643282 643283 643284 643285 643286 643298 Claim Name BC 736 BC 737 BC 738 BC 740 BC 741 BC 742 BC 743 BC 744 BC 745 BC 746 BC 747 BC 748 BC 749 BC 750 BC 751 BC 752 BC 753 BC 754 BC 755 BC 756 BC 757 BC 758 BC 759 BC 760 BC 761 BC 762 BC 763 BC 764 BC 765 BC 766 BC 767 BC 768 BC 784 BC 785 BC 786 BC 787 BC 788 BC 789 BC 790 BC 791 BC792 BC 793 BC 794 BC 795 BC 796 BC 797 BC 798 BC 810 Township 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S Range 35W 35W 35W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 36W Section 33 34 34 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 21 Quarter NE NW NE SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SE 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
ADL Number 643299 643300 643301 643302 643303 643304 643305 643306 643307 643308 643309 643310 643311 643323 643324 643325 643326 643327 643328 643329 643330 643331 643332 643333 643334 643335 643339 643340 643341 643342 643343 643344 643345 643346 643347 643348 643349 643350 643351 643352 643353 643357 643358 643359 643360 643361 643362 643363 Claim Name BC 811 BC 812 BC 813 BC 814 BC 815 BC 816 BC 817 BC 818 BC 819 BC 820 BC 821 BC 822 BC 823 BC 835 BC 836 BC 837 BC 838 BC 839 BC 840 BC 841 BC 842 BC 843 BC 844 BC 845 BC 846 BC 847 BC 851 BC 852 BC 853 BC 854 BC 855 BC 856 BC 857 BC 858 BC 859 BC 860 BC 861 BC 862 BC 863 BC 864 BC 865 BC 869 BC 870 BC 871 BC 872 BC 873 BC 874 BC 875 Township 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S Range 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W Section 22 22 23 24 24 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 22 23 24 24 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 Quarter SW SE SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NE NW NE NW NE NW NE 1/4 1/4

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
ADL Number 643364 643365 643366 643367 643368 643369 643370 643371 643432 643433 643434 643435 643436 643437 643438 643439 643440 643441 643442 643443 643444 643445 643446 643447 643448 643449 643450 643451 643452 643453 649923 649924 649925 649926 649927 649928 649929 649930 649931 649932 649939 649940 649948 649949 Claim Name BC 876 BC 877 BC 878 BC 879 BC 880 BC 881 BC 882 BC 883 BC 1001 BC 1002 BC 1003 BC 1004 BC 1005 BC 1006 BC 1007 BC 1008 BC 1009 BC 1010 BC 1011 BC 1012 BC 1013 BC 1014 BC 1015 BC 1016 BC 1017 BC 1018 BC 1019 BC 1020 BC 1021 BC 1022 BC 1171 BC 1172 BC 1173 BC 1174 BC 1175 BC 1176 BC 1177 BC 1178 BC 1179 BC 1180 BC 1187 BC 1188 BC 1196 BC 1197 Township 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S 2S Range 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 35W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 36W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W Section 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 7 7 7 7 4 4 3 3 3 3 23 23 23 23 22 22 23 23 22 22 23 23 15 14 14 13 13 15 14 14 13 13 24 24 24 24 Quarter NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NW NE NE SE SE SW SW SE SE SW SW SW SW NE NE NW NW NE NE NW NW NE NW NE NW NE SE SW SE SW SE NW NE SW SE 1/4 1/4
NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
Table B- 2
ADL Number 649803 649804 649805 649806 649807 649808 649809 649810 649811 649812 649813 649814 649815 649816 649817 649818 649819 649820 649821 649822 649823 649824 649825 649826 649827 649828 649829 649830 649831 649832 649833 649834 649835 649836 649837 649838 649839 649840 649841 649842 649843 649844 649845 649846 649847 649848 649849 649850 649851
Big Chunk North claims, Iliamna Recording District, Seward Meridian

