Breaking
Secure Stock Strategies
Author

admin

Browsing
Investing

Apollo Silver Advances Community Discussions at Cinco de Mayo

Apollo Silver Corp. (‘ Apollo ‘ or the ‘ Company ‘) (TSX.V:APGO, OTCQB:APGOF, Frankfurt:6ZF) is pleased to provide an update on ongoing community engagement activities at its Cinco de Mayo Project (‘Cinco de Mayo’ or the ‘Project’) in Chihuahua, Mexico.

Over several months, the Company held productive discussions with elected representatives of the Ejido Benito Juárez (the ‘Ejido’), Municipio de Buenaventura, and other leaders and community groups in the region. The objective of these discussions was to regain public support for mineral exploration and mine development at Cinco de Mayo, and more specifically, to rescind the property access ban imposed by the Ejido in November 2012 and to establish a long-term access agreement. This agreement is anticipated to provide important economic and community benefits to the Ejido, including annual payments, environmental value, and preferential employment and service opportunities, in exchange for unrestricted access for the Company to explore, develop and potentially mine the resources at Cinco de Mayo.

As part of Apollo’s efforts to introduce a plan of responsible development in cooperation and partnership with the local communities, informational materials are being distributed to members of the Ejido, outlining a plan of long-term collaboration and shared benefits associated with continued exploration and future operations at the Project. This phase of community engagement is expected to continue early into the new year, whereupon the Company remains hopeful for, and looks forward to, a general assembly of the Ejido in early 2026 to vote on rescinding the property access ban and approving a long-term access agreement.

Overview of Key Topics Presented to the Ejido

Long-Term Benefit Framework

The draft framework under discussion includes the following high-level concepts:

  • A 30-year structure of benefits to the Ejido in return for access to the Project during the exploration, development and mining phases over that time period.
  • Predictable annual payments made directly to the community to support priorities identified by the Ejido and its members, such payments amounting to approximately US$50 million over the life of the agreement.
  • An option to extend the term of the agreement for an additional period of time.

Employment, Training, and Local Procurement

The materials emphasize the Company’s commitment to maximizing local participation:

  • Hiring of Ejidatarios (registered members of the Ejido community), their descendants, and community members, based on skills and aptitude.
  • Preference for local suppliers of food, fuel, transportation, materials, and lodging.

These initiatives are intended to help build sustainable economic opportunities for the region.

Environmental Protection and Water Stewardship

Environmental responsibility remains central to all Project planning. Commitments communicated to the Ejido include:

  • Detailed hydrogeological studies to ensure exploration and potential future mining activities have no effect on community wells or natural springs.
  • Continuous monitoring of water quality and environmental indicators.
  • Strict adherence to all federal regulations, including requirements set by SEMARNAT, CONAGUA, and PROFEPA.
  • Implementation of reforestation programs, responsible materials management, and full reclamation of land at the end of the Project’s life cycle.

These commitments apply at every stage of work, from exploration through to eventual operations and closure.

‘With a renewed interest in responsible mineral exploration and mine development being promoted at all levels of Mexican government, there is no better time to bring a strong plan of shared economic benefit to the communities around Cinco de Mayo,’ stated Ross McElroy, President and CEO . ‘As one of North America’s better CRD deposits, with a well established history, Cinco de Mayo holds great opportunity for all.’

About Cinco de Mayo

Cinco de Mayo is an approximate 25,000 hectare property located in the north central part of Chihuahua State, Mexico, approximately 190 kilometres northwest of the state capital of Chihuahua City in the Municipio de Buenaventura. The Project is prospective for and hosts carbonate replacement type deposits including the Upper Manto Pb-Zn-Ag (Au) deposit, which consists of two parallel and overlapping manto deposits referred to as the Jose Manto and the Bridge Zone. An independent technical report and Mineral Resource estimate (‘MRE’) on the Upper Manto deposit was prepared in 2012 by Rosco Postle and Associates (‘RPA’). At a NSR cut-off of US$100/t, Inferred MRE was estimated to total 12.45 million tonnes at 132 grams per tonne silver, 2.86 per cent lead and 6.47 per cent zinc and 0.24 gram per tonne gold (See Apollo’s news release dated March 7, 2025). The total contained metals in the historical resource were 52.7 million ounces of silver, 785 million pounds of lead, 1,777 million pounds of zinc and 96,000 ounces of gold. See cautionary statement below.

A potential new discovery, called the Pegaso Zone was not included in the 2012 Historical MRE. Apollo’s technical team considers this intersection as a high priority target that has potential to be a significant new discovery. The Company’s initial review of historical data suggests that the Pegaso Zone could indicate a larger and higher-grade resource at depth.

Qualified Person

The scientific and technical data contained in this news release was reviewed and approved by Isabelle Lépine, M.Sc., P.Geo., Apollo’s Director, Mineral Resources. Ms. Lépine is a registered professional geologist in British Columbia and a QP as defined by NI 43-101 and is not an independent of the Company

About Apollo Silver Corp.

Apollo is advancing one of the largest undeveloped primary silver projects in the US. The Calico project hosts a large, bulk minable silver deposit with significant barite and zinc credits – recognized as critical minerals essential to the US energy and medical sectors. The Company also holds an option on the Cinco de Mayo Project in Chihuahua, Mexico, which is host to a major carbonate replacement (CRD) deposit that is both high-grade and large tonnage. Led by an experienced and award-winning management team, Apollo is well positioned to advance the assets and deliver value through exploration and development.

