Breaking
Your Invest Master
Archive

October 1, 2025

Browsing
Investing

Silver47 Completes Successful Red Mountain Drill Program and Intersects Massive Sulfides in Multiple Holes

Investing 10 Mins Read

The Red Mountain Deposit Remains Open to Expansion in Multiple Directions with Assays Pending

Silver47 Exploration Corp. (TSXV: AGA,OTC:AAGAF) (OTCQB: AAGAF) (‘Silver47’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the completion of its summer 2025 drill program at its wholly-owned Red Mountain Project in south-central Alaska.

Highlights:

  • Significant Mineralization Intersected: Completed eight holes at Dry Creek and seven holes at West Tundra Flats, intersecting massive, semi-massive, and disseminated sulfides in step-out and infill drilling, with assays pending (see Figure 2-5 of core photos below).
  • Establishing a Strong Alaskan High-Grade Resource Base: The 2025 program targeted untested areas near historical high-grade intercepts to enhance Red Mountain’s inferred 168.6 million silver equivalent ounce resource (336 g/t AgEq*) at Dry Creek and West Tundra Flats.
  • Red Mountain Deposit Open to Expansion: Both the Dry Creek and West Tundra Flats zones remain open to expansion in multiple directions and the Company is completing detailed geological modelling to guide vectoring towards additional mineralization in 2026.
  • Multiple Untested Targets: There are at least 35 mineralized prospects across the Red Mountain Project covering a 55 km trend many of which are undrilled or represent preliminary drilled discoveries.
  • High-Value Critical Minerals: An ongoing metallurgical study is evaluating Red Mountain’s potentially significant concentrations of antimony and gallium, critical for U.S. defense, where current supply chains are at risk from foreign dominance.
  • Fully Capitalized: The Company is fully funded with approximately $27 million in working capital to deploy towards aggressive growth-oriented drilling on our American silver projects.

Galen McNamara, CEO, stated: ‘The 2025 Red Mountain drill program has intersected massive sulfides in multiple holes. With assays pending, we now look forward to drilling at Mogollon in Q4 of this year and Hughes in early 2026. Fully funded with $27 million, we’re positioned to accelerate resource growth on our silver and critical mineral projects to deliver value from America’s next generation of strategic mineral assets.’

Highlights from Previous Drilling (see news releases dated November 21 and 26, 2024 and February 12, 2025):

  • DC24-104: 15.24 m grading 546 g/t AgEq* plus 290 g/t antimony (‘Sb’) and 32 g/t gallium (‘Ga’) from 14.3 m depth (AgEq: 106 g/t silver, 0.45 g/t gold, 6.4% zinc, 2.2% lead, and 0.19% copper)
  • DC24-105: 22.32 m grading 601 g/t AgEq plus 503 g/t Sb and 54 g/t Ga from 18.9 m (AgEq: 150.6 g/t silver, 0.82 g/t gold, 5.9% zinc, 2.6% lead, and 0.13% copper)
  • WT24-33: 2.90 m grading 1,079 g/t AgEq plus 920 g/t Sb and 15 g/t Ga from 121.70 m depth
    (AgEq: 418 g/t silver, 0.74 g/t gold, 9.1% zinc, 4.7% lead, 0.105% copper)
  • DC18-77: 4.26 m grading 2,003 g/t AgEq plus 4,432 g/t Sb and 97 g/t Ga 168.8 m depth
    (AgEq: 1,435 g/t silver, 2.2 g/t gold, 4.8% zinc, 2.3% lead, 0.5% copper)

*Notes: g/t=grams per tonne; AgEq=silver equivalent; ZnEq=zinc equivalent; m=metres; Ag=silver; ‎Au=gold; Cu=copper; Zn=zinc; Pb=lead; 1ppm=1 g/t. Equivalencies are calculated using ratios with metal prices of US$2,750/tonne Zn, US$2,100/tonne Pb, US$8,880/tonne Cu, US$1,850/oz Au, and US$23/oz Ag and metal recoveries are based on metallurgical work returned of 90% Zn, 75% Pb, 70% Cu, 70% Ag, and 80% Au. Silver Equivalent (AgEq g/t) = [Zn (%) x 47.81] + [Pb (%) x 30.43] + [Cu (%) x 119] + [Ag (g/t) x 1] + [Au (g/t) x 91.93]

