Breaking
Your Invest Master
Archive

December 2025

Browsing
Politics

‘Ghost ships’ ferrying illicit oil have sailed into Trump’s crosshairs

Politics 3 Mins Read

After the U.S. seized a tanker carrying Venezuelan crude oil, the shadowy fleet of ‘ghost ships’ used to evade sanctions drifted squarely into President Donald Trump’s crosshairs.

On Dec. 10, Trump announced the seizure of the ‘Skipper,’ a vessel that secretly ferries oil in defiance of sanctions. 

The broader fleet, a clandestine armada of roughly 1,000 tankers, quietly navigates global sea routes to move oil from sanctioned countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

The so-called ‘ghost ships’ sail under foreign flags to obscure their origins, repeatedly change names, shift ownership through shell companies, disable transponders to evade tracking and conduct mid-sea transfers to mask their cargo.

The result is a labyrinthine system of handoffs and disguised voyages.

Benjamin Jensen, who heads the Futures Lab at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the challenge extends well beyond Venezuela.

‘I do think it’s time that the United States and other countries start to address what really is a global problem,’ explained Benjamin Jensen, director of the Futures Lab at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Jensen said the seizure sends a shock not just to Caracas but to other actors as well. 

‘What we don’t know is how they’re following that up behind the scenes,’ he said, adding that further seizures under Trump are possible.

With Venezuela’s economy tethered almost entirely to oil revenue, he noted that even a single interdiction can have an outsized impact. 

‘Anything you do that puts pressure on their ability to bypass sanctions and trade in oil is a direct threat to the economy and, by extension, the regime,’ he said. 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has signaled that the seizure of the ‘Skipper’ is only the opening salvo in a new effort to cut off the oil revenues that keep Moscow, Tehran and Caracas afloat.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that the vessel is ‘undergoing a forfeiture process.’

‘Right now, the United States currently has a full investigative team on the ground, on the vessel and individuals on board the vessel are being interviewed, and any relevant evidence is being seized,’ Leavitt said, adding that the U.S. will take hold of the oil after the legal process is completed.

The move comes as China continues to be the leading importer of Iranian oil and the second-largest buyer of Russian crude, much of it routed through a growing fleet of nondescript tankers evading U.S. sanctions.

Earlier this year, the 19-year-old crude oil tanker named ‘Eventin’ was seized by German authorities after the ship suffered engine failure in the Baltic Sea. The vessel was previously identified as a ship that exports Russian crude oil and other petroleum products.

German authorities discovered that the Panama-flagged vessel, which was previously named Charvi and Storviken, was carrying 99,000 tons, or approximately $45 million worth, of Russian oil.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

ReeXploration Announces $1,000,000 Private Placement

Investing 4 Mins Read

Capital raise supports upcoming drill program targeting newly identified uranium system along Namibia’s premier uranium corridor

ReeXploration Inc. (TSXV: REE) (FSE: K2I0) (‘ReeXploration’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce a private placement for aggregate gross process of up to $1,000,000 (the ‘Financing’) to support the next phase of exploration at its Eureka Project located in Namibia’s Erongo Mining District, the country’s premier uranium corridor. Proceeds from the financing will be used primarily to fund a drill program designed to test a newly identified and highly-prospective uranium target in early 2026, along with general working capital.

As disclosed in the Company’s press releases dated December 12, 2025, and November 12, 2025, the Company identified a new large scale uranium target immediately southwest of the Eureka Dome. The discovery is on trend to major uranium deposits like Rössing, Husab, Etango, Omaholo, and Norasa in an area host to one of the world’s most prolific uranium belts.

The Financing will comprise of up to 9,090,910 shares of the Company (each, a ‘Share‘) at $0.11 per Share. To facilitate the Financing, the Company has entered into an agreement with Numus Capital Corp., a registered Exempt Market Dealer, to act as agent for the Financing. The Company has agreed to pay to the agent a cash fee equal to 7% of proceeds raised and to issue compensation warrants entitling the agent to purchase that number of Shares as is equal to 7% of the Shares from investors introduced by the agent, except on subscriptions received from directors, officers, and employees of the Company and their affiliates and associates. Each compensation warrant will be exercisable into a Share of the Company at $0.11 per share for a period of 24 months from closing.