Please visit www.apollosilver.com for further information.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Ross McElroy
President and CEO

For further information, please contact:

Email: info@apollosilver.com

Telephone: +1 (604) 428-6128

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Historical Mineral Resource Estimates

This 2012 historical MRE referenced above is considered historical in nature and the reader is cautioned not to treat this estimate as current Mineral Resources, nor should they be relied upon. They are included here as an indication of the mineralization of the Project. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate as a current mineral resource and the Company is not treating the historical estimate as a current mineral resource.

Cautionary Statement Regarding ‘Forward-Looking’ Information

This news release includes ‘forward-looking statements’ and ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation. All statements included in this news release, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements including, without limitation, statements with respect to the rescission of the 2012 access ban; the negotiation terms, value and potential execution of an access agreement with the Ejido; the timing, nature, and results of exploration and development activities at Cinco de Mayo; the exploration potential of the Project, including the potential discovery and significance of the Pegaso Zone; interpretations of historical data; the potential size, grade, continuity, and extent of mineralization, including at depth; potential future mining operations; the expected economic and social benefits to the Ejido and surrounding communities; and the Company’s future plans, strategies, and objectives. Forward-looking statements include predictions, projections and forecasts and are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘plan’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘potential’, ‘target’, ‘budget’ and ‘intend’ and statements that an event or result ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘should’, ‘could’ or ‘might’ occur or be achieved and other similar expressions and includes the negatives thereof.

Forward-looking statements are based on the reasonable assumptions, estimates, analysis, and opinions of the management of the Company made in light of its experience and its perception of trends, current conditions and expected developments, as well as other factors that management of the Company believes to be relevant and reasonable in the circumstances at the date that such statements are made. Forward-looking information is based on reasonable assumptions that have been made by the Company as at the date of such information and is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may have caused actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information, including but not limited to: risks associated with mineral exploration and development; metal and mineral prices; availability of capital; accuracy of the Company’s projections and estimates; realization of mineral resource estimates, interest and exchange rates; competition; stock price fluctuations; availability of drilling equipment and access; actual results of current exploration activities; government regulation; political or economic developments; environmental risks; insurance risks; capital expenditures; operating or technical difficulties in connection with development activities; personnel relations; and changes in Project parameters as plans continue to be refined. Forward-looking statements are based on assumptions management believes to be reasonable, including but not limited to the price of silver, gold and barite; the demand for silver, gold and barite; the ability to carry on exploration and development activities; the timely receipt of any required approvals; the ability to obtain qualified personnel, equipment and services in a timely and cost-efficient manner; the ability to operate in a safe, efficient and effective matter; and the regulatory framework regarding environmental matters, and such other assumptions and factors as set out herein. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate and actual results, and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward looking information contained herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking information contained herein is presented for the purpose of assisting investors in understanding the Company’s expected financial and operational performance and the Company’s plans and objectives and may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except in accordance with applicable securities laws .

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
By
Investing

LaFleur Minerals Announces LIFE and Flow-Through Unit Offerings

LaFleur Minerals Inc. (CSE: LFLR,OTC:LFLRF) (FSE: 3WK0) (‘LaFleur Minerals’ or the ‘Company’ or ‘Issuer’) is pleased to announce a non-brokered private placement offering of up to 6,000,000 units of the Company (the ‘Units’) at a price of $0.50 per Unit gross proceeds of up to $3,000,000 (the ‘LIFE Offering’). Each Unit will consist of one (1) common share in the capital of the Company (each a ‘Common Share’) and one (1) Common Share purchase warrant (a ‘Warrant’) granting the holder the right to purchase one (1) additional Common Share of the Company (a ‘Warrant Share’) at a price of $0.75 at any time on or before 24 months from the Closing Date (defined below). The Warrants will be subject to an accelerated expiry upon thirty (30) business days’ notice from the Company in the event the closing price of the Common Shares on the Canadian Securities Exchange (the ‘CSE’) is equal to or above a price of $0.90 for fourteen (14) consecutive trading days any time after closing of the Offering.

The gross proceeds from the LIFE Offering will be used for the commissioning and restart of gold production operations at the Company’s wholly-owned Beacon Gold Mine and Mill, as well as work at the Company’s Swanson Gold Project in Quebec and for and general working capital purposes.

The Units will be offered for sale pursuant to the listed issuer financing exemption under Part 5A of National Instrument 45-106 – Prospectus Exemptions, as amended by CSA Coordinated Blanket Order 45-935 – Exemptions from Certain Conditions of the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption, to purchasers resident in Canada, excluding Quebec, and other qualifying jurisdictions.

The securities offered under the LIFE Offering will not be subject to a hold period in accordance with applicable Canadian securities laws. There is an offering document (the ‘Offering Document‘) related to the LIFE Offering that can be accessed under the Issuer’s profile at www.sedarplus.ca and at the Company’s website at www.lafleurminerals.com. Prospective investors should read this Offering Document before making an investment decision.

Flow-Through (FT) Offering

The Company also intends to offer up to 2,500,000 flow-through units of the Company (the ‘FT Units‘) at a price of $0.60 per FT Unit for gross proceeds of up to $1,500,000 (the ‘FT Offering‘). Each FT Unit will consist of one (1) Common Share to be issued as a ‘flow-through share’ within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada) and the Taxation Act (Québec) (each, a ‘FT Share‘) and one (1) Warrant which shall have the same terms as the Warrants included in the Units to be issued in the LIFE Offering.