Figure 1. Plan Map of Red Mountain Project showing over 35 targets highlighting the Dry Creek and West Tundra Flats target.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10967/268546_860a7d7c4431badc_002full.jpg

Figure 2: (see attached figure). Mineralized core from drill hole DC25-110 at the Dry Creek deposit showing disseminated, semi-massive and massive sulfide mineralization featuring pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite and galena (148.5 to 170.9m downhole). Photo is not intended to be representative of broader mineralization.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10967/268546_860a7d7c4431badc_003full.jpg

Figure 3: (see attached figure). Mineralized core from drill hole DC25-112 at the Dry Creek deposit showing disseminated, semi-massive and massive sulfide mineralization featuring pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite and galena (228.55 to 245.55m downhole). Photo is not intended to be representative of broader mineralization.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10967/268546_860a7d7c4431badc_004full.jpg

Figure 4: (see attached figure). Mineralized core from drill hole DC25-113 at the Dry Creek deposit showing disseminated, semi-massive and massive sulfide mineralization featuring pyrite, sphalerite and chalcopyrite (222.9 to 240.05m downhole). Photo is not intended to be representative of broader mineralization.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10967/268546_860a7d7c4431badc_005full.jpg

Figure 5: (see attached figure). Mineralized core from drill hole WTF-38 at the West Tundra Flats Deposit showing disseminated, semi-massive and massive sulfides consisting of pyrite, sphalerite, galena and chalcopyrite (172.65 to 180.5m downhole). Photo is not intended to be representative of broader mineralization.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10967/268546_860a7d7c4431badc_006full.jpg

Drill Program

The 2025 Red Mountain drill program consisted of fifteen drill holes – eight holes at the Dry Creek target (Figure 1) and seven holes were completed at the West Tundra Flats target (Figure 1). The Dry Creek and West Tundra Flat targets together account for an inferred resource of 15.6 Mt at 336 g/t AgEq* for 168.6 million silver equivalent ounces.

Drilling at both targets consisted of a series of infill and step-out holes designed to test areas near historical high-grade drill intercepts and modelled domains where the structural controls on high-grade mineralization were not fully resolved. Multiple holes at each target intersected mineralized zones consisting of variable proportions of massive, semi-massive, and disseminated sulfides (Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). Assays are pending from all holes drilled.

Based on observations from drilling together with results from ongoing geological modelling, multiple mineralized lenses and domains at Dry Creek and West Tundra Flats targets remain open along strike and down-dip. The company will integrate all new assay data with the geological modelling to guide vectoring towards additional VMS-related, high-grade mineralization in 2026.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) protocols for drill core sampling at the Red Mountain Project followed industry standard practices. Core samples were typically taken at 1.0 m intervals in mineralized zones, and 3.0 m intervals outside of mineralized zones. Sample lengths were adjusted as necessary so as not to cross lithologic and mineralogic boundaries. QAQC check samples were inserted into the sample stream with one blank, one duplicate (coarse), and one certified reference material (CRM) occurring within every 20 samples. Drill core was cut in half, bagged, sealed and delivered directly to ALS Minerals Fairbanks, Alaska for transport to the ALS Minerals Laboratories labs in North Vancouver, British Columbia. ALS Minerals Laboratories are registered to ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 17025 accreditations for laboratory procedures. Core samples were analyzed at ALS Laboratory facilities in North Vancouver using four-acid digestion with an ICP-MS finish. Gold analysis was by fire assay with atomic absorption finish, or gravimetric finish for over-limit samples. Over-limits for silver, zinc, copper, and lead were analyzed using Ore Grade four-acid digestion. The standards, certified reference materials, were acquired from CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd. of Langley, British Columbia and selected to represent expected mineralization.