Completion of the Financing is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange, and all securities issued pursuant to the Financing will be subject to a four-month and one day hold period.

The engagement of Numus Capital Corp. and the Financing may constitute Related Party Transactions under Multilateral Instrument 61-101 Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (‘MI-61-101’). The Company is relying upon an exemption for shareholder approval required under section 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101 on the basis that any related party elements of such transactions would not exceed 25% of market capitalization of the Company.

About ReeXploration Inc.

ReeXploration (TSXV: REE) (FSE: K2I0) is a Canadian exploration company positioned to help meet surging global demand for secure, responsible supplies of critical minerals essential to the clean energy transition, advanced technologies and national defense. The Company’s flagship Eureka Project in central Namibia pairs a technically proven rare earth foundation – supported by the production of a clean, Western-standard monazite concentrate – with a newly defined, high-priority uranium target located within one of the world’s most established uranium corridors. Together, these commodities provide multi-path discovery potential aligned with accelerating global efforts to diversify critical mineral and nuclear fuel supply. Supported by a Namibia-based technical team and guided by global critical minerals experts, ReeXploration is advancing a disciplined, discovery-led strategy, building a credible, ESG-aligned platform positioned to benefit from the global race to diversify and secure responsible supply chains.

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This press release may contain forward-looking information. This information is based on current expectations and assumptions (including assumptions relating to general economic and market conditions) that are subject to significant risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Actual results may differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. ReeXploration does not assume any obligation to update forward-looking information in this release, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those reflected in the forward-looking information unless and until required by securities laws applicable to ReeXploration. Additional information identifying risks and uncertainties is contained in the filings made by ReeXploration with Canadian securities regulators, which filings are available at www.sedarplus.ca.

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

Further details are available on the Corporation’s website at www.rareearthexploration.com or contact Christopher Drysdale, Interim CEO of ReeXploration Inc., at +1 902-334-1949, contact@rareearthexploration.com.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/278004

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Politics

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

Politics 2 Mins Read

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
Politics

Maduro trapped with few retaliation options after Trump administration seizes Venezuelan oil tanker

Politics 4 Mins Read

The Trump administration’s latest offensive move against Venezuela, the seizure of a tanker carrying U.S.-sanctioned oil, has triggered predictable outrage from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government. 

But behind the rhetorical fire, analysts say the regime has few practical ways to hit back without doing even more damage to itself.

Experts say that Maduro could target U.S. oil interests in Venezuela, but doing so would almost certainly inflict more pain on his own cash-starved regime than on the United States.

Maduro could also halt U.S.-chartered deportation flights but again would be harming his own interests, experts say. 

‘Venezuelans are just leaving the country because of the terrible conditions the regime has created,’ said Connor Pfeiffer, a Western Hemisphere analyst at FDD Action. ‘By having people come back, even if they’re on U.S. charter deportation flights, it kind of counters that narrative.’

Western oil firms have significantly decreased their presence in Venezuela, home to world’s largest proven oil reserves, in recent years due to sanctions. 

But U.S.-owned Chevron does still maintain a license to operate there, on the condition that the Maduro regime does not financially benefit from its operations. Instead, Chevron hands over to Maduro half of its oil production as payment, according to multiple reports.

‘Chevron’s operations in Venezuela continue in full compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government,’ a Chevron spokesperson told Fox News Digital.  

Imports of Venezuelan crude have declined to roughly 130,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 150,000 bpd in recent months, below the nearly 300,000 bpd imported under the prior petroleum licensing regime under the Biden administration. Most of Venezuela’s exports are now routed to Asia, with the bulk landing in China through intermediaries, according to data from Kpler. 

Despite that flow of crude, analysts say the idea of Caracas striking back at Chevron is more potent as a talking point than as a viable policy option.

Shutting down or seizing the company’s operations would instantly cut off one of the few lifelines still feeding Venezuela’s collapsing oil sector. It also would risk triggering a swift and politically difficult American response, including a full reinstatement of the sanctions relief the regime has quietly relied on.

Pfeiffer noted that the Maduro government has been ‘very supportive of Chevron continuing to operate’ because the arrangement provides tens of thousands of barrels a day of oil with minimal investment from Venezuelan-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. Other analysts say that reality sharply limits Maduro’s room to maneuver, and that any attack on Chevron would strike at his own revenue stream first.