The gross proceeds from the issuance and sale of the FT Units will be used on the Company’s Swanson Gold Project to incur ‘Canadian Exploration Expenses’ as such term is defined under subsection 66.1(6) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) and will qualify as ‘flow-through mining expenditures’ as defined in subsection 127(9) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (or would so qualify if the references to ‘before 2026’ in paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘flow-through mining expenditure’ in subsection 127(9) of the Tax Act were read as ‘before 2027’ and the references in paragraphs (c) and (d) of that definition to ‘before April 2025’ were read as ‘before April 2026’). The qualifying expenditures will be incurred on or before December 31, 2026, and will be renounced to the subscribers with an effective date no later than December 31, 2025, in an aggregate amount not less than the gross proceeds raised from the issuance of the FT Shares.

All securities issued in connection with the FT Offering will be subject to a statutory hold period of four months and one day following the date of issuance in accordance with applicable Canadian securities laws.

The Company has also agreed to pay qualified finders and brokers a cash commission of 7.0% of the aggregate gross proceeds of the LIFE Offering and FT Offering and such number of broker warrants (the ‘Broker Warrants‘) as is equal to 7.0% of the number of Units sold under the LIFE Offering and FT Offering. Each Broker Warrant will entitle the holder to purchase one Common Share at an exercise price equal to the Offering Price for a period of 24 months following the Closing Date.

The closing of the LIFE Offering and FT Offering is expected to occur on or about December 31, 2025 (the ‘Closing Date‘), or such other earlier or later date as the Company may determine.

The Company continues to progress in the closing of its previously announced brokered private placement of gold-linked convertible notes, as announced on November 5, 2025, a financing that aims to raise up to C$7 million to fund the restart of the company’s Beacon Gold Mill in Val d’Or, Quebec.

This news release is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities in the United States or in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to qualification or registration under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The securities referred to in this news release have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act’), and such securities may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent an exemption from registration under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable U.S. state securities laws. ‘United States’ and ‘U.S. person’ are as defined in Regulation S under the U.S Securities Act.

About LaFleur Minerals Inc.

LaFleur Minerals Inc. (CSE: LFLR,OTC:LFLRF) (FSE: 3WK0) is focused on the development of district-scale gold projects in the Abitibi Gold Belt near Val-d’Or, Québec. Our mission is to advance mining projects with a laser focus on our resource-stage Swanson Gold Deposit and the Beacon Gold Mill, which have significant potential to deliver long-term value. The Swanson Gold Project is approximately 18,304 hectares (183 km2) in size and includes several prospects rich in gold and critical metals previously held by Monarch Mining, Abcourt Mines, and Globex Mining. LaFleur has recently consolidated a large land package along a major structural break that hosts the Swanson, Bartec, and Jolin gold deposits and several other showings which make up the Swanson Gold Project. The Swanson Gold Project is easily accessible by road allowing direct access to several nearby gold mills, further enhancing its development potential. Lafleur Mineral’s fully refurbished and permitted Beacon Gold Mill is capable of processing over 750 tonnes per day and is being considered for processing mineralized material at Swanson and for custom milling operations for other nearby gold projects.

ON BEHALF OF LaFleur Minerals INC.

Paul Ténière, M.Sc., P.Geo.
Chief Executive Officer
E: info@lafleurminerals.com

LaFleur Minerals Inc.
1500-1055 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 4N7

Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

Cautionary Statement Regarding ‘Forward-Looking’ Information

This news release includes certain statements that may be deemed ‘forward-looking statements’. All statements in this new release, other than statements of historical facts, that address events or developments that the Company expects to occur, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words ‘expects’, ‘plans’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘projects’, ‘potential’ and similar expressions, or that events or conditions ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘may’, ‘could’ or ‘should’ occur. Forward-looking statements in this news release include, without limitation, statements related to the closing of the LIFE Offering and the FT Offering, and the anticipated use of proceeds from the LIFE Offering and the FT Offering. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management on the date the statements are made. Except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements in the event that management’s beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.

THIS NEWS RELEASE IS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/278189

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
By
Investing

Silver Price Forecast: Top Trends for Silver in 2026

The silver price reached heights not seen in more than 40 years in 2025, posting new all-time highs in the fourth quarter amid a supply deficit, expanding industrial use and rising safe-haven demand.

The white metal reached its highest point for the year in mid-December, breaking through US$64 per ounce following an interest rate cut from the US Federal Reserve. With investors looking for non-interest bearing assets in which to store and grow their wealth, the world’s metals exchanges are having a hard time keeping their silver inventories stocked.

What will 2026 hold for silver? As the new year approaches, investors are closely watching how changes in monetary policy and global uncertainty could impact the precious metal, along with supply and demand trends in the space.

Here’s what experts see coming for silver in 2026.

Silver’s persistent structural supply deficit

In its ‘2025/2026 Precious Metals Investment’ report, Metal Focus forecasts a fifth straight year of a silver supply deficit for 2025, coming in at 63.4 million ounces. And while that figure is expected to retract to 30.5 million ounces in 2026, the firm is confident that the deficit will continue to be a factor for silver this coming year.

Essentially, silver is in an entrenched structural deficit tied to a multi-year mine supply shortfall that can’t keep up with both rising industrial use and strong investment demand. Aboveground silver stocks are running dry, with silver mine production has decreased over the past decade, especially in the silver-mining hubs of Central and South America.

Even with silver at never-seen-before prices, it could be years before any sort of balance returns to the market.