Claim Name BC 1051 BC 1052 BC 1053 BC 1054 BC 1055 BC 1056 BC 1057 BC 1058 BC 1059 BC 1060 BC 1061 BC 1062 BC 1063 BC 1064 BC 1065 BC 1066 BC 1067 BC 1068 BC 1069 BC 1070 BC 1071 BC 1072 BC 1073 BC 1074 BC 1075 BC 1076 BC 1077 BC 1078 BC 1079 BC 1080 BC 1081 BC 1082 BC 1083 BC1084 BC 1085 BC 1086 BC 1087 BC 1088 BC 1089 BC 1090 BC 1091 BC 1092 BC 1093 BC 1094 BC 1095 BC 1096 BC 1097 BC 1098 BC 1099 Township 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N Range 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W Section 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 Quarter Section NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW December 31, 2010
Appendix B
ADL Number 649852 649853 649854 649855 649856 649857 649858 649859 649860 649861 649862 649863 649864 649865 649866 649867 649868 649869 649870 649871 649872 649873 649874 649875 649876 649877 649878 649879 649880 649881 649882 649883 649884 649885 649886 649887 649888 649889 649890 649891 649892 649893 649894 649895 649896 649897 649898 649899 649900 Claim Name BC 1100 BC 1101 BC 1102 BC 1103 BC 1104 BC 1105 BC 1106 BC 1107 BC 1108 BC1109 BC 1110 BC 1111 BC 1112 BC 1113 BC 1114 BC 1115 BC 1116 BC 1117 BC 1118 BC 1119 BC 1120 BC 1121 BC1122 BC 1123 BC 1124 BC 1125 BC 1126 BC 1127 BC 112B BC 1129 BC 1130 BC 1131 BC 1132 BC 1133 BC 1134 BC 1135 BC1136 BC 1137 BC 1138 BC 1139 BC 1140 BC 1141 BC 1142 BC 1143 BC1144 BC 1145 BC 1146 BC 1147 BC 1148 Township 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N Range 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W Section 36 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 Quarter Section NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE December 31, 2010
Appendix B
ADL Number 649901 649902 649903 649904 649905 649906 649907 649908 649909 649910 649911 649912 649913 649914 649915 649916 649917 649918 649919 649920 649921 649922 650348 650349 650350 650351 650352 650353 650354 650355 650356 650357 650358 650359 650360 650361 650362 650363 650364 650365 650366 650367 650368 650369 650370 650371 650372 650373 650374 Claim Name BC 1149 BC 1150 BC 1151 BC 1152 BC 1153 BC 1154 BC 1155 BC 1156 BC 1157 BC 1158 BC 1159 BC 1160 BC 1161 BC 1162 BC 1163 BC 1164 BC 1165 BC 1166 BC 1167 BC 1168 BC1169 BC 1170 BC 1312 BC 1313 BC 1314 BC 1315 BC 1316 BC 1317 BC 1318 BC 1319 BC 1320 BC 1321 BC 1322 BC 1323 BC 1324 BC 1325 BC 1326 BC 1327 BC 132B BC 1329 BC 1330 BC 1331 BC 1332 BC 1333 BC 1334 BC 1335 BC 1336 BC 1337 BC 1338 Township 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N Range 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W Section 12 12 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 19 19 19 Quarter Section SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE SW SE NW NE SW December 31, 2010
Appendix B
ADL Number 650375 650376 650377 650378 650379 650380 650381 650382 650383 650384 650385 650386 650387 650388 650389 650390 650391 650392 650393 650394 650395 650396 650397 650398 650399 650400 650401 650402 650403 650404 650405 650406 650407 650408 650409 650410 650411 Claim Name BC 1339 BC 1340 BC 1341 BC 1342 BC 1343 BC 1344 BC 1345 BC 1346 BC 1347 BC 1348 BC 1349 BC 1350 BC 1351 BC 1352 BC 1353 BC 1354 BC 1355 BC 1356 BC 1357 BC 1358 BC 1359 BC 1360 BC 1361 BC 1362 BC 1363 BC 1364 BC 1365 BC 1366 BC 1367 BC 1368 BC 1369 BC1370 BC 1371 BC 1372 BC 1373 BC 1374 BC 1375 Township 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N 1N Range 37W 37W 37W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W 38W 38W 37W 37W Section 19 30 30 30 30 36 36 31 31 36 36 31 31 1 1 6 6 1 1 6 6 12 12 7 7 12 12 7 7 13 13 18 18 13 13 18 18 Quarter Section SE NW NE SW SE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE NW NE NW NE SW SE SW SE