Another theoretical lever — military or maritime escalation — is widely viewed as even less credible. Venezuela has taken delivery of small Iranian-built fast attack craft equipped with anti-ship missiles, a fact that has fueled speculation Maduro could threaten U.S. or allied vessels.

But Venezuela’s navy suffers from years of maintenance failures and lacks the ability to sustain operations against American forces deployed in the Caribbean. Any aggressive move at sea would almost certainly invite a U.S. military response the regime is in no position to absorb.

Diplomatically, Caracas could suspend remaining channels with Washington or file legal challenges in U.S. courts or international forums. Yet previous efforts to contest sanctions-related seizures have gone nowhere, and Venezuela’s relationships in the hemisphere offer limited leverage. 

Regional bodies have little sway over U.S. sanctions law, and even supportive governments in Russia, China or Iran are unlikely to intervene beyond issuing critical statements. Beijing, now the primary destination for Venezuelan crude, has economic interests at stake but few practical avenues to challenge U.S. enforcement actions.

Absent direct military strikes, cracking down on sanctioned oil exports is one of the most potent ways the U.S. can weaken the regime, according to Pfeiffer. 

‘This is one of his main sources of revenue keeping the regime afloat,’ he said. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

What Was the Highest Price for Silver?

Investing 13 Mins Read

Like its sister metal gold, silver has been attracting renewed attention as a safe-haven asset.

Although silver continues to exhibit its hallmark volatility, a silver bull market is well underway in 2025.

Experts are optimistic about the future, and as the silver price’s momentum continues in 2025, investors are looking for price forecasts and asking, “What was the highest price for silver?”

The answer reveals how much potential there is for the silver price to rise.

Read on for a look at silver’s historical moves, its new all-time high price and what they could mean for both the price of silver today and the white metal’s price in the future.

In this article

    How is silver traded?

    Before discovering what the highest silver price was, it’s worth looking at how the precious metal is traded. Knowing the mechanics can be useful in understanding why and how its price changes on a day-to-day basis and beyond.

    Put simply, silver bullion is traded in dollars and cents per ounce, with market activity taking place worldwide at all hours, resulting in a live silver price. Key commodities markets like New York, London and Hong Kong are just a few locations where investors trade the metal. London is seen as the center of physical silver trade, while the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, called the NYMEX, is where most paper trading is done.

    There are two popular ways to invest in silver. The first is through purchasing silver bullion products such as bullion bars, bullion coins and silver rounds. Physical silver is sold on the spot market, meaning that to invest in silver this way, buyers pay a specific price for the metal — the silver price per ounce — and then have it delivered immediately.

    The second is accomplished through paper trading, which is done via the silver futures market, with participants entering into futures contracts for the delivery of silver at an agreed-upon price and time. In such contracts, two positions can be taken: a long position to accept delivery of the metal or a short position to provide delivery.

    Paper trading might sound like a strange way to get silver exposure, but it can provide investors with flexibility that they wouldn’t get from buying and selling bullion. The most obvious advantage is perhaps the fact that trading in the paper market means silver investors can benefit long term from holding silver without needing to store it. Furthermore, futures trading can offer more financial leverage in that it requires less capital than trading in the physical market.

    Market participants can also invest in silver through exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Investing in a silver ETF is similar to trading a stock on an exchange, and there are several silver ETFs to choose from. Some ETFs focus on physical silver bullion, while others focus on silver futures contracts. Still others focus on silver stocks or follow the live silver price.

    What is silver’s all-time high price?

    The silver all-time high was US$64.65, which it set on December 12, 2025.

    The price of silver has rallied in 2025, and first broke its previous all-time high on October 9. It went on to test the US$54 mark multiple times, before finally making a decisive move above it on November 28. That day, the silver price spiked to US$56.53 following a 10 hour shutdown of trading on the CME Group’s (NASDAQ:CME) Comex and surrounding speculation on the cause.

    Silver continued setting new highs over the following weeks. The latest came on December 12, the day after the US Federal Reserve announced it decided to cut interest rates by 25 basis points at the December meeting. News that the Fed will also start buying short-term treasuries supported silver as well, sparking discussions about the return of quantitative easing.