Corporate Update

Further to its news releases dated September 16, 2025, with respect to the closing of a brokered private placement of units for gross proceeds of $23,000,460 (the ‘Offering‘), the Company wishes to clarify that out of the aggregated advisory warrants of 256,204 and advisory fee of $179,342.80 plus tax, the Company issued 142,860 advisory warrants to Golden Capital Consulting Ltd. and paid a cash fee of $100,002 plus tax to Gold Funnel Consulting & Investing Inc. in connection with the Offering.

Qualified Person

The technical content of this news release has been reviewed and approved by Galen McNamara, P. Geo., the CEO of the Company and a qualified person as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

About Silver47 Exploration

Silver47 Exploration Corp is a mineral exploration company, focused on uncovering and developing silver-rich deposits in North America. The Company is creating a leading high-grade US-focused silver developer with a resource totaling 236 Moz AgEq at 334 g/t AgEq inferred and 10 Moz at 333 g/t AgEq indicated. With operations in Alaska, Nevada and New Mexico, Silver47 Exploration is anchored in America’s most prolific mining jurisdictions. For detailed information regarding the resource estimates, assumptions, and technical reports, please refer to the NI 43-101 Technical Report and other filings available on SEDAR at www.sedarplus.ca. The Company trades on the TSXV under the ticker symbol AGA and OTCQB under the ticker symbol AAGAF.

For more information about the Company, please visit www.silver47.ca and see the Technical Report filed on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and titled ‘Technical Report on the Red Mountain VMS Property Bonnifield Mining District, Alaska, USA with an effective date January 12, 2024, and prepared by APEX Geoscience Ltd.’

Follow us on social media for the latest updates:

    On Behalf of the Board of Directors

    Mr. Galen McNamara
    CEO & Director

    For investor relations
    Giordy Belfiore
    604-288-8004
    gbelfiore@silver47.ca

    No securities regulatory authority has either approved or disapproved of the contents of this release. Neither the TSXV nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

    FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

    Certain statements contained in this news release constitute forward-looking statements or forward-looking information under applicable securities laws (collectively, ‘forward-looking statements’). Such statements relate to future events or the Company’s future plans, performance, business prospects or opportunities that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘intend’, ‘plan’, ‘potential’, ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘will’ and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements.

    Forward-looking statements in this news release include, but are not limited to: the interpretation of exploration results; the significance of drill results; the potential for additional mineralization; the timing and success of future exploration activities, including drilling and sampling; the ability to expand or upgrade mineral resources through further exploration; the potential for future economic studies on the project; and the Company’s plans and objectives in advancing its exploration properties.

    These forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions considered reasonable by management as of the date of this news release, including assumptions regarding: the accuracy of geological interpretations; continuity of mineralization; the Company’s ability to obtain necessary permits and approvals; availability of financing and personnel to carry out planned programs; future commodity prices; and general business and economic conditions.

    Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. Such risks include, but are not limited to: risks inherent in mineral exploration, including unexpected results or outcomes; delays or inability to obtain required permits and approvals; availability and cost of financing, labour and equipment; changes in commodity prices and foreign exchange rates; political, regulatory and environmental risks in the jurisdictions where the Company operates; community or social risks; and other risks described in the Company’s continuous disclosure documents filed at www.sedarplus.com.

    Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct and such statements should not be unduly relied upon. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this news release. The Company does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in forward-looking statements

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/268546

    News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Politics

    Supreme Court must freeze the climate extortion of our energy industry

    Politics 5 Mins Read

    A judicial consensus is forming against climate lawfare, but the U.S. Supreme Court must still end environmental extortion of American energy. In two landmark cases, the court will soon have the opportunity to reassert the federal government’s authority over questions of national energy and environmental policy. 