“If the silver that you produce is a small portion of your stream of revenues, you’re not that motivated to try to produce more silver,” he explained. In fact, Krauth said a higher silver price could result in less silver coming to market as miners switch to processing lower-grade material that was once uneconomical and might even contain less silver.

On the exploration side, it takes 10 to 15 years to bring a silver deposit through discovery and into production.

“The reaction time to higher prices is actually really, really slow. I think we’re going to see these shortages and tightness persist,” Krauth added.

Industrial demand for silver from cleantech and AI

Industrial demand was another major catalyst for higher silver prices in 2025, and is expected to remain a strong tailwind for the silver market next year and beyond.

In a December report titled ‘Silver, the Next Generation Metal,’ the Silver Institute explains that heavy demand for silver through 2030 is coming from the cleantech sector — mainly from the solar and electric vehicle (EV) segments — and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers. Silver’s critical role in these economically important industries led the US government to include silver on its list of critical minerals this year.

A staunch believer in solar as a major pillar of the silver market, Krauth advised that it is “dangerous to underestimate” the level of demand yet to come from the industry. This is especially true if investors consider the projected growth of AI data centers in the US alone, and the amount of energy needed to power their operations.

“I think about 80 percent of data centers are located in the US, and their demand for electricity is expected to grow by 22 percent over the next decade. AI alone, on top of data center demand for electricity, is expected to grow by 31 percent over the next decade,” he said, adding that over the past year data centers in the US have chosen solar energy five times more than nuclear options for powering their operations.

Safe-haven investment demand magnifying silver scarcity

As a precious metal, silver tracks gold. Lower interest rates, a return to quantitative easing by the Fed, a weaker US dollar, rising inflation, increased geopolitical uncertainty — all of these factors that benefit its sister metal are also highly supportive of the silver price. And as an affordable alternative to gold, silver is attracting significant retail and institutional investment, including massive exchange-traded fund (ETF) inflows.

Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, posted to X on December 10:

‘Meanwhile, inflows into silver-backed ETFs have reached around 130 million ounces this year, lifting total holdings to roughly 844 million ounces—an 18% increase.’

Safe-haven investment appeal for silver is expected to grow further in 2026. Concerns over the Fed’s independence and the very real likelihood that Chair Jerome Powell will be replaced in May with someone more amenable to the Trump White House’s low interest rate demands are big factors boosting demand for silver as a portfolio hedge.

Substantial demand for silver as a safe-haven investment has already led to mint shortages in silver bars and coins and tight inventories in futures markets, primarily in London, New York and Shanghai.

For example, Bloomberg reported in late November that silver inventories at the Shanghai Futures Exchange had hit their lowest level since 2015. These shortages are resulting in rising lease rates and borrowing costs, which points to genuine challenges with delivery of physical metal rather than mere speculative positioning.

In India, where gold jewelry is traditionally a form of wealth preservation, there’s strong demand for silver jewelry as buyers look for a more affordable option with the gold price now over US$4,300 per ounce.

Demand for silver bars and silver ETFs is also on the rise in India, already the world’s largest consumer of the white metal. The nation imports 80 percent of its silver demand.

Silver price forecast for 2026

Silver’s notoriety as a highly volatile metal — it’s not called ‘the devil’s metal’ for nothing — and its recent jaw-dropping rally, has many precious metals analysts hesitating to define a clear price target for 2026.

Although the case for much higher silver prices is a strong one, there are risks that could jeopardize the metal’s upward momentum. For example, Mind Money’s Khandoshko suggested that a global economic slowdown or sudden liquidity corrections could apply downward pressure on the silver price.

“For 2026, I’d be watching industrial demand trends, Indian imports, ETF flows and any widening price gaps between trading hubs,” she advised. “I’d also pay close attention to sentiment around large unhedged short positions. If trust in paper contracts weakens again, we could see another structural shift in pricing.”

Krauth also cautioned investors to remember that silver is “famously volatile” and while “it’s been fun because the volatility has been to the upside … don’t be surprised if you get some kind of rapid drawdowns.” He views US$50 as the new floor for silver, and gave what he deems a “conservative” forecast of silver in the US$70 range for 2026.

This is in line with Citigroup’s (NYSE:C) prediction that silver will continue to outperform gold and reach upwards of US$70 for 2026, especially if its industrial side fundamentals remain in place.

Chambers referred to silver as the “fast horse” of the precious metals. While industrial demand is important, he believes retail investment demand is the real “juggernaut” for the silver price in the coming year.

Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
By
Investing

Rare Earths Oxide Produced from Halleck Creek Ore-Major Technical Breakthrough

American Rare Earths (ASX: ARR | OTCQX: ARRNF | ADR: AMRRY) (“ARR” or the “Company”) has successfully completed another critical stage in its mineral processing program by producing a mixed rare earths oxide (“MREO”) using the updated preliminary PFS mineral processing flowsheet.

Highlights

  • Rare earth oxides were produced from Halleck Creek ore using the updated preliminary Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”) mineral processing flowsheet1
  • A Mixed Rare Earth Oxalate and Mixed Rare Earth Oxide was created from purified leachate solution using the material from the impurity removal testing2
  • This is the most significant technical milestone achieved for the Project to date

MREO from Halleck Creek (“the Project”) was produced using the material – a pregnant leach solution (“PLS”) – from the impurity removal testing campaign3. This was achieved through precipitating a mixed rare earth oxalate and then creating MREO powder (see Figure 1). This major technical milestone confirms that rare earths can be extracted into metallic oxides from Halleck Creek ore using the updated preliminary PFS mineral processing flowsheet currently being finalized for the upcoming PFS. Solvent extraction computer simulation is now underway, using the results of these tests.