Appendix B
December 31, 2010
C Appendix C Graphical Drill Logs


Appendix C
December 31, 2010
C-1 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration
Table C- 1
DDH # DDH BC1001 DDH BC1002 DDH BC1003 DDH BC1004 DDH BC1005 DDH BC1006 DDH BC1007 DDH BC1008 DDH BC1009 DDH BC1010 DDH BC1011 DDH BC1012 DDH BC1013 DDH BC1014 DDH BC1015 DDH BC1016 DDH BC1017 DDH BC1018 DDH BC1020 DDH BC1021 DDH BC1023 DDH BC1026 DDH BC1027 DDH BC1028 DDH BC1029 DDH BC1030 DDH BC1031
Drillhole locations at the Big Chunk project

Northing 6658179 6657205 6657215 6656378 6657419 6657201.249 6657205.912 6658997.118 6676838.179 6676813.503 6681028.092 6676783.596 6676346.956 6677250.469 6676798.677 6656021.148 6655967.483 6653998.928 6646001.384 6638053.603 6680036.692 6676816.212 6680990.745 6675967.329 6679316.926 6660013.998 6659983.641 Easting 365275 365574 365828 365102 366339 366701.574 364196.311 364200.287 350942.538 346474.664 352642.183 350353.306 350914.608 350992.886 351297.748 361767.065 361244.369 348503.905 347803.3 350414.439 346501.675 349343.57 352042.45 350813.89 348264.52 364167.91 365492.71 Total Depth (m) 90.47 34.44 206.35 73.76 196.29 115.37 149.96 104.24 133.2 166.42 218.24 187.91 172.52 155.45 254.2 167.94 90.22 116.43 178.61 81.08 142.04 184.71 109.42 57.61 74.98 81.99 90.22 Date 10/23/2004 10/24/2004 10/26/2004 10/29/2004 6/16/2005 6/23/2005 7/3/2005 7/4/2005 7/8/2005 7/12/2005 7/16/2005 7/22/2005 7/25/2005 7/27/2005 7/30/2005 8/3/2005 8/6/2005 8/8/2005 8/13/2005 8/18/2005 8/21/2005 8/31/2005 9/3/2005 9/6/2005 9/9/2005 9/12/2005 9/14/2005
UTMZ5N-WGS84

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 1
Graphical drill results, DDH BC1001

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 2

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 3

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 4

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 5

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 6

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 7

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
C-9 NI 43-101 Technical Report on Exploration
Figure C- 8

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 9

Appendix C
December 31, 2010
Figure C- 10 Graphical drill results, DDH BC1010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

Appendix C
December 31, 2010

SRK Big Chunk NI43-101 Part B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SRK Big Chunk NI43-101 Part B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liberty Star Uranium & Metals Corp Big Chunk Project, Alaska

61 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

10 Exploration (Item 12)

10.1 Geophysical Surveys and Investigations

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

62 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

December 31, 2010

63 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

December 31, 2010

64 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

65 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

10.2 Interpretation of Geophysical Investigations

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

66 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

67 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

December 31, 2010

68 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

69 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

10.4 Interpretation of Geochemical Surveys

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

70 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

71 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

Source: Klein, 2004b

Figure 10-1 Airborne magnetic map of the Big Chunk project

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

Big Chunk project

Airborne magnetic contours near the Pebble deposit

Internal Control No. 8

73 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

Source: Klein, 2004d

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

Big Chunk project

Internal Control No. 8

75 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

Source: Klein, 2004e

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

76 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

Source: Liberty Star data files, superimposed on a Google Earth image

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

77 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

Source: Geotech, 2010

Helicopter-borne ZTEM configuration at Big Chunk project

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

78 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration

Source: Geotech, 2010 (Claim boundaries are as of May 2010)

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

December 31, 2010

83 NI-43-101 Technical Report on Exploration