Canyon Copper Issues Clarifying News Release

Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - June 20, 2014) - Canyon Copper Corp. (TSXV: CNC) (the "Company")

As a result of a review by the British Columbia Securities Commission, we are issuing the following news release to clarify our disclosure. The information contained in this news release is intended to provide clarification to disclosure on the Company's website (the "Website") and disclosure contained in the following investor materials contained on the Website (the "Investor Materials"): (i) a corporate presentation titled "Highly Advanced Copper Resource Projects in Western USA" dated March 2012 (the "Corporate Presentation"), (ii) the Bottom Line Report dated April 5, 2012 (the "Bottom Line Report"), and (iii) an April 2012 Article by M. Schwartz from Resource World Magazine (the "Resource World Magazine").

We are issuing this news release to clarify the following disclosure:

1.      Non-Compliant Disclosure on near-term Mine Production of Oxide Copper at New York Canyon and Moonlight Properties.

The Investor Materials improperly disclosed future mine production of oxide copper at the New York Canyon and Moonlight Properties as follows:

• The Resource World Article disclosed: (i) a possible 20 million tons oxide deposit can be fast tracked to production at Longshot Ridge on the New York Canyon Project, and (ii) a target of a second 20 million ton oxide project could be fast tracked to production on the Moonlight Property. The Resource World article also provided a fixed average copper grade for both of these oxide estimates.
• The Bottom Line Report disclosed that the Company has two potential near term production oxide copper projects with the prospect of low cap-ex production. It also provides that the Moonlight Property is an almost shovel ready low capex project.

The Company is retracting the grade and quantities of oxide set forth above to the extent that they exceed the following resource estimate on the New York Canyon Project and the historical resource estimate on the Moonlight Property:

• At Longshot Ridge on the New York Canyon Project, the Company calculated a current indicated resource of 16,250,000 tons at an average grade of 0.43% Cu and inferred resource of 2,900,000 tons at an average grade of 0.31% of Cu. The foregoing is set forth in the Company's Technical Report dated April 6, 2010 and was based on a cut-off grade of 0.20% Cu.
• At the Moonlight Project, American Exploration and Mining Company ("Amex"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Placer Dome, in a 1972 internal report by C. Gillette, a mining engineer employee of Amex, reported a historical oxide "resource" of 12.2 million tons of "ore" at an average grade of 0.54% Cu at a cutoff grade of 0.25% Cu. The historical "ore" cited above is mentioned for historical purposes only and uses terminology not compliant with current reporting standards. The reliability of these historical estimates is unknown but considered relevant by the Company as it represents a significant target for future exploration work by the Company. The assumption, parameters and methods used to calculate this historical resource estimate are not known to the Company. The qualified person has not made any attempt to re-classify the estimates accordingly to current NI 43-101 standards of disclosure or the CIM definitions. In order for these resources to be current, the Company will be required to conduct additional shallow drilling on the Moonlight Property. The Company is not treating this estimate as current mineral resources or mineral reserves as defined in NI 43-101. Although the Historical resource estimate was also designated as "ore" it cannot be compared to mineral reserves as it is not supported by at least a current pre-feasibility study.

The retracted excess quantities are not compliant with NI 43-101 disclosure rules for exploration targets or resource estimates and restricted by NI 43-101 because they are unclassified.

In addition, the Company retracts all disclosure of near-term mine production of oxide copper at the New York Canyon and Moonlight Properties. In order for the Company to disclose near-term production, it would need either a pre-feasibility study or feasibility study based on current indicated or measured resource estimates. If the company does advance to oxide production before achieving these milestones, the resulting operations would have a higher risk of technical or economic failure.

2.      Non-Compliant Disclosure of Historical oxide Mineral Resource on the Moonlight Property

The Investor Materials and Website disclosed a historical resource estimate for the oxide deposit on the Moonlight Property contrary to National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). This historical resource estimate disclosure is non-compliant with NI 43-101 for the following reasons: (i) the disclosure failed to state that the mineral resource estimate was historical; (ii) fails to include all information required under section 2.4 of NI 43-101; and (iii) disclosed the oxide quantities using the terms of “potential” and “target” while failing to comply with the requirements under section 2.3(2) of NI 43-101.

Instead, the Company’s historical mineral resource estimate on the oxide copper deposit on the Moonlight Property should have been disclosed as per the above 1972 historical oxide estimate by Amex, and the website is being amended accordingly.