    Before October 9 of this year, the white metal’s all-time high had been the same for 45 years — silver’s former all-time high was US$49.95, and it was set on January 17, 1980.

    It’s worth unpacking what happened, because the price didn’t exactly reach that level by honest means.

    As Britannica explains, two wealthy traders called the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market by buying not only physical silver, but also silver futures — they took delivery of those silver futures contracts instead of taking legal tender in the form cash settlements. Their exploits ultimately ended in disaster: On March 27, 1980, they missed a margin call and the silver market price plunged to US$10.80. This day is infamously known as Silver Thursday.

    That record silver price wouldn’t be tested again until April 2011, when it reached US$47.94. This was more than triple the 2009 average silver price of US$14.67, with the price uptick coming on the back of very strong investment demand.

    So what happens next? While silver has officially broken its 1980 peak, it is still well below that price point adjusted for inflation. It remains to be seen just how high silver can go.

    Silver’s price history since 2011

    Silver price chart, December 11, 2010, to December 11, 2025.

    Chart via SilverPrice.org.

    After its 2011 peak, silver’s price pulled back over the following years before settling between US$15 and US$20 for much of the second half of last decade. An upward trend in the silver price started in mid-2020, when it was spurred on by the economic uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. The price of silver breached the key US$26 level in early August 2020, and soon after tested US$30. However, it failed to make substantial progress past that.

    In the spring of 2023, the silver price surged by 30 percent, briefly rising above US$26 in early May; however, the precious metal cratered back down to US$20.90 in early October. Later that month, silver advanced toward the US$23 level on the back of safe-haven demand due to the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war.

    Following remarks from US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, speculation about interest rate reductions sent the price of silver to US$25.48 on November 30, its highest point for the fourth quarter.

    After starting 2024 on a low note, the white metal saw gains in March on rising Fed rate cut expectations. The resulting upward momentum led silver to reach a Q1 high of US$25.62 on March 20 before breaking through the US$30 mark on May 17. The silver price reached a then 12 year high of US$32.33 on May 20.

    In Q3, the metal’s price slid down below the US$27 mark to as low as US$26.64 by August 7 alongside its industrial cousin copper. Heading into Q4 2024, silver reversed course to the upside, tracking the record breaking moves in the gold price. Silver once again breached the US$30 level on September 13 and continued higher.

    On October 21, the silver price moved as high as US$34.20 during the trading day, up more than 48 percent since the start of the year and its highest level in 12 years. However, silver spent the rest of the year in decline, bottoming out at US$28.94 on December 30.

    Silver’s price performance in 2025

    Silver price chart, January 1 to December 11, 2025.

    The silver price experienced a momentum shift at the start of 2025, breaking through the US$30 barrier as early as January 5, and reaching US$31.31 by January 29. The metal continued to post gains through much of February and March, climbing to US$32.94 on February 20 and then peaking at its quarterly high of US$34.21 on March 28.

    Following US President Donald Trump’s tariff announcements on April 2, silver slumped to below US$30. While the Trump administration’s tariff policies have been largely beneficial for safe-haven assets like precious metals, there were concerns that the threat of tariffs could weaken industrial demand, which could cool price gains in the silver market.

    Yet those concerns were pushed to the back burner as recent economic and geopolitical events have raised analysts’ expectations of a September rate cut by the Fed. The benchmark rate has not changed since November 2024.

    On June 5, the silver price rose to a 13 year high of US$36.05 in early morning trading, before retreating toward the US$35.50 mark. By June 16, the white metal had broken through the US$37 mark for the first time since May 2011.

    In July, increasing geopolitical strife in the Middle East and Russia-Ukraine coupled with a positive outlook for China’s solar power industry proved price positive for both silver’s precious metals and industrial angles.

    The silver price overtook the US$39 level to reach US$39.24 on July 22.

    These same forces, coupled with the nearly unanimous rate cut expectations, launched the price of silver to over US$40 on August 31 for the first time since 2011, and by September 3 it had climbed as high as US$41.45. Silver continued climbing through September, progressively breaking level after level to top US$47 by the month’s end.

    The white metal broke its all-time highs in most currencies, including Canadian dollars and Australian dollars, on September 22.