SGS in Lakefield, Ontario, Canada created the MREO from the Halleck Creek PLS through a two- step process. The first step consists of precipitating the metals in solution using oxalic acid to create a mixed rare earth oxalate. Oxalic acid is highly selective in precipitating rare earth elements (“REE”) from PLS while other elements stay in solution. SGS performed three precipitation tests using variable oxalic acid addition rates. The second step, called calcining, involved SGS heating the combined mixed rare earth oxalates to 1,000oC to oxidize the material into a MREO. A beneficial effect of calcining is that it oxidizes the cerium, converting it from Ce3+ to Ce4+. Ce4+ is not soluble in the reagent which will be used to dissolve REEs from the MREO for solvent extraction.

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
By
Investing

Trump Weighs Executive Order to Loosen Federal Cannabis Restrictions

US President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a major shift in federal drug policy that would relax decades-old restrictions on cannabis, potentially injecting new life into the industry.

Six people familiar with the discussions told the Washington Post that Trump is preparing an executive order directing federal agencies to pursue the reclassification of cannabis from a Schedule I substance to Schedule III.

The effort, still under internal review, was the focus of a December 10 phone call between Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, several of the sources said. Joining the call were cannabis industry executives, Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the meeting publicly.

Johnson reportedly expressed skepticism and laid out several studies and data points opposing rescheduling, but by the end of the call, Trump appeared inclined to proceed. However, the sources emphasized that no final decision has been made and that he could still change course; this was later confirmed by another White House official.

Reclassification would shift cannabis from Schedule I status — reserved for substances deemed to have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use — to Schedule III, which includes Tylenol with codeine and certain steroids.

The shift would not legalize recreational use under federal law, but would remove some of the most onerous constraints faced by medical researchers and by companies operating legally in dozens of states.

“This would be the biggest reform in federal cannabis policy since marijuana was made a Schedule I drug in the 1970s,” said Shane Pennington, a DC attorney who represents companies involved in rescheduling litigation.

He noted that while Trump cannot unilaterally change the drug schedule, he can instruct the Department of Justice to bypass a pending administrative hearing and finalize the rule.

The political backdrop has shifted sharply in recent years. Cannabis is legal for medical use in most states and for recreational use in 24, and has become a multibillion-dollar industry. Both Democrats and Republicans have expressed interest in rescheduling even as broader legalization remains deeply contested at the federal level.

For cannabis businesses, reclassification would be economically transformative.

Current tax rules prohibit companies that sell Schedule I substances from deducting ordinary business expenses, a barrier that industry representatives have long described as crushing.

“This monumental change will have a massive, positive effect on thousands of state-legal cannabis businesses around the country,” said Brian Vicente, founding partner at Vicente. “Rescheduling releases cannabis businesses from the crippling tax burden they have been shackled with and allows these businesses to grow and prosper.”

Policy advocates say the move would eliminate a central pillar of the federal government’s 50 year prohibition regime, while also highlighting how much work remains.

“This is the beginning of a new era of public health policy,” said Shawn Hauser, also a partner at Vicente.

She called the directive “a long-overdue acknowledgment of marijuana’s medical value and safety,” while warning that rescheduling alone will not resolve broader regulatory inconsistencies or criminal justice disparities.

Trump, who said in August that he was “looking at reclassification,” inherited a stalled proposal originally launched by then-President Joe Biden that recommended moving cannabis to Schedule III.

Rescheduling’s origins trace back to October 2022, when Biden instructed the Department of Health and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to review whether the current classification for cannabis is scientifically justified.

Health officials concluded in 2023 that it is not, prompting the DEA to propose shifting cannabis to Schedule III in early 2024. The proposed rule has been frozen since March 2025.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
By
Investing

Top 5 Gold News Stories of 2025

2025 was a watershed year for gold, which set new highs as its safe-haven appeal increased.

As global uncertainty intensified, the metal began to receive mainstream attention as a standout asset.

With the year set to mark one of gold’s strongest annual performances in decades, it’s a fitting moment to look back and revisit our most popular gold news stories of 2025.

Read on to see what caught our audience’s attention over the last 12 months.

1. Germany, Italy Face Pressure to Repatriate US$245 Billion in Gold as Trust in US Custody Wavers

Publish date: June 24, 2025

In June, growing distrust in US custodianship of foreign gold reserves and political uncertainty linked to the Trump administration put pressure on Germany and Italy to repatriate their foreign bullion.

At the time, both countries collectively held more than US$245 billion in gold reserves at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and local political leaders were raising concerns that the US had become a less neutral custodian.

German taxpayer advocates warned that increasing political influence over the US Federal Reserve could jeopardize access to foreign-owned bullion. Similar concerns surfaced in Italy, where critics argued that continuing to store gold abroad posed a strategic risk during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

Germany repatriated 674 metric tons of gold from 2013 to 2017, but 37 percent of its reserves remain in New York.

2. What Does the GDX Index Change Mean for Gold Investors?

Publish date: September 19, 2025

In September, the world’s largest gold-mining stock exchange-traded fund (ETF) — the US$20.5 billion VanEck Gold Miners ETF (ARCA:GDX) — underwent a major structural overhaul.

VanEck transitioned GDX from the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index to the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index, ending a benchmark relationship in place since 2004.

The switch adopted free-float market-cap rules that exclude locked-up or government-held shares, aligning the fund with index standards commonly used in broader equity markets.