3.      Non-Compliant Disclosure of Sulphide Resource Estimate on the Moonlight Property

The Investor Materials and Website also disclosed a historical sulphide resource estimate prepared by Sheffield Resources Ltd that is contrary to NI 43-101. This historical estimate is non-compliant with NI 43-101 for the following reasons: (i) fails to identify the source and date of the historical estimate; (ii) does not comment on the relevance and reliability of the historical estimate; (iii) fails to provide key assumptions, parameters, and methods use to prepare historical estimates; and (v) does not state that the qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate as a current mineral resource and that the Company is not treating the historical estimate as current.

The Bottom Line Report and the Corporate Presentation also disclosed that historical resource sulphide estimate was “non-compliant” because changes to property boundaries. Alternatively, the Company’s website disclosed that the historical resource estimate was wholly contained with the claims that now comprise the Moonlight Property. The Company wishes to confirm that the Bottom Line Report and the Corporate Presentation are incorrect are misleading as the historical sulphide resource estimate is located within the current claim boundaries of the Moonlight Property.

Instead, the historical estimate should have disclosed that Sheffield Resources Ltd., in the technical report titled “Moonlight Copper Property, Plumas County, California” dated April 2007, prepared by George Cavey, P.Geo and Gary Giroux, P.Eng., and filed on SEDAR on May 14, 2007, disclosed a historical indicated resource of 161,570,000 tons @ 0.324% Cu and a historical inferred resource of 88,350,000 tons @ 0.282% Cu. The historical estimate cited above uses “indicated mineral resource” and “inferred mineral resource”, which are categories set out in National Instrument 43-101. Accordingly, Canyon considers these historical estimates reliable as well as relevant as it represents a target for future exploration work by Canyon. The data base for the historical estimate consisted of 207 drill holes and 11,165 sample intervals. Of the drill holes, 194 diamond drill holes were drilled by Placer and 13 diamond drill holes were drilled by Sheffield. Gold and silver values compared reasonably well and the copper values of the Sheffield drill holes were significantly higher (most likely as a result of the larger size HQ diamond drilling) than the Placer drill results. The author of the historical resource estimate used the Placer results as they represented a more conservative estimate. In addition, the author also used a three dimensional block model using a kriging method to calculate the historical resource estimate. The qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate as a current mineral resource and Canyon is treating these historical estimates as relevant but not current mineral resources.

4.      Non-Compliant Disclosure of Historical Sulphide Resource Estimate at Copper Queen Mine on the New York Canyon Project.

The Resource World Article disclosed a historical sulphide resource estimate prepared by Conoco Oil Company that is contrary to NI 43-101. This historical estimate is non-compliant with NI 43-101 for the following reasons: (i) fails to identify the source and date of the historical estimate; (ii) does not comment on the relevance and reliability of the historical estimate; (iii) fails to provide key assumptions, parameters, and methods use to prepare historical estimates, if known; (iv) does not state whether the historical estimate uses categories other than those set out in NI 43-101; and (v) does not state that the qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate as a current mineral resource and that the Company is not treating the historical estimate as current.

Instead, the historical estimate should have disclosed that Conoco Oil Company, completed a significant drilling program and outlined a historical "drill indicated reserve" at Copper Queen. In an internal report dated September 21, 1979, Conoco Oil Company outlined a historical "drilled indicated reserve" of 142,000,000 tons grading 0.35% copper and 0.015% molybdenum for Copper Queen. The historical "drilled indicated reserve" cited above is mentioned for historical purposes only and uses terminology not compliant with current reporting standards. The reliability of these historical estimates is unknown but considered relevant by the Company as it represents a target for future exploration work by the Company. The assumption, parameters and methods used to calculate this historical resource estimate are not known to the Company. The qualified person has not made any attempt to re-classify the estimates accordingly to current NI 43-101 standards of disclosure or the CIM definitions. The Company is not treating this estimate as current mineral resources or mineral reserves as defined in NI 43-101. Historical reserves are not equivalent to mineral reserves as they are not supported by at least a preliminary feasibility study.

Qualified Person

Mr. Ainsworth, P. Eng, BC, with Licence #8648 and the President of the Company, is a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101 and has reviewed and approved the contents of this news release.

On behalf of the Board of Directors,

"Benjamin Ainsworth"

CANYON COPPER CORP.
Benjamin Ainsworth, CEO and President

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Information

This News Release may contain, in addition to historical information, forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phases such as "believe," "expect," "plan," "anticipate" and similar expressions identifying forward-looking statements. Investors should not rely on forward-looking statements because they are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations, and expressly does not undertake any duty to update forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to the following, the Company's ability to obtain additional financing, the Company's ability to complete the planned exploration program on the New York Canyon Project, uncertainty of estimates of mineralized material and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.