    Silver started Q4 by continuing its ascent, breaking through its 2011 peak and topping US$48 on October 3, before climbing above US$51 to beat its US dollar high on October 9.

    It continued climbing even higher on the safe-haven demand fundamentals behind its 2025 momentum. Helping drive that demand in October was escalating trade tensions between the US and China, leading to export controls on additional rare earth metals by China and threats of 100 percent tariffs on Chinese imports by the US.

    While silver pulled back to around US$48 in late October, news that the US government shut down had come to an end on November 9 drove the silver price back above US$50.

    Silver’s foray above the US$56 level on November 28 came on the back of an outage at the Comex, where trading was briefly halted due to a ‘cooling issue’ at a CyrusOne data center used by the exchange.

    Silver continued even higher through early December, and on December 12 the metal set a new highest price of US$64.65 two days after the Fed decided to once again cut interest rates.

    Silver supply and demand dynamics

    Market watchers are curious as to whether the silver price will continue its upward trajectory in 2025. Only time will tell, and it will depend on the white metal’s ability to remain above the critical US$30 level.

    Like other metals, the silver spot price is most heavily influenced by supply and demand dynamics. However, as the information above illustrates, the silver price can be highly volatile. That’s partially due to the fact that the metal is subject to both investment and industrial metal demand within global markets.

    In other words, it’s bought by investors who want it as a store of wealth, as well as by manufacturers looking to use it for different applications that are incredibly varied. For example, silver has diverse technological applications and is used in devices like batteries and catalysts, but it’s also used in medicine and in the automotive industry.

    In terms of supply, the world’s three top producers of the metal are Mexico, China and Peru. Even in those countries silver is usually a by-product — for instance, a mine producing primarily gold or lead might also have silver output.

    The Silver Institute’s latest World Silver Survey, put together by Metals Focus, outlines a 0.9 percent increase in global mine production to 819.7 million ounces in 2024. This was in partly the result of a return to operations at Newmont’s (TSX:NGT,NYSE:NEM,ASX:NEM) Peñasquito mine in Mexico following a suspension of activity brought about by strike action among workers and improved recoveries out of Fresnillo (LSE:FRES,OTC Pink:FNLPF) and MAG Silver’s (TSX:MAG,NYSEAMERICAN:MAG) Juanicipio. Silver output also increased in Australia, Bolivia and the US.

    The firm is forecasting a 1.9 percent rise in global silver mine production to 823 million ounces in 2025. Much of that growth is expected to come out of Mexico, and it is also projecting output will rise in Chile and Russia.

    Lower production from Australia and Peru will offset some of these gains.

    Looking at demand, Metals Focus sees growth in 2025 flatlining as industrial fabrication takes a hit from the global tariff war. This could be tempered by an anticipated rebound in demand from physical investment in silver bars and coins.

    The silver market is expected to experience a substantial deficit of 117.6 million ounces in 2025, amounting to the sixth straight year of supply shortage for the metal.

    Is the silver price manipulated?

    As a final note on silver, it’s important for investors to be aware that manipulation of prices is a major issue in the space.

    For instance, in 2015, 10 banks were hit in a US probe on precious metals manipulation. Evidence provided by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB) showed “smoking gun” proof that UBS Group (NYSE:UBS), HSBC Holdings (NYSE:HSBC), the The Bank of Nova Scotia (TSX:BNS) and other firms were involved in rigging silver rates from 2007 to 2013. In May 2023, a silver manipulation lawsuit filed in 2014 against HSBC and the Bank of Nova Scotia was dismissed by a US court.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) has been long at the center of silver manipulation claims as well. For years the firm has been in and out of court for the accusations. In 2020, JPMorgan agreed to pay US$920 million to resolve federal agency probes regarding the manipulation of multiple markets, including precious metals.

    In 2014, the London Silver Market Fixing stopped administering the London silver fix, which had been used for over a century to fix the price of silver. It was replaced by the LBMA Silver Price, which is run by ICE Benchmark Administration, in a bid to increase market transparency.

    Market watchers like Ed Steer have said that the days of silver manipulation are numbered, and that the market will see a significant shift when the time finally comes.

    Investor takeaway

    Silver has neared US$50 multiple times, including its all-time high, and as momentum continues for the silver price in 2025 investors are wondering if it could reach those heights once again.