    Environmental groups believe that energy use increases global temperatures, causes sea levels to rise and creates more destructive weather. Their campaign to curtail energy has taken many forms — including asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to block pipelines and the Interior Department to deny oil and gas leases — but it met a roadblock with the 2024 election and the Trump administration’s subsequent blizzard of executive orders lifting overregulation.  

    Rather than pursue their interests in Congress or before the electorate, environmental extremists have now allied with bankrupt cities and trial lawyers to use the courts to shake down the energy industry. Blue cities and states have filed tort suits in state courts to extract money for allegedly causing weather-related costs in their jurisdictions. 

    The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take up one of those cases, Boulder County v. Suncor Energy, following a ruling this year from the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed the county’s case to move forward in state court. Borrowing theories of liability from tobacco and opioid litigation, Boulder alleges that energy companies sold their products without disclosing climate risks. Such claims plainly intrude on federal authority over interstate pollution. 

    Other climate cases are still progressing in lower state courts. In Hawaii, summary judgment motions are pending in a case seeking damages for rising sea levels. Hawaii’s highest court allowed this litigation to move forward in 2023 with Justice Todd Eddins issuing a remarkable concurrence, declaring that litigation would proceed under the ‘Aloha Spirit,’ regardless of federal precedent.  

    In Rhode Island, the state judge presiding over a similar lawsuit against the energy industry compared it to developing nations devastated by natural disasters, citing Kenya, Tanzania and the Seychelles. The suggestion that Rhode Island has suffered comparable ‘severe destruction’ is telling: judges are inflating rhetoric to justify climate claims, not grounding them in law.  

    Meanwhile, other states are effectively trying to replace federal authority over environmental policy. In Louisiana, plaintiffs obtained a $750 million judgment (potentially over $1 billion with interest) against Chevron for coastal erosion that they claimed was caused by oil extraction during World War II. Those companies had been under federal contracts to supply aviation fuel for the war effort. Yet eight decades later, Louisiana claims it can punish those practices retroactively. 

    The energy firms sought to move the case to federal court because of its genesis in work for the federal government. But a divided 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to allow it. As Judge Andrew Oldham rightly noted in dissent, crude oil extraction plainly ‘relates to’ war production. If states can sue private businesses for their wartime work generations later, future cooperation with the federal government will be chilled, raising the costs of national defense. This coming term, the Supreme Court will review the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 

    Despite some disappointing rulings from activist judges, a growing number of state courts are beginning to resist such frivolous claims. A Maryland judge rejected Baltimore’s lawsuit that alleged fossil fuels caused sea rises that have harmed the city; the Maryland Supreme Court will hear the appeal later in October. A South Carolina court dismissed Charleston’s similar claims, which blue city officials will almost certainly appeal as well. Likewise, nearly identical state and municipal lawsuits have been similarly dismissed in Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and New Jersey. 

    Notwithstanding some recent wins, climate lawfare is like Hydra — new cases are constantly being brought. Even if higher courts ultimately overturn them, simply forcing the industry to defend against these suits imposes enormous litigation costs. That alone is a victory for environmental radicals. At this stage, the Supreme Court must act to reaffirm federal authority over national energy and environmental policy.  

    If climate change is producing harmful effects nationwide, then the nation should decide how to address it. As the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in a 2021 case rejecting New York City’s lawsuit against Chevron, ‘the question before us is whether a nuisance suit seeking to recover damages for the harms caused by global greenhouse gas emissions may proceed under New York law. Our answer is simple: no.’ However, they frame their aims, blue cities and states are trying to set nationwide climate policy through litigation — violating federal law and tort principles. 

    As the country decides how to respond to climate change, those choices — including the possibility of not acting — must have nationwide legitimacy. Courts cannot allow a handful of blue jurisdictions, aided by trial lawyers and environmental activists, to dictate those decisions for the rest of America. 