3. Barrick’s Bristow Steps Down Following Hemlo Sale and Mali Challenges

Publish date: September 29, 2025

Barrick Mining (TSX:ABX,NYSE:B) went through a major leadership transition this year after CEO Mark Bristow unexpectedly left the company following nearly seven years at the helm.

Bristow, who had led the company since the 2019 merger with Randgold Resources, stepped down amid strategic disagreements with Barrick Chair John Thornton and a year marked by operational challenges, including ongoing legal and political challenges in Mali, where its Loulo-Gounkoto complex is located.

Bristow’s departure also came shortly after Barrick finalized a US$1.09 billion sale of its Hemlo mine in Ontario, formally marking its exit from primary Canadian gold production to concentrate on higher-margin international operations.

Chief Operating Officer Mark Hill assumed interim CEO responsibilities as the board initiated a global search for a successor. Hill previously oversaw Barrick’s Latin America and Asia-Pacific operations, and played a key role in the company’s initial decision to explore the Fourmile gold project in Nevada.

4. Mali Enforces Gold Seizure at Barrick’s Loulo-Gounkoto Mine

Publish date: January 13, 2025

Barrick’s tensions with Mali’s military government intensified at the start of 2025 after authorities seized gold shipments from the firm’s Loulo-Gounkoto mine, which accounts for roughly 14 percent of its annual production.

At the time, officials claimed Barrick owed more than US$500 million in unpaid taxes and state dividends under a revised mining code implemented in 2023. Detentions and legal threats against local staff heightened the conflict further, and the government reportedly intercepted approximately 3 metric tons of bullion.

The year-long dispute reached a conclusion on November 24, when Barrick confirmed a settlement with the Malian government that restores full control over the Loulo-Gounkoto mine.

Under the terms, the company was to pay 244 billion CFA francs (US$430 million), with 144 billion CFA francs due within six days of signing and an additional 50 billion CFA francs applied through VAT credit offsets.

In exchange, Mali was to drop all charges against Barrick, lift state control of Loulo-Gounkoto, release four detained employees and renew the company’s mining permit for another decade.

The agreement also requires Barrick to comply with Mali’s 2023 mining code — the same legislation that triggered the original confrontation.

5. Navigating Uncertainty: How Trump’s Tariffs Are Affecting the Gold Market

Publish date: August 27, 2025

US trade policy sparked gold market turbulence after confusion surrounding import tariffs, including whether Swiss-refined 1 kilogram and 100 ounce bars would be subject to rates near 39 percent. Traders rushed to secure physical imports amid the uncertainty, widening spreads between New York futures and London spot benchmarks.

The volatility eased only after US officials clarified their position.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
By
Politics

China’s missile surge puts every US base in the Pacific at risk — and the window to respond is closing

China has spent decades building a land-based missile force designed to keep the United States out of a fight over Taiwan — and U.S. officials say it now threatens every major airfield, port and military installation across the Western Pacific.

As Washington races to build its own long-range fires, analysts warn that the land domain has become the most overlooked — and potentially decisive — part of the U.S.–China matchup. Interviews with military experts show a contest defined not by tanks or troop movements, but by missile ranges, base access and whether U.S. forces can survive the opening salvos of a war that may begin long before any aircraft take off.

‘The People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force … has built an increasing number of short-, medium-, and long-range missiles,’ Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Fox News Digital. ‘They have the capability to shoot those across the first and increasingly the second island chains.’

For years, Chinese officials assumed they could not match the United States in air superiority. The Rocket Force became the workaround: massed, land-based firepower meant to shut down U.S. bases and keep American aircraft and ships outside the fight.

‘They didn’t think that they could gain air superiority in a straight-up air-to-air fight,’ said Eric Heginbotham, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ‘So you need another way to get missiles out — and that another way is by building a lot of ground launchers.’

The result is the world’s largest inventory of theater-range missiles, backed by hardened underground facilities, mobile launchers and rapid shoot-and-scoot tactics designed to overwhelm U.S. defenses.

Despite China’s numerical edge, American forces still hold advantages Beijing has not yet matched — particularly in targeting and survivability. 

U.S. missiles, from Tomahawks to SM-6s to future hypersonic weapons, are tied into a global surveillance network the People’s Liberation Army cannot yet replicate. American targeting relies on satellites, undersea sensors, stealth drones and joint command tools matured over decades of combat experience.

‘The Chinese have not fought a war since the 1970s,’ Jones said. ‘We see lots of challenges with their ability to conduct joint operations across different services.’ 

The U.S., by contrast, has built multi-domain task forces in the Pacific to integrate cyber, space, electronic warfare and precision fires — a level of coordination analysts say China has yet to demonstrate.

Jones said China’s defense industry also faces major hurdles. 

‘Most of (China’s defense firms) are state-owned enterprises,’ he said. ‘We see massive inefficiency, the quality of the systems … we see a lot of maintenance challenges.’

Still, the United States faces a near-term problem of its own: missile stockpiles.

‘We still right now … would run out (of long-range munitions) after roughly a week or so of conflict over, say, Taiwan,’ Jones said.

Washington is trying to close that gap by rapidly expanding production of ground-launched weapons. New Army systems — Typhon launchers, high mobility artillery rocket system, batteries, precision strike missiles and long-range hypersonic weapons with a range exceeding 2,500 kilometers — are designed to hold Chinese forces at risk from much farther away.

Heginbotham said the shift is finally happening at scale. 

‘We’re buying anti-ship missiles like there’s no tomorrow,’ he said.

