Getty Titan 24 Report

1. TITAN‐24 DC / IP / MT SURVEY GEOPHYSICAL REPORT GETTY PROJECT (BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA) ON BEHALF OF EFFISOLAR ENERGY CORP./GETTY COPPER INC. (BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA) QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD BENOÎT TOURNERIE, PGEO 146 SPARKS AVE, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M2H 2S4, CANADA ARRE VERWEERD PHONE: (416) 306‐1941 / FAX: (416) 306‐1949 JASON METCALFE WWW.QUANTECGEOSCIENCE.COM 20/07/2011

2. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION A Titan‐24 DC/IP and MT survey was conducted over the Getty Project, British Columbia, Canada on behalf of EffiSolar Energy Corp. and Getty Copper Inc. between November 20th and December 13th of 2010. In total 12 lines of data were collected (23.2 line‐km DC/IP and 19.2 km MT) with a station spacing of 100 m. The survey geometry for the DC/IP component was a pole‐dipole geometry. The line spacing was 250 m and the lines were located in a staggered fashion over three known deposits: Getty North, Getty West and Getty South. SURVEY OBJECTIVES The objectives of this survey are to further delineate the geophysical signatures of the Getty North, Getty West and Getty South deposits and identify potential other features of interest. RESULTS The survey was successful in identifying the Getty North, West and South Deposits. Overall data quality was high. Summarizing the results of this survey the following conclusions can be drawn: • Resistivity distribution (DC & MT) show a succession of curved, sub‐horizontal conductive features and South‐Southwest‐North‐Northeast faulting trend • Chargeability signature is fairly weak except for the known deposits and appears to be related to the interpreted faulting. • Getty North is likely composed of two centers, where the western center extends further north‐ east in a similar azimuth as the interpreted faults. Resistivity is moderate‐low. • Getty West is a near surface (<300 m depth) feature of weak‐moderate chargeability & moderate‐low resistivity. • Getty South is a low resistivity, weak‐moderate chargeability feature extending to approx. 350 m below the surface • In total thirty‐nine (39) geophysical anomalies were identified, of which twelve (12) are classified as high priority. Sixteen (16) anomalies fall in the medium priority classification and eleven (11) are labeled as low priority. A complete overview of all anomalies can be found in the conclusions section, the high priority targets have been listed in the table below. 2

3. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Anomaly Line Location Depth DC IP MT remarks ID signature signature signature IP‐01 1000 2010‐ 90‐350 Mod‐low Mod‐high Getty South/ 2190 Possible fault MT‐01 3000 40900‐ 290‐ Mod‐low Mod‐low low 41820 820 IP‐04 3250 39390‐ 380‐ low mod low 630 39600 IP‐05 3250 39930‐ 290‐ low mod mod Correlates with 40120 450 bottom of DC‐05 IP‐07 3250 40290‐ 110‐ mod Mod‐high Mod‐low Getty West 40500 270 IP‐07 3750 40220‐ 80‐230 Low‐mod Low‐mod Low‐mod Getty West 40400 IP‐06 3750 41170‐ 290‐ mod high low Getty North 41420 500 IP‐09 3750 41480‐ 80‐420 mod high mod Getty North 41870 IP‐06 4000 41310‐ 90‐380 mod high mod Getty North 41640 IP‐09 4000 41620‐ 0‐210 Mod‐low high mod Getty North 41920 IP‐06 4250 41540‐ 100‐ Mod‐low Mod‐high mod 41940 530 DC‐09 4250 41660‐ 200‐ low Mod‐high Mod‐low Correlates with 42000 460 bottom of IP‐06 3

4. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 6 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 8 . 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Survey Objectives ............................................................................................................. 9 1.2 General Survey Information ............................................................................................. 9 2 Previous work & Geology ....................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Getty North .................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Getty South .................................................................................................................... 15 3 Results and Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Overview of Inversion Procedure ................................................................................... 17 3.1.1 DC Resistivity & Induced Polarization Inversions ................................................... 17 3.1.2 Audio‐Magnetotelluric Inversions .......................................................................... 18 3.2 Discussion of Results ...................................................................................................... 20 3.2.1 Getty South – Line 250N ........................................................................................ 21 . 3.2.2 Getty South – Line 500N ........................................................................................ 22 . 3.2.3 Getty South – Line 750N ........................................................................................ 23 . 3.2.4 Getty South – Line 1000N ...................................................................................... 24 . 3.2.5 Getty North – Line 3000N ...................................................................................... 26 . 3.2.6 Getty North – Line 3250N ...................................................................................... 28 . 3.2.7 Getty North – Line 3500N ...................................................................................... 30 . 3.2.8 Getty North – Line 3750N ...................................................................................... 32 . 3.2.9 Getty North – Line 4000N ...................................................................................... 34 . 3.2.10 Getty North – Line 4250N ...................................................................................... 36 . 3.2.11 Getty North – Line 4500N ...................................................................................... 38 . 3.2.12 Getty North – Line 5000N ...................................................................................... 39 . 3.2.13 Plan map interpretation ......................................................................................... 40 4 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 48 4.1 Results ............................................................................................................................ 48 5 Statement of Qualifications ................................................................................................... 55 6 Digital Archive ........................................................................................................................ 58 A Survey Logistics ...................................................................................................................... 59 4

5. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD B Production Summary ............................................................................................................. 71 C DC – IP Pseudo‐Sections of Final Processed Data .................................................................. 75 D MT Soundings Curves of Final Processed Data .................................................................... 123 E MT Pseudo‐Sections of Final Processed Data ...................................................................... 171 F Parallel Sensor Test .............................................................................................................. 179 G Instruments Specifications ................................................................................................... 193 H Geosoft Sections of the 2D Models ..................................................................................... 199 I Geosoft Plan Maps of the 2D Models .................................................................................. 225 J An Introduction to Titan‐24 Direct Current (DC) Resistivity and Induced Polarisation (IP) Methods ............................................................................................................................... 247 K Introduction to the Magnetotelluric Method ...................................................................... 257 L References............................................................................................................................ 263 M Scaled Geosoft Sections and Maps of the 2D Models ......................................................... 265 5

6. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1‐1: General project location. .................................................................................................. 11 Figure 1‐2: Claim Map with Titan24 survey Lines. .............................................................................. 11 Figure 1‐3: Getty North and South line location map with topography. ............................................ 12 Figure 2‐1: Local geology of the Getty North deposit. ........................................................................ 14 Figure 2‐2: Local geology of the Getty South Deposit. ....................................................................... 16 Figure 3‐1: Example of DC‐IP misfit curves showing relaxation of the model .................................... 18 Figure 3‐2: Line 250N – 2D inversion results. ..................................................................................... 21 Figure 3‐3: Line 500N – 2D inversion results. ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 3‐4: Line 750N – 2D inversion results. ..................................................................................... 23 Figure 3‐5: Line 1000N – 2D Inversion results. ................................................................................... 24 Figure 3‐6: Line 1000N – 2D Half Space referenced IP model. ........................................................... 25 Figure 3‐7: Line 3000N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................... 26 Figure 3‐8: Line 3000N – 2D Half Space referenced IP model. ........................................................... 27 Figure 3‐9: Line 3250N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................... 28 Figure 3‐10: Line 3500N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................. 30 Figure 3‐11: Line 3750N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................. 32 Figure 3‐12: Line 3750 N – 2D Half Space referenced IP model. ........................................................ 33 Figure 3‐13: Line 4000N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................. 34 Figure 3‐14: Line 4250N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................. 36 Figure 3‐15: Line 4500N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................. 38 Figure 3‐16: Line 5000 N – 2D inversion results. ................................................................................ 39 Figure 3‐17: DC model plan map, 1600 m Elevation. .......................................................................... 41 Figure 3‐18: IP Model plan map, 1600 m elevation. ........................................................................... 41 Figure 3‐19: DC Model plan map, 1400 m elevation. ......................................................................... 42 Figure 3‐20: IP Model plan map, 1400 m elevation. ........................................................................... 42 Figure 3‐21: DC Model plan map, 1200 m elevation. ......................................................................... 43 Figure 3‐22: IP Model plan map, 1200 m elevation. ........................................................................... 43 Figure 3‐23: DC model plan map, 1000 m elevation. ......................................................................... 44 . Figure 3‐24: IP Model plan map, 1000 m elevation. ........................................................................... 44 Figure 3‐25: MT model plan map, 1600 m elevation. ......................................................................... 45 Figure 3‐26: MT Model plan map, 1400 m elevation. ......................................................................... 45 Figure 3‐27: MT Model plan map, 1000 m elevation. ......................................................................... 46 6

7. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐28: MT Model plan map, 600 m elevation. ........................................................................... 46 Figure 4‐1: 2D IP Inversion results (DC model reference) of line 4000N with borehole locations overlay (gold assays in grey, copper assays in green). ................................................................ 48 Figure 4‐2: 2D IP Inversion results (DC model reference) of line 750N with borehole locations overlay (copper assays in red). .................................................................................................... 49 Figure 4‐3: 2D IP results: 1600 m plan map with borehole locations overlay. ................................... 50 7

8. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD LIST OF TABLES Table 1: List of claims surveyed for Getty North and Getty south. ..................................................... 10 Table 2: List of Lots surveyed for Getty South. ................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Geophysical Targets for the Getty Project. ........................................................................... 53 8

9. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the logistics and the results of the analysis of the Titan‐24 DC ‐ IP ‐ MT data acquired from 2010/11/20 to 2010/12/13 over the Getty Project, on behalf of EffiSolar Energy Corp./Getty Copper Inc.. The first part of this report presents the inversion results, and their geophysical interpretation, and some recommendation for future follow up on the property. The second part of the report presents the logistics of the survey, including the survey parameters and methodology, and the survey results (data) in digital documents. 1.1 SURVEY OBJECTIVES The exploration objective of the Titan 24 DCIP & MT survey at the Getty Project is to detect porphyry mineralization at depth for drill targeting and structural delineation. Titan 24 should provide the following benefits: Verify the geophysical anomalies identified by previous IP surveys to depth of 300m around two ore deposits. And detect further deeper to identify whether there are anomalies under these deposits and showings, and if so determine intensity, shape and dimensions. The Titan 24 Distributed Acquisition System (DAS; Sheard, 1998) employs a combination of multiplicity of sensors, 24‐bit digital sampling, and advanced signal processing. It provides three in‐dependent datasets capable of measuring subsurface resistivity’s (structure, alteration & lithology) and chargeability (mineralization) to depth. The DC/IP component of the survey should provide an excellent means of delineating target mineralization within the top 500m to 750m pending geologic and cultural environment. The MT resistivity provides additional resistivity information from surface to depths beyond 1km. The MT resistivity is useful for mapping geological contacts with resistivity contrasts and deep conductors that may potentially represent alteration or mineralization. 1.2 GENERAL SURVEY INFORMATION Quantec Project No.: CA00777T Client: EffiSolar Energy Corp./Getty Copper Inc. Client Address 220‐17 Fawcett Rd Coquitlam, British Columbia, V3K 6V2 Canada Client representative: William Xu Phone: 604‐555‐0060 Email: william@effisolar.com Project Name: Getty Project Survey Type: Titan‐24 DC ‐ IP ‐ MT Project Survey Period: 2010/11/20 to 2010/12/13 9

10. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD General Location: Approximately 50km South West of Kamloops Province British Columbia Mining division Kamloops Mining Division District Logan Lake Nearest Settlement: Logan Lake Datum & Projection: WGS 84, Zone 10U Latitude & Longitude: Approx. 121°01’44”E, 50°3343”N UTM position: Approx. 639601m E, 5602996m N List of Claims Surveyed: Getty North & South: see Table 1 1, and Figure 1‐2. List of Lots Surveyed: Getty South see Table 21. Getty North 543766 758882 759482 759522 766082 218508 218511 221509 221561 221562 221563 221564 221565 221566 221567 221568 221569 221571 221573 221575 221577 221578 221579 221580 221581 221585 Getty South 519232 519237 526953 Table 1: List of claims surveyed for Getty North and Getty South. 5483 5601 5604 5607 5611 5614 5617 5602 5605 5612 5615 5618 5603 5606 5613 5616 Table 2: List of Lots surveyed for Getty South. 1 List of Claims (Getty North & South) and Lots (Getty South) provided by Percy F. Cox, rep. Getty Copper Inc. 10

11. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 2 Figure 1‐1: General project location . 3 Figure 1‐2: Claim Map with Titan24 survey Lines. 2 After Getty Copper Inc. website (www.gettycopper.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&itemid=21). 3 Claim Map from MTO system (https://webmaps.gov.bc.ca/imf5/imf.jsp?site=mem_mto_min‐view‐title). 11

12. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 1‐3: Getty North and South line location map with topography. 12

13. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 2 PREVIOUS WORK & GEOLOGY 4 The Getty Copper Project is located in the Kamloops Mining Division of British Columbia, Canada and consists of both the Getty North and Getty South Deposits. The area has historically produced appreciable amounts of copper and molybdenum. To the immediate south of the Getty Copper project the Highland Valley open pit mine is operated by Teck Resources Ltd. The property has been explored intermittently since the 1950’s with work consisting of surface trenching and surface bulk sampling, aerial photographic surveys and base map production, diamond and percussion drilling, geological mapping, assaying, IP and magnetics geophysical surveys, soil geochemical surveys and metallurgical testing. To date, diamond drilling on the Getty North property totals approximately 46,490 meters in 210 holes, and percussion drilling totals approximately 5724 meters in 74 holes. In addition, 23 kilometers of induced polarization surveys, 23 kilometers of geochemical soil sampling surveys, and detailed geological mapping have been conducted. 2.1 GETTY NORTH Getty North property totals approximately 46,490 meters in 210 holes, and percussion drilling totals approximately 5724 meters in 74 holes. In addition, 23 kilometers of induced polarization surveys, 23 kilometers of geochemical soil sampling surveys, and detailed geological mapping have been conducted. The Getty North deposit is situated within the upper Triassic Guichon Batholith which is part of the Nicola Group of the Quesnel Terrane. The Quesnel Terrane is a west‐facing volcanic island‐arc sequence that was accreted to the North American plate during the Jurassic age. The Guichon Batholith, located 60 kilometers southwest of Kamloops, is an elongated intrusion 25 kilometers wide by 40 kilometers long which hosts several large low‐grade porphyry copper deposits. The Getty North property is largely underlain by granodiorite cut by a series of porphyry dikes that are most likely derived from the Bethlehem phase of the batholith. Porphyry style hypogene mineralization within the study area consists mostly of chalcopyrite and lesser bornite in fractures and veins, as disseminations, and in breccia bodies. Oxidized mineralization is also present near the Kamloops unconformity. Fractures and faults are prominent, and the areas of highest fracture density are also the zones of higher‐grade mineralization. The areas of higher fracture density are adjacent to the stock and associated with sets of steeply dipping north and northeast trending faults that have dominantly formed post‐mineralization. Kamloops Group rocks are restricted almost entirely to down‐faulted blocks and associated vertical offsets that have been identified by drilling. 4 After “National Instrument 43‐101 ‐ Preliminary Feasibility Study Technical Report of the Getty Copper Project” West Coast Environmental and Engineering, 2009. 13

14. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 2‐1: Local geology of the Getty North deposit. 14

15. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 2.2 GETTY SOUTH As with the Getty North Deposit, the Getty South property has been explored intermittently since the 1950’s with work consisting of surface trenching and surface and underground bulk sampling, underground workings, aerial photographic surveys and base map production, diamond and percussion drilling, geological mapping, assaying, IP and magnetics geophysical surveys, soil geochemical surveys and metallurgical testing. The Getty South property has been examined with almost 4000 meters of surface trenching, approximately 20,353 meters of diamond drilling from surface and underground sites, and 1,719 meters of underground workings. Most recently, an exploration program composed of 13 reconnaissance diamond drill holes and 15 surface trenches with a total length of 1,572 meters were completed in 1996 and 1997. The Getty South deposit is also situated within the upper Triassic Guichon Batholith. The deposit is a composite breccia zone of what was originally Guichon quartz diorite that was intruded by andesite, rhyolite and porphyritic dikes and related phreato‐magmatic breccias. The Getty South deposit is located immediately west of a regional north‐south striking structure locally called the Jersey Fault. A similar parallel‐striking fault, termed the Bethlehem Fault by previous authors, is located near the east side of the breccia. 15

16. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 2‐2: Local geology of the Getty South Deposit. 16

17. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION In this section, results of the 2D inversion of the Titan‐24 data are presented as cross‐sections along each survey line. The observed anomalies are described and discussed as potential drilling targets. The Titan‐24 system acquires three types of geophysical data – magnetotelluric (MT), direct current resistivity (DC), and induced polarization (IP). The MT and DC method are used to resolve the resistivity distribution of the subsurface by measuring the electric potential (DC) and the variation of natural source electric and magnetic fields (MT). Resistivity can be an indicator of metallic mineralization, but is more often than not controlled by rock porosity and is therefore an indirect indicator of alteration and mineral grain fabric. In the induced polarization method, electrical capacitance or chargeability of the subsurface is measured. Chargeability is a near‐direct indicator of the presence of mineralization, in both massive and disseminated forms. This mineralization is most commonly various sulphides and graphite, but also includes clay‐type minerals potentially making it a useful tool for base‐metals exploration. Detail results, i.e. observed DC‐IP‐MT data and equivalent calculated responses for each model, are presented on a line per line basis in PowerPoint (PDF) documents delivered in the digital archive (CD/DVD) attached to this report. 3.1 OVERVIEW OF INVERSION PROCEDURE 3.1.1 DC RESISTIVITY & INDUCED POLARIZATION INVERSIONS DC‐IP is an electrical method that uses the injection of current and the measurement of voltage along with its rate of decay to determine the subsurface resistivity and chargeability, respectively. Depth of investigation is mainly controlled by the array geometry, but also the transmitted current, in terms of signal to noise, particularly for the chargeability. In its standard configuration (a=100m / n=0.5‐23.5) the Titan‐24 surveys typically image DC resistivity to depths of 500‐750m, and the IP typically images to 500‐750m, in sub‐vertical tabular geologic settings and up to 50% more for sub‐horizontal. The differences in penetration are a function of the relative property contrasts and relative signal‐to‐noise levels between the two measurements. However this investigation depth increases proportionally to the dipole‐size (i.e., 1000‐1500m for 200m dipoles). A detailed introduction to DC‐IP is given in Telford, et al. (1976). The primary tool for evaluating the Titan‐24 data is through the inversion of the data in two‐dimensions (2D). An inversion model depends not only on the data collected, but also on the associated data errors in the reading and the “model norm”. Inversion models are not unique and may contain “artefacts” from the inversion process. The inversion model may not accurately reflect all of the information apparent in the actual data. Inversion models must be reviewed in context with the observed data, model fit, and with an understanding of the model norm used. The Titan‐24 DC and IP data were inverted to produce cross‐sections of the resistivity and chargeability variations along the survey lines. The UBC DCIP2D inversion code (Oldenburg & Li, 1994) was used for the 2D inversion of the DC and IP data. Potential difference (voltage) and phase values were used as input data in the DC and IP inversions, respectively. DC Resistivity and induced polarization (IP) data are first pre‐conditioned; the error of each data point is adjusted for the inversion process using a general error equation similar to: 17

18. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD ⎛Vp ⎞ Vp ⎛Vp ⎞ errors⎜ ⎟ = A% ⎜ IP ⎟ + B × Acq_Error⎜ ⎟ + C (floor) ⎜ IP ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ IP ⎝ ⎠with the set of parameters {A, B , C } adjusted (and large errors data points removed) for each dataset until we achieve convergence with relaxation of the DC or IP models (see example of Model Norm fit curve on Error! Reference source not found.). Figure 3‐1: Example of DC‐IP misfit curves showing relaxation of the model Three 2D inversions were carried out along each line. The DC data was inverted using an unconstrained 2D inversion with a homogenous half‐space of average input data as starting model. The DC models are labelled as ‘DC’. Two IP inversions are calculated from the same data set and parameters, but they use a different reference model 5. The first inversion of the IP data uses the previously calculated DC model as the reference model, and is labelled the ‘IP dcref model’. The second IP inversion uses a homogeneous half‐space resistivity model as the reference model and is labelled ‘IP hsref model’ or ‘IP nullcon’ model. This model is included to test the validity of chargeability anomalies, and to limit the possibility of inversion artefacts in the IP model due to the use of the DC model as a reference. The DC and IP inversion use the same mesh. The horizontal mesh was set as 3 cells between electrodes on each line. The vertical mesh was designed with a cell thickness from 10 to 15m for the first 200‐300m to accommodate the topographic variation along the profile, and then it increases from 20 to 100m with depth. The inversions were generally run for a maximum of 50 iterations. 3.1.2 AUDIO‐MAGNETOTELLURIC INVERSIONS The Audio‐Magnetotelluric (AMT) method is a natural source method that measures the variation of both the electric (E) and magnetic (H) field on the surface of the earth in order to determine the distribution at depth of the resistivity of the underlying rocks. A complete review of the method is presented in Vozoff (1972) and Orange (1989). 5 The reference model is used to calculate the sensitivity matrix used at each iteration for the IP inversion. 18

19. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD The measured MT impedance Z, defined by the ratio between the E and H fields, is a tensor of complex numbers. This tensor is generally represented by its two off‐diagonal elements. In a 1D earth model, i.e. the resistivity varies only with depth, there is no strike direction and the two off‐diagonal impedances are equal. In the 2D case, i.e. when the resistivity varies with depth and perpendicularly to the strike, and when the profile is set perpendicular to the strike direction, the two off‐diagonal elements are not equal but reflect the variation of the resistivity along two directions, one parallel and the other perpendicular to the strike, i.e., the TE (Transverse Electric; E parallel to the strike) and the TM (Transverse Magnetic; E perpendicular to the strike) modes. Both TE and TM impedances are represented by an apparent resistivity (a parameter proportional to the modulus of Z) and a phase (argument of Z). The variation of those parameters with frequency relates the variations of the resistivity with depth, the high frequencies sampling the sub‐surface and the low frequencies the deeper part of the earth. However the apparent resistivity and the phase have an opposite behaviour. An increase of the phase indicates a more conductive zone than the host rocks, and is associated with a decrease of the apparent resistivity. The objective of the inversion of MT data is to compute a distribution of the resistivity of the surface that explains the variations of the MT parameters, i.e. the response of the model that fits the observed data. The solution however is not unique and different inversions must be performed (different programs, different conditions) in order to test and compare solutions for artefacts versus a target anomaly. The depth of investigation is determined primarily by the frequency content of the measurement. Depth estimates from any individual sounding may easily exceed 20 km. However, the data can only be confidently interpreted when the aperture of the array is comparable to the depth of investigation. In the instance of Titan 24 surveys, inversion depth is generally limited to about half the length of the survey line or profile. The primary tool for evaluating the Titan MT data is 2D inversion. The inversion model is dependent on the data, but also on the associated data errors, and the model norm. The inversion models are not unique, may contain artefacts of the inversion process, and may not therefore accurately reflect all of the information apparent in the actual data. Inversion models need to be reviewed in context of the observed data, model fit, an understanding of the model norm used and if the model is geologically plausible. For this study, 2D inversions were performed using the unrotated data, which assumes the strike direction is perpendicular to the profile for all sites: the TM mode is then defined by the inline E‐field (and cross line H‐field), and the TE mode is defined by the cross line E‐field (and inline H‐field) data. The MT models were calculated with the RLM code (Rodi and Mackie, 2001) and with the PWm code (development Quantec Geoscience; based on deLugao and Wannamaker, 1996). The inversions use the TE and TM resistivity and phase from 10kHz to 0.1Hz, interpolated at 4 to 6 frequencies per decade, and assume 5% error for the resistivity and 3 degrees error for the phase. One RLM inversion model (mu_h4) was derived from inverting the TE and TM apparent resistivity and phase MT data starting from a half space model of 100 Ohm‐m. A second RLM model (mu_d4) also used the TE and TM phase and rho data but as a starting model a stitched 1D determinant model was used. The same set of inversions models was also calculated using the PWm code (pu_h4 starting from the half space model and pu_d4 starting from the 1D determinant). The final 2D inversion MT model presented in this report, and used in the interpretation is the RLM inversion starting from the stitched 1D determinant model, and using TM and TE apparent resistivity and phase from 10kHz to 0.1Hz, because of its fit to the data and its correlation with the DC and IP models. 19

20. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS In the following section the resulting DC resistivity, MT resistivity and IP chargeability models, obtained after inversion of the acquired data will be described. The first part of the discussion will consist of a line by line description; the second part will deal with plan maps constructed from the 2D inversion results. On each line anomalies and features of interest will be indicated. The features will be picked based on the correlation between resistivity and chargeability signatures, size and depth below the surface. A table of the results can be found in the conclusion section of this report (Table 3). For the first set of lines (250N ‐ 1000N) no MT survey was conducted, therefore only the DC model (top image) and the DC referenced IP model (bottom image) will be shown. From line 3000N onwards the MT model will be shown below the IP model. For selected lines the IP model calculated with a half space resistivity model as a reference (HS‐referenced) will also be shown. All models calculated can be found in the appendices of the report. Many of the northern group of lines have been surveyed with current extensions, which are indicated with the station symbol (inverted triangle) on the DC and IP section maps. The colour bars used in all section and plan maps will be consistent in the report. In the DC and MT resistivity models values of 10 Ohm‐m correspond to the purple/red colours (conductive) and 10.000 Ohm‐m to white (resistive), in a logarithmic colour scale. For both the dc referenced IP chargeability as well as the half space chargeability models a linear colour scale is used, where the cool colour correspond to 0 mrad, and the warm colours to 25 mrads. 20

21. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.1 GETTY SOUTH – LINE 250N Figure 3‐2: Line 250N – 2D inversion results. Line 250N is the furthest south line covering the Getty South deposit, and is the first line acquired in this project. The resistivity model shows a conductive overburden with an average thickness of 50 meter. In the center of the line it appears the thickness of the conductive overburden increases to approximately 100 m. Two conductive features are identified on this line, anomaly DC‐01 on the western side, and anomaly DC‐02 on the eastern side. Anomaly DC‐01 is an east dipping feature, 150‐200 m thick, and could be connected to the surface. It is located within a large weak‐moderately chargeable zone, which likely has a formational nature. Within this broad chargeability feature a center of moderate chargeability values is observed (IP‐01), correlating with the location of DC‐01 but with an apparent different dip. The second conductor on the line (DC‐02) is located close to the surface, and extends only to depths of approximately 200 meter below the surface. Anomaly DC‐02 is located in a region without any chargeability signature. 21

22. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.2 GETTY SOUTH – LINE 500N Figure 3‐3: Line 500N – 2D inversion results. The second line of the survey is located 250 meter further north, and parallel to line 250N. Again the resistivity model shows a conductive overburden with an average thickness of approximately 50 m, but locally extending to 100 meter below the surface. The deeper part of the resistivity model shows a moderate resistivity without many features. At depth between 250 and 300m, a more conductive feature is observed (DC‐03); it is located in a region of low chargeability. A single chargeability anomaly is observed on line 500N (IP‐01). The anomaly IP‐01 is located just below the conductive overburden and extends to a depth of approximately 400 m below the surface. It has a moderate‐strong chargeability signature, and it is sharply bound on the eastern side. It seems to correlate with the moderate chargeability anomaly observed on Line 250N (IP‐01). 22

23. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.3 GETTY SOUTH – LINE 750N Figure 3‐4: Line 750N – 2D inversion results. Chargeability anomaly IP‐01 can also be observed on line 750N, although its signature is reduced to a moderate chargeability feature. Anomaly IP‐01 is sharply bound to the east and west on this line, the western boundary is a narrow conductive, near vertical feature. This feature has the resistivity signature of a fault, and is identified as such on the section. A second moderate (smaller) chargeability feature IP‐02 is observed on this line. This anomaly is located below the conductive overburden and separated from IP‐01 by a small conductive feature (DC‐04). Also present on this line is anomaly DC‐03, in the eastern part of the line and appears to have moved closer towards the surface. 23

24. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.4 GETTY SOUTH – LINE 1000N Figure 3‐5: Line 1000N – 2D Inversion results. The upwards trend of anomaly DC‐03 can also be observed on the final line covering the Getty South deposit, where DC‐03 is located just below the overburden, and has a very conductive signature. Also anomalies IP‐01 and IP‐02 are observed on this line again, although IP‐01 has a much smaller signature when compared to the previous lines. Both features are again separated by a conductive anomaly, which could be related to DC‐04. Anomaly IP‐01 is again bound on its western side by an interpreted fault, although the geometry of the survey does not allow a very deep interpretation at this part of the line. The chargeability anomalies identified on this line are very well represented in the Half Space referenced IP model presented in Figure 3‐6. 24

25. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐6: Line 1000N – 2D Half Space referenced IP model. 25

26. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.5 GETTY NORTH – LINE 3000N Figure 3‐7: Line 3000N – 2D inversion results. 26

27. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Line 3000N is the first full length 2.4 km Titan‐24 setup, and the first line where DC/IP and MT was acquired. Both DC and MT resistivity show a sub horizontal layered response for the eastern side of the line. At least two conductive bands can be identified; the top one is located approximately 150 m below the surface, and the bottom one between 300 and 350 meters below the surface. These two features curved towards the surface in the middle of the line, and abruptly terminate. This geometry is also observed in the chargeability model with a clear split in the two large zones of moderate chargeability. A steeply dipping fault has been interpreted at the center of the line, lining up with several smaller conductive features in the DC and MT model. In the western side of the line a similar feature is observed in the MT model, which is also indicated in the model, this feature is too deep to be confirmed by the DC resistivity model. The two regions of chargeability are likely formational in origin, with some isolated centers of increased chargeability. The western half shows anomalies IP‐04 and IP‐05, both located in between two conductive features in the DC model. The top feature is labelled DC‐05 and has some signature in the MT model as well. The bottom conductor in the DC model could not be confirmed by the MT model, and therefore has to be interpreted with great care. Anomaly IP‐04 could be a representation of the Getty West anomaly. On the eastern side of the line, anomaly IP‐06 is observed; it is located in between the sub horizontal conductive bands and a deep broken‐up MT conductor (MT‐01); it is likely the signature of this conductive anomaly is not well resolved in the DC model due to its depth. However, the MT feature does correlate with a large moderate conductor in the DC model. Anomalies IP‐04 and IP‐05 correlate well between the DC referenced and the HS referenced IP models (Figure 3‐8). Anomaly IP‐03 on the other hand has a good lateral correlation, but could be located slightly deeper than indicated in the DC referenced model. Figure 3‐8: Line 3000N – 2D Half Space referenced IP model. 27

29. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Line 3250N is not only 250 m to the north but its starting point is also shifted 750 m to the west when compared to Line 3000N. It does show a similar sub horizontal pattern, especially the MT model. The IP model shows at least two non‐chargeable breaks in the large, likely formational, moderate chargeable feature. On the western side of the model, anomaly IP‐05 is located at depth; it has a moderate chargeability signature and is located in a conductor in both the DC and MT models. It could be associated to the interpreted fault directly to the east of IP‐05. On the other side of this interpreted fault, the anomaly DC‐06 and the small chargeability anomaly IP‐03 are observed; both are part of one of the sub‐horizontal features in the MT model. In the center of the line moderate‐high chargeability anomaly IP‐04 corresponds closely to the known location of the Getty West deposit. The features is located in between two of the sub‐horizontal feature, and bound on the east by a narrow conductive feature in the DC model, which likely is another fault, but could not be confirmed by the MT model. Approximately 250 m east and at a greater depth (480 m below the surface) a small center of increased chargeability (IP‐06) is observed with a similar signature as IP‐05 with relation to the deep horizontal feature in the MT model. Again it appears this chargeability anomaly appears to be bound in the east with a fault, as observed in the MT model (the depth of the fault is too great for the DC model to image these types of features correctly). 29

31. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Line 3500N has shifted 900 m to the east relative to line 3250N. Anomaly IP‐04 associated with the Getty West deposit is now located at the far western side of the model. It has grown slightly in size, but its location has not changed significantly. Again a steeply dipping fault is identified, based on the non chargeable break in the moderate formational chargeability feature below the non chargeable, conductive overburden. Also, the curved and sub horizontal features are observed on this line. The upper feature in which anomaly IP‐04 is located has a more restive nature. The lower feature has a more conductive nature, especially in the DC model. Under the eastern half of the line, two major chargeability anomalies IP‐07 and IP‐08 can be observed. The location of these features correlates very well with the Getty North deposit which geophysical signature appears to be split into two centers. The largest IP anomaly IP‐07 is located at a depth of approximately 300 m below the surface; the second IP anomaly IP‐08 is identified at a more shallow depth, approximately 175 m below the surface. Both anomalies correlate very well with a conductive band in the MT model which , and appear to be split in the DC model by a conductive feature below the chargeability anomalies (this was also observed on line 750N and 1000N with anomaly DC‐04 separating anomalies IP‐01 and IP‐02 of the Getty South deposit). 31

33. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Line 3750 is shifted 200 m towards the west from line 3500N. It shows the grouped anomalies associated with Getty North (IP‐07 and IP‐08) on the eastern side of the line. The signature of both anomalies is the largest on this line of the survey area. Anomaly IP‐08 has very high chargeability values and is located very close to the surface, identifying it as the main geophysical target of this survey. Anomaly IP‐07 also has high chargeability values, but is smaller in size and located at greater depth (270 m below the surface, in comparison to the 70 m depth of IP‐08 on this line). Again both anomalies appear to be split by a conductive feature in the DC model, located in the middle of the anomalies. The DC and MT resistivity models show the steeply dipping faults and the sub‐horizontal, curved features. Both interpreted faults also are bounding features of two weak‐moderate chargeability anomalies (IP‐09 and IP‐10). Anomaly IP‐10 could be related to the curved conductor as well as to the interpreted fault, whereas IP‐09 seems to be associated with the interpreted fault only. The upper conductive band shows a very small response of the Getty West deposit (IP‐04). There is a very good correlation between the DC reference IP model and the half space referenced IP model (Figure 3‐12). Figure 3‐12: Line 3750 N – 2D Half Space referenced IP model. 33

35. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Line 4000N is centered on the Getty North deposit (IP‐07, IP‐08). Its location is shifted by 500 m towards the east when compared to line 3750N. This group of anomalies has a very strong expression on this line, although the size of both IP‐07 and IP‐08 has reduced. It appears that IP‐08 is a surface feature on this line, which should be visible in the surface geology. Also IP‐07 is located at a very shallow depth (80 m below the surface). The dividing conductor observed in the previous lines does not have a clear signature on line 4000N, but the contour lines of the DC model do suggest slightly more conductive features in between both anomalies. The curved, sub horizontal features as the faults are not clearly represented in the models of this line, likely because of the overall conductive response of the model. A near surface conductor is located in both the DC and MT models in the eastern edge of the profile. However, it doesn’t have a chargeability signature, but could be easily tested by geological mapping. 35

37. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Line 4250N has a similar extent to Line 3750 (i.e. 500 m further west than line 4000N). It shows only west side of the Getty North anomalies (IP‐07). It is possible that IP‐09 is observed at this northing as well, but that part of the line was only covered by current extensions, and no receiving dipoles. The conductive anomaly DC‐09, as the separating feature between anomalies IP‐07 and IP‐08, is very prominent on this line. It also has an expression in the MT model. A new large chargeable feature IP‐11 is observed on the western side of the line. Its depth below the surface makes it difficult to show much detail for both method and inversion algorithm. However, its close correlation to conductive features in the DC and MT models do point to an interesting target. Unfortunately due to the staggered line location, there is no nearby line to confirm this anomaly, and it therefore has to be treated with care. 37

38. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.11 GETTY NORTH – LINE 4500N Figure 3‐15: Line 4500N – 2D inversion results. The location of line 4500N involved another shift of 950 meter towards the east, leaving anomaly IP‐07 on the eastern side of the model. This feature, closely associated with the Getty North deposit, is located at a depth around 300 m below the surface on the line, and is the only chargeable feature on the line. Anomaly IP‐07 appears to be a chargeable centre of a large low‐moderate formational chargeability feature, bound on either side by interpreted faults. 38

39. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.12 GETTY NORTH – LINE 5000N Figure 3‐16: Line 5000 N – 2D inversion results. The last line of the survey is Line 5000N, located 500 m north of line 4500N and shifted 250 m to the west. No chargeability anomalies are observed on this line, apart from the large formational feature bound by the two interpreted faults. Two MT conductors are located on this line (MT‐02 and MT‐03), which have to be interpreted with care, the depth of these anomalies should implicate a response on the DC model as well. But this is not the case. Additional lines to either the north or the south are needed to test these features. 39

40. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 3.2.13 PLAN MAP INTERPRETATION Correlation of anomalies from line to line can be achieved by extraction of plan maps from the calculated section models. In this fashion model values are taken at a given elevation level and the values are used to create a gridded plan map. In this report, four elevation levels (1600 m elevation, 1400 m, 1200 m and 1000 m) will be discussed. Other elevation levels will be presented in the appendix of this report. The gridding parameters and colour bar legends used in creation of the section maps will be the same for the plan maps. Also the same annotation for anomalies and geological interpretation will be used. 40

41. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐17: DC model plan map, 1600 m Elevation. Figure 3‐18: IP Model plan map, 1600 m elevation. 41

42. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐19: DC Model plan map, 1400 m elevation. Figure 3‐20: IP Model plan map, 1400 m elevation. 42

43. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐21: DC Model plan map, 1200 m elevation. Figure 3‐22: IP Model plan map, 1200 m elevation. 43

44. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐23: DC model plan map, 1000 m elevation. Figure 3‐24: IP Model plan map, 1000 m elevation. 44

45. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐25: MT model plan map, 1600 m elevation. Figure 3‐26: MT Model plan map, 1400 m elevation. 45

46. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 3‐27: MT Model plan map, 1000 m elevation. Figure 3‐28: MT Model plan map, 600 m elevation. 46

47. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD The circular nature of the Getty North deposit (as depicted in Figure 2‐1) becomes very clear in the 1600 m plan maps (Figure 3‐17,Figure 3‐18 and Figure 3‐25), where anomalies IP‐07 and IP‐08 are merged into one single chargeability high with two distinct centres. Following these anomalies with depth, the dual nature becomes more apparent. At greater depth only IP‐07 remains (see Figure 3‐22) as two chargeability anomalies to the north and south of the actual occurrence of Getty North at the surface. The two parts of anomaly IP‐07 follow a more or less NNW‐SSW trend, similar to the interpreted faults lining up the string of conductors in the DC and MT. Both Getty West and Getty South appear as mainly near surface features, but can be correlated from line to line very nicely. Anomaly IP‐11 can be identified on line 4250N up to a great depth, but the lack of coverage to the north and south makes it difficult to verify this anomaly. At an elevation of 1000 m, the DC and IP models (Figure 3‐23 and Figure 3‐24) show very smooth representation of the geology, mainly due to the depth of penetration and the smoothness constraint use to stabilize the inversion modelling. The MT model is much more sensitive to these greater depth and still shows sharp images of the interpreted faulting, continuing the NNE‐SSW trend of features up to the 600 m elevation level. 47

48. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Titan‐24 DC/IP and MT survey was conducted over the Getty Project, British Columbia, Canada on behalf of EffiSolar Energy Corp. and Getty Copper Inc. between November 20th and December 13th of 2010. In total 12 lines of data were collected (23.2 line‐km DC/IP and 19.2 km MT) with a station spacing of 100 m. The survey geometry for the DC/IP component was a pole‐dipole geometry. The line spacing was 250 m and the lines were located in a staggered fashion over three known deposits: Getty North, Getty West and Getty South. 4.1 RESULTS The Titan‐24 Survey was successful in identifying the known Getty North, Getty West and Getty South deposits as chargeability anomalies. Several NNE‐SSW striking faults were identified as narrow conductive features in both the DC and MT models as well as breaks in the chargeability models. A borehole dataset was made available 6 and plotted as a reference on selected sections. There is a very good correlation between the boreholes targeting the Getty North and South deposits and the location of anomalies IP‐07, IP‐08 and IP‐01 respectively (see Figure 4‐1) Figure 4‐1: 2D IP Inversion results (DC model reference) of line 4000N with borehole locations overlay (gold assays in grey, copper assays in green). It appears that the high gold assays observed in the Getty North boreholes (Figure 4‐1) correlate very closely to the centers of the chargeability anomalies, whereas the high copper assays correlate better with the contact between the high‐moderate chargeability features. 6 Personal communications with Mr. C. Anderson, Getty Copper Inc. 48

49. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 4‐2: 2D IP Inversion results (DC model reference) of line 750N with borehole locations overlay (copper assays in red). For the Getty South deposit, the high copper assays correlate very well with the center of the chargeability anomaly, with more potential to depth. 49

50. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Figure 4‐3: 2D IP results: 1600 m plan map with borehole locations overlay. 50

51. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Summarizing the results of this survey the following conclusions can be drawn: • Resistivity distribution (DC & MT) show a succession of curved, sub‐horizontal conductive features and South‐Southwest‐North‐Northeast faulting trend; • Chargeability signature is fairly weak except for the known deposits and appears to be related to the interpreted faulting; • Getty North is likely composed of two centers, where the western center extends further north‐ east in a similar azimuth as the interpreted faults. Resistivity is moderate‐low; • Getty West is a near surface (<300 m depth) feature of weak‐moderate chargeability & moderate‐low resistivity; • Getty South is a low resistivity, weak‐moderate chargeability feature extending to approx. 350 m below the surface; • In total thirty‐nine (39) geophysical anomalies were identified, of which twelve (12) are classified as high priority. Sixteen (16) anomalies fall in the medium priority classification and eleven (11) are labeled as low priority. Prioritization was based on correlation between conductive and chargeable features and depth below the surface. A complete overview of all anomalies can be found in the table below. Anomaly line location depth DC IP MT priority remarks ID signature signature signature IP‐01 250 2110‐ 110‐ mod Mod‐low ‐ 2 Partial 2500 480 correlation with DC‐01 DC‐01 250 2110‐ 130‐ Mod‐low Mod‐low ‐ 2 26110 480 DC‐02 250 2720‐ 0‐230 mod low ‐ 3 3030 IP‐01 500 2100‐ 70‐440 Mod‐high Mod‐ ‐ 2 Possible fault 2530 high DC‐03 500 2590‐ 210‐ Mod=‐low low ‐ 3 3000 500 IP‐01 750 2100‐ 60‐500 mod Low‐mod ‐ 2 2380 DC‐04 750 2240‐ 50‐180 Mod‐low low ‐ 2 Correlation 2420 with top of IP‐ 01 IP‐03 750 2410‐ 40‐250 mod low ‐ 3 Getty south 2620 51

52. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Anomaly line location depth DC IP MT priority remarks ID signature signature signature DC‐05 750 2840‐ 100‐ Mod‐low low ‐ 3 3210 340 IP‐01 1000 2010‐ 90‐350 Mod‐low Mod‐ ‐ 1 Getty 2190 high South/Possible fault DC‐04? 1000 2150‐ 140‐ Mod‐low low ‐ 3 24230 410 IP‐03 1000 2280‐ 60‐200 low Mod‐low ‐ 2 Getty south 2510 DC‐05 1000 2730‐ 30‐300 low low ‐ 3 3080 IP‐04 3000 39850‐ 150‐ mod mod mod 2 40040 410 DC‐06 3000 40020‐ 50‐ low low mod 3 Possible sub‐ 40690 2340 horizontal feature IP‐05 3000 40320‐ 200‐ mod Mod0 mod 2 40600 430 MT‐01 3000 40900‐ 290‐ Mod‐low Mod‐low low 1 41820 820 IP‐08 3000 41250‐ 290‐ mod Mod‐;pw low 2 Correlates well 41720 540 with MT‐01 IP‐04 3250 39390‐ 380‐ low mod low 1 630 39600 DC‐06 3250 39830‐ 140‐ low Mod‐low Mod‐low 2 40060 400 IP‐05 3250 39930‐ 290‐ low mod mod 1 Correlates with 40120 450 bottom of DC‐ 05 IP‐07 3250 40290‐ 110‐ mod Mod‐ Mod‐low 1 Getty West 40500 270 high IP‐08 3250 40590‐ 480‐ low low Mod‐low 3 40710 630 IP‐07 3500 40140‐ 150‐ Mod‐high mod high 3 Getty West 40440 350 DC‐07 3500 40520‐ 90‐320 low low mod 3 52

53. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD Anomaly line location depth DC IP MT priority remarks ID signature signature signature 40980 IP‐06 3500 41220‐ 260‐ mod Mod‐ mod 2 Getty North 41630 620 high IP‐09 3500 41690‐ 180‐ Mod‐low Mod‐ Mod‐low 2 Getty North 41950 370 high IP‐10 3750 39850‐ 260‐ Low‐mod Low‐mod Low‐mod 2 Possibly 40100 480 associated with fault IP‐07 3750 40220‐ 80‐230 Low‐mod Low‐mod Low‐mod 1 Getty West 40400 IP‐11 3750 40500‐ 280‐ Low‐mod Low‐mod low 2 Possibly 40690 600 associated with fault IP‐06 3750 41170‐ 290‐ mod high low 1 Getty North 41420 500 IP‐09 3750 41480‐ 80‐420 mod high mod 1 Getty North 41870 IP‐06 4000 41310‐ 90‐380 mod high mod 1 Getty North 41640 IP‐09 4000 41620‐ 0‐210 Mod‐low high mod 1 Getty North 41920 DC‐08 4000 42620‐ 0‐430 low low low 3 Possible fault 4300 IP‐12 4250 39960‐ 370‐ Mod‐low mod mod 2 40460 840 IP‐06 4250 41540‐ 100‐ Mod‐low Mod‐ mod 1 41940 530 high DC‐09 4250 41660‐ 200‐ low Mod‐ Mod‐low 1 Correlates with 42000 460 high bottom of IP‐ 06 IP‐06 4500 4147‐ 290‐ mod Mod‐ mod 2 Chargeable 41980 720 high center of formational anomaly? Table 3: Geophysical Targets for the Getty Project. 53

54. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD ARRE VERWEERD I, Arre Verweerd, declare that: I am a consultant with residence in Toronto, Ontario and am presently employed in this capacity with Quantec Geoscience Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; I obtained a Doctorandus Degree (MSc. equivalent) in Geophysics, from the Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands in 2001. I also obtained a Doctorate Degree in the Natural Sciences (Dr. Rer. Nat.), subject Applied Geophysics from the Rheinische‐Friedrich‐Wilhelms‐Universität‐ zu‐Bonn, Bonn, Germany in 2007; I have practiced my profession continuously since January 2002, in Europe, South America, North America, Africa, and Asia. I am a member of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), the European Geosciences Union (EGU), the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS), the society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) and the Canadian Exploration Geophysical Society (KEGS). I have no interest, nor do I expect to receive any interest in the properties or securities of EffiSolar Energy Corp./Getty Copper Inc., its subsidiaries or its joint‐venture partners; I was in charge of data acquisition quality control, I have reviewed the survey results and can attest that these accurately and faithfully reflect the data acquired on site; I undertook the 2D DC/IP inversions, I am the author of this interpretation report and have reviewed the appendices. The statements made in this report represent my professional opinion in consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report. Toronto, Ontario February, 2011 Arre Job Verweerd Dr. Rer. Nat. Quantec Geoscience Ltd 56

55. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD JASON METCALFE I, Jason Metcalfe, declare that: I am a Data Processor with residence in Mississauga, Ontario and am presently employed in this capacity with Quantec Geoscience Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; I obtained a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) Geophysics in 2007 from the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. I have practiced my profession continuously since October, 2009 in Canada and the United States; I have no interest, nor do I expect to receive any interest in the properties or securities of EffiSolar Energy Corp./Getty Copper Inc., its subsidiaries or its joint‐venture partners; I was the data processor on site, responsible for the quality control of data acquired throughout the survey. I compiled and edited the logistics report. The statements made in this report represent my professional opinion based on my consideration of the information available to me at the time of writing this report. Toronto, Ontario February, 2010 Jason Metcalfe, B.Sc. Quantec Geoscience Ltd. 57

56. QUANTEC GEOSCIENCE LTD 6 DIGITAL ARCHIVE The CD or DVD attached to this report contains a copy of all the inversion results, final processed data, including the survey files, the daily processing (and field) notes, and an electronic copy of this report. 58