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Keep Reading
    Business

    Charlie Javice sentenced to 7 years in prison for fraudulent $175M sale of aid startup

    Business 4 Mins Read

    Charlie Javice, the founder of a startup company that sought to dramatically improve how students apply for financial aid, was sentenced Monday to more than seven years in prison for cheating JPMorgan Chase out of $175 million by greatly exaggerating how many students it served.

    Javice, 33, was sentenced in Manhattan federal court for her March conviction by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who said she committed “a large fraud” by duping the bank giant in the summer of 2021. She made false records that made it seem the company, called Frank, had over 4 million customers when it had fewer than 300,000, Hellerstein found.

    The judge said Javice had assembled a “very powerful list” of her charitable acts, which included organizing soup kitchens for the homeless when she was 7 years old and designing career programs for formerly incarcerated women.

    In court papers, defense lawyers noted that Javice has faced extraordinary public scrutiny, reputational destruction and professional exile, “making her a household name” in the same way Elizabeth Holmes became synonymous with her blood-testing company, Theranos.

    Defense attorney Ronald Sullivan told Hellerstein that his client was very different from Holmes because what she created actually worked, unlike Holmes, “who did not have a real company” and whose product “in fact endangered patients.”

    In seeking a 12-year prison sentence for Javice, prosecutors cited a 2022 text Javice sent to a colleague in which she called it “ridiculous” that Holmes got over 11 years in prison.

    Hellerstein largely dismissed arguments that he should be lenient because the acquisition pitted “a 28-year-old versus 300 investment bankers from the largest bank in the world,” as Sullivan put it.

    Still, the judge criticized the bank, saying “they have a lot to blame themselves” after failing to do adequate due diligence. He quickly added, though, that he was “punishing her conduct and not JPMorgan’s stupidity.”

    Sullivan said the bank rushed its negotiations because it feared another bank would acquire Frank first.

    A prosecutor, Micah Fergenson, though, said JPMorgan “didn’t get a functioning business” in exchange for its investment. “They acquired a crime scene.”

    Fergenson said Javice was driven by greed when she saw that she could pocket $29 million from the sale of her company.

    “Ms. Javice had it dangling in front of her and she lied to get it,” he said.

    Given a chance to speak, Javice said she was “haunted that my failure has transformed something meaningful into something infamous.” She said she “made a choice that I will spend my entire life regretting.”

    Javice, sometimes speaking through tears, apologized and sought forgiveness from “all the people touched or tarnished by my actions,” including JPMorgan shareholders, Frank employees and investors, along with her family.

    Javice, who lives in Florida, has been free on $2 million bail since her 2023 arrest.

    At trial, Javice, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, was convicted of conspiracy, bank fraud and wire fraud charges. Her lawyers had argued that JPMorgan went after Javice because it had buyer’s remorse.

    In her mid-20s, Javice founded Frank, a company with software that promised to simplify the arduous process of filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, a complex government form used by students to apply for aid for college or graduate school.

    Frank’s backers included venture capitalist Michael Eisenberg. The company said its offering, akin to online tax preparation software, could help students maximize financial aid while making the application process less painful.

    The company promoted itself as a way for financially needy students to obtain more aid faster, in return for a few hundred dollars in fees. Javice appeared regularly on cable news programs to boost Frank’s profile, once appearing on Forbes’ “30 Under 30” list before JPMorgan bought the startup in 2021.

    Javice was among a number of young tech executives who vaulted to fame with supposedly disruptive or transformative companies, only to see them collapse amid questions about whether they had engaged in puffery and fraud while dealing with investors.

    In their pre-sentence submission, prosecutors wrote that they were requesting a lengthy prison sentence to send a message that fraud in the sale of startup companies is “no less blameworthy than other types of fraud and will be punished accordingly.”

    Prosecutors added that the message was “desperately needed” because of “an alarming trend of founders and executives of small startup companies engaging in fraud, including making misrepresentations about their companies’ core products or services, in order to make their companies attractive targets for investors and/or buyers.”

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    Keep Reading