    While it’s impossible to know for sure what’s next for silver, keeping an eye on the factors driving its performance, including gold’s performance, geopolitics, the economy and industrial demand, will help investors make decisions on when to buy and sell.

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Politics

    Republican House leader signals plan to begin contempt proceedings against Bill and Hillary Clinton

    Politics 2 Mins Read

    GOP House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said he plans to commence contempt of Congress proceedings against Bill and Hillary Clinton for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas related to its ongoing probe into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. 

    In July, a bipartisan House Oversight Subcommittee approved motions to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton and a slew of other high-profile political figures to aid its investigation looking into how the federal government handled Epstein’s sex trafficking case. 

    The subpoenas were then sent out in early August, and the Clinton’s were scheduled to testify Dec. 17-18. 

    ‘It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes. Throughout that time, the former president and former secretary of state have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony,’ Comer said in a press release issued Friday evening.

    ‘If the Clintons fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January, the Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings to hold them accountable.’

    Comer’s threats come as Democrats from the House Oversight Committee released a new batch of photos obtained from Epstein’s estate, which included further images of the disgraced financier with powerful figures like President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Thousands of images were reportedly released, with potentially more to come.

    Other high-profile figures subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee include James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.

    In addition to testimony from these individuals, Comer and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for all documents and communications pertaining to the case against Epstein.

    In September, the committee released tens of thousands of pages of Epstein-related records in compliance with the subpoena, and the Oversight Committee indicated the DOJ would continue producing even more records as it works through needed redactions and other measures that must occur before they are released.

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Keep Reading
    Investing

    Apex Provides Corporate Update

    Investing 2 Mins Read

    Apex Resources Inc. (TSXV: APX,OTC:SLMLF) (OTCID: SLMLF) (‘Apex’ or the ‘Company’) announces the appointment of Michael Malana as Chief Financial Officer (‘CFO’) of the Company, effective today, following the resignation of Dennis Cojuco as the Company’s CFO.

    Mr. Malana brings more than 20 years of international experience in financial management, financial reporting and general corporate governance. He has held senior financial executive roles across the natural resources, biotechnology, and manufacturing sectors. Mr. Malana holds a Bachelor of Commerce from Concordia University and is a Chartered Professional Accountant (Certified Management Accountant).

    The Board, management, and extended Apex team extend their sincere thanks to Mr. Cojuco for his exemplary service and dedication and contribution to the company.

    Clarification on the Amended Lithium Creek Project Option Agreement

    The Company also wishes to clarify that the exploration and development expenditures due to be completed on or before August 25, 2026, in its news release dated October 27, 2025, increased from $1,000,000 (instead of $1,200,000) to $1,266,000.

    About Apex Resources Inc.

    Apex is a Vancouver-based exploration company with a suite of precious and critical minerals projects and historic mines located in the United States and Canada.

    The Lithium Creek Project is Apex’s flagship project with placer claims covering hundreds of square miles within the aerially extensive Fernley, Humboldt, and Carson Sinks, and includes widespread naturally flowing lithium brine groundwater. The Lithium Creek Project is strategically located near the City of Reno and within 40 minutes of the principle North American battery hub, hosting the Tesla Gigafactory and other key industry players in the Lithium Ion battery supply chain.

    The Jersey-Emerald Property is wholly owned by Apex and encompasses the historic Jersey Lead-Zinc Mine – British Columbia’s second largest historic zinc mine, and the Emerald Tungsten Mine – Canada’s second largest historic tungsten mine, both located in southern British Columbia.

    On Behalf of the Board of Directors of

    Apex Resources Inc.

    Ron Lang
    President and CEO
    info@apxresources.com website: www.apexresources.com

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

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/277830

    News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Politics

    Former British PM embraces ‘Trump-style revolution’ while blasting BBC and Bank of England

    Politics 6 Mins Read

    In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Liz Truss pulls back the curtain on what really happened during her 49-day reign as prime minister of the United Kingdom in 2022.

    The free speech advocate served just 49 days as British prime minister in 2022 before resigning amid market turmoil over her administration’s dramatic attempt to implement a pro-growth economic agenda. Now that the dust has settled, Truss has launched a private club for ‘pro-growth leaders,’ the Leconfield, and a YouTube show, ‘The Liz Truss Show.’