If current plans hold, U.S. forces will field roughly 15,000 long-range anti-ship missiles by 2035, up from about 2,500 today.

China’s missile-heavy strategy is built to overwhelm U.S. bases early in a conflict. The United States, meanwhile, relies on layered air defenses: Patriot batteries to protect airfields and logistics hubs, terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) interceptors to engage ballistic missiles at high altitude, and Aegis-equipped destroyers that can intercept missiles far from shore.

Heginbotham warned the U.S. will need to widen that defensive mix. 

‘We really need a lot more and greater variety of missile defenses and preferably cheaper missile defenses,’ he said.

One of Washington’s biggest advantages is its ability to conduct long-range strikes from beneath the ocean. U.S. submarines can fire cruise missiles from virtually anywhere in the Western Pacific, without relying on allied basing and without exposing launchers to Chinese fire — a degree of stealth China does not yet possess.

Command integration is another area where Beijing continues to struggle. American units routinely train in multi-domain operations that knit together air, sea, cyber, space and ground-based fires. 

Jones and Heginbotham both noted that the People’s Liberation Army has far less experience coordinating forces across services and continues to grapple with doctrinal and organizational problems, including the dual commander–political commissar structure inside its missile brigades.

Alliances may be the most consequential difference. Japan, the Philippines, Australia and South Korea provide depth, intelligence sharing, logistics hubs and potential launch points for U.S. forces. 

China has no comparable network of partners, leaving it to operate from a much narrower geographic footprint. In a missile war, accuracy, integration and survivability often matter more than sheer volume — and in those areas the United States still holds meaningful advantages.

At the heart of this competition is geography. Missiles matter less than the places they can be launched from, and China’s ability to project power beyond its coastline remains sharply constrained.

‘They’ve got big power-projection problems right now,’ Jones said. ‘They don’t have a lot of basing as you get outside of the first island chain.’

The United States faces its own version of that challenge. Long-range Army and Marine Corps fires require host-nation permission, turning diplomacy into a form of firepower. 

‘It’s absolutely central,’ Heginbotham said. ‘You do need regional basing.’

Recent U.S. agreements with the Philippines, along with expanded cooperation with Japan and Australia, reflect a push to position American launchers close enough to matter without permanently stationing large ground forces there.

A U.S.–China land conflict would not involve armored columns maneuvering for territory. The decisive question is whether missile units on both sides can fire, relocate and fire again before being targeted.

China has invested heavily in survivability, dispersing its brigades across underground bunkers, tunnels and hardened sites. Many can fire and relocate within minutes. Mobile launchers, decoys and deeply buried storage complexes make them difficult to neutralize.

U.S. launchers in the Pacific would face intense Chinese surveillance and long-range missile attacks. After two decades focused on counterterrorism, the Pentagon is now reinvesting in deception, mobility and hardened infrastructure — capabilities critical to surviving the opening stages of a missile war.

Any U.S. intervention in a Taiwan conflict would also force Washington to confront a politically charged question: whether to strike missile bases on the Chinese mainland. Doing so risks escalation; avoiding it carries operational costs.

‘Yes … you can defend Taiwan without striking bases inside China,’ Heginbotham said. ‘But you are giving away a significant advantage.’

Holding back may help prevent the conflict from widening, but it also allows China to keep firing. 

‘It’s a reality of conflict in the nuclear age that almost any conflict is gonna be limited in some ways,’ Heginbotham said. ‘Then the question becomes where those boundaries are drawn, can you prevent it from spreading? What trade-offs you’re willing to accept?’

A U.S.–China clash on land would not be fought by massed armies. It would be a missile war shaped by geography, alliances and survivability — a contest where political access and command integration matter as much as raw firepower.

For the United States, the challenge is clear: build enough long-range missiles, secure the basing needed to use them and keep launchers alive under fire. For China, the question is whether its vast missile arsenal and continental depth can offset weaknesses in coordination, command structure and real-world combat experience.

The side that can shoot, relocate and sustain fire the longest will control the land domain — and may shape the outcome of a war in the Pacific.

This is the third installment of a series comparing U.S. and Chinese military capabilities. Feel free to check out earlier stories comparing sea and air capabilities.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By
Politics

Erika Kirk agrees to ‘private discussion’ with Candace Owens amid rising tensions

Erika Kirk has announced that she is to meet privately with commentator Candace Owens marking the first direct conversation between the two after a period of public discussion and differing perspectives that emerged after her late husband’s death.

Kirk shared the update in a brief statement on X on Sunday, saying both women had agreed to pause all public commentary until after the meeting.

‘Candace Owens and I are meeting for a private, in-person discussion on Monday, December 15,’ Erika said.

‘@RealCandaceO and I have agreed that public discussions, livestreams, and tweets are on hold until after this meeting. I look forward to a productive conversation. Thank you,’ Erika added.

The planned discussion between Erika and the former Turning Point USA employee reflects an effort by the women to address weeks of mounting tensions over conspiracy theories online in a more thoughtful and personal setting.

At a recent CBS town hall Erika expressed the emotional toll of widespread online speculation surrounding her husband’s passing, ‘Stop. That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop.’ when asked what she had to say to people making unfounded claims.

‘When you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family, when you go after the people that I love, and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they’re in on this, no,’ Erika also said on ‘Outnumbered’ Dec. 10.

The relationship between the two women has deteriorated sharply in recent months, despite their earlier history of collaboration and personal friendship.

The recent events have placed them on different sides of a sensitive moment and their decision to meet privately shows signs of a mutual desire to speak directly while reducing misunderstandings and avoiding further speculation.

Kirk, who now leads TPUSA, has been focused publicly on preserving her husband Charlie Kirk’s legacy since his tragic death in September.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By
Politics

MIKE DAVIS: Clinton-appointed judge once again sabotages DOJ’s Comey case

After more than eight years of Democrat lawfare against President Trump, his aides and his allies, the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi is bringing much-needed accountability — which is what American voters demanded in our last presidential election. But Democrat activist judges are doing what they do best: weaponization and sabotage.

In South Carolina, Clinton-appointed Judge Cameron Currie — handpicked by a Biden-appointed judge — wrongly disqualified Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, the bold and fearless prosecutor who had secured an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey for lying and obstruction of a Senate investigation into his politicization, weaponization, and corruption of the intel agencies and law enforcement to go after political enemies and protect political allies. The government is appealing that decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Now, another Clinton-appointed judge in the District of Columbia, Colleen Kollarr-Kotelly, has interfered even more egregiously with the government’s case. This ruling threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.

Comey was indicted on two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstruction of Congress. The indictment stemmed from the events surrounding Operation Crossfire Hurricane, more colloquially known as the Russiagate hoax. Comey used his longtime friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, as a conduit to leak material unfavorable to President Trump to media outlets. In addition to being a law professor, Richman was a government contractor. He and Comey communicated frequently via email on government and private accounts. Communications on a government email account enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy — the standard under the Fourth Amendment as a result of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States (1967) — because the government can monitor its own email servers.

Six years ago, even Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg, a judicial disgrace about whom we often have written, signed a warrant authorizing the search and seizure of emails on Richman’s computer and iCloud account and his account at Columbia. Richman was able to review all emails and withhold the information he deemed privileged from all but one account. Now, Richman — who was the recipient of many emails from Comey and the sender of many emails to him — has sought to reclaim those emails pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). This rule allows an individual to ask a court to reclaim his property obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and/or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Shockingly, Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and has ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4 p.m. on Monday.  Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling ordered the destruction of emails obtained pursuant to a warrant signed by another (Obama) judge six years ago.  She claims that the seized information relates to a new investigation; however, she is basing this assertion on a decision by Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick issued a suppression-like decision even though suppression was not briefed by the parties — yet another example of blatant and unlawful judicial sabotage by partisans in robes.

Collar-Kotelly has ordered that a copy of the emails be given to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in Virginia. This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly’s horrible ruling. The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal. The statute-of-limitations law allows the government only six months after an indictment’s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment. The inability to view this evidence would substantially increase the time necessary to seek an indictment.  Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government’s inability to review the emails to use as evidence and prepare for trial would massively hamper its case.

Kollar-Kotelly’s decision is more disturbing because it implicates the separation of powers. Usually, Rule 41(g) comes into play where a defendant has had property wrongly seized, and he moves to reclaim it. Here, Comey is not seeking to reclaim anything; Richman, a then-government contractor with whom Comey communicated extensively about government business, is seeking this evidence. Richman has run to a partisan Democrat judge not even involved in the criminal case — and not even in the same district — to procure the destruction of crucial evidence in that case in an obvious effort to assist his friend Comey. Comey cannot challenge the warrant against Richman because he lacks standing to do so. Incredibly, Kollar-Kotelly suggested that Richman could move to quash this evidence in Virginia.  She’s going way out of her way to help Comey. Judges presiding over cases often have excluded evidence against defendants as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is, however, extraordinary for a different judge — especially in a different district — to interfere in and dramatically hamper the prosecution’s case based on a claim by a third party of a wrongful search and seizure, especially when the evidence the government wishes to use consists of communications between that third party and the defendant — a defendant who was a senior government official.

The government obtained the evidence it wishes to use against Comey pursuant to a lawful warrant, even one signed by a highly partisan Obama-appointed judge. Now, a Clinton-appointed judge who is not presiding over the case — and is not even in the same district — is blatantly trying to aid Comey by preventing the government from using that evidence either to re-indict Comey or try him if the original indictment is reinstated. This ruling contravenes the normal way in which Rule 41(g) applies. The Clinton judge’s staggering timeline — destruction by tomorrow afternoon — also illustrates her agenda. She should have stayed a ruling of such magnitude to allow the appellate process to play out.  Instead, she has put the government in an incredibly precarious position: having to obtain a stay from either the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court in just a few hours. Kollar-Kotelly’s order had no legal basis, and a higher court must put a stop to it.

Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling is part of a larger pattern. Leftist judges like Obama-appointed D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who presided over President Trump’s January 6-related case, Boasberg, who signed off on the national disgrace that was Operation Arctic Frost, and many other Democrat judges did nothing to stop and did much to escalate the lawfare waged against President Trump, his aides, and his allies. Now, the Justice Department is seeking legal accountability for lawfare perpetrators like Comey. Currie and Kollar-Kotelly have endeavored to prevent — or, at the very least, drastically decrease the chances of — such legal accountability. Courts do not order the FBI to destroy evidence in pending investigations, except when the evidence is harmful to a lawfare perpetrator like Comey. The inconsistency between the treatment afforded lawfare perpetrators and lawfare targets threatens the very legitimacy of the federal judiciary. If higher courts do not reign in these rogue judges, Congress must do so through oversight, withholding of funds from judicial appropriations, and impeachment.  A system where the judiciary enables lawfare and then shields its perpetrators from legal consequences is unsustainable, and higher courts must put a stop to it.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
By