    ‘My new show will tell the truth about what happened in 2022,’ Truss told Fox News Digital. ‘The fact that I was sabotaged by the Bank of England, who announced the sale of gilts the day before my mini-budget and then failed to properly regulate the pension market. That was actually the cause of the crisis in 2022.’

    While Truss is now recasting the narrative on the Bank of England, the financial institution has blamed Truss for the British market crash of 2022, concluding that her mini-budget triggered a sudden plunge in gilt prices, driving up the government’s borrowing costs. The spike rippled across financial markets, pushing pension funds to offload gilts and forcing the Bank of England to intervene to stabilize the market.

    The Bank of England declined to comment when reached by Fox News Digital. 

    ‘I will be talking about that. I’ll also be talking about the conservatives in name only who undermined me while I was in power,’ Truss said of her show, eliciting President Donald Trump’s ‘RINO’ nickname for Republicans in name only who thwart his agenda. 

    It’s not Truss’ only commonality with Trump.

    ‘I’m very frustrated by the mainstream media,’ Truss said. ‘I share President Trump’s annoyance with the BBC. He is currently suing them for propagating fake news about him, but they do fake news the whole time.’

    Trump has announced plans to file a $5 billion lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation over an edit of his Jan. 6, 2021, remarks that appeared in a BBC investigative series. The BBC did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

    Truss said she wants her YouTube show to ‘help change the economic and political debate in Britain.’

    ‘I know the truth wasn’t told about my time as prime minister,’ Truss said. ‘That’s very frustrating, but I know about other issues, whether it’s free speech or migration, people are not hearing about what’s actually happening in Britain, so I want my show to tell the truth and to hear from the people that are the victims of these problems.’

    Truss’ early guests included Trump-ally Steve Bannon and British political commentator Matt Goodwin. The former prime minister spoke to Fox News Digital in Washington, D.C., ahead of its inaugural episode.

    ‘I want America, first of all, to understand what happens when you lose things like free speech, and you lose the battle on mass migration, and you lose the battle on the economy,’ Truss said. ‘It’s a warning for America, but I also want to get inspiration from what’s happened here at fighting back against these forces, and that’s what the show is about. I want to encourage people. It’s not just doom and gloom. It is about what do we actually do? How do we get a Trump-style revolution in Britain and Europe to make our countries great again?’

    At the core of the cultural battles dominating popular culture, Truss said, ‘All of these people hate Western civilization.’

    ‘They hate the nation state,’ Truss continued. ‘They want to undermine the family, and that is why I’m so passionate about fighting back against them, because I believe in our country. I believe in the Christian values that formed Britain and America. I believe in free speech, and I think we’re just in real danger of losing them to these forces.’

    Truss has applauded Trump’s leadership on the world stage, calling him ‘very forward-leaning’ in negotiating peace in the Middle East.

    Truss said she wants a solution in Ukraine, but not one that makes President Vladimir Putin appear to walk away from the conflict on his own terms. She urged Europe to ‘step up’ and ‘spend more of our own money on defense’ — reflecting many congressional Republicans’ message as the war in Ukraine has waged on. 

    Congress has voted to send more than $175 billion to Ukraine since the war began, according to The Council on Foreign Relations. And while the U.S. has committed more aid to Ukraine than any other country, European countries have collectively committed more than the U.S.

    ‘We need to grow our economies to be in a position to be able to stand up to Putin ourselves,’ Truss said.

    While Trump continues to pursue peace negotiations in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine, Truss applauded the president for taking action against suspected drug traffickers from Venezuela.

    ‘There’s definitely very, very serious issues with Venezuela, and it’s sadly a country that used to be successful and rich and has now been ruined essentially by a communist regime,’ Truss said. ‘I understand the United States needs to take action because the cartels that come out of countries like Venezuela are a direct security threat to the United States.’

    The Trump administration deployed two fighter jets over the Gulf of Venezuela on Tuesday and has faced scrutiny in recent days for allegedly authorizing a second strike on suspected drug trafficking boats in Venezuela.

    The White House told Fox News Digital last week that as commander in chief, Trump has ‘full authority to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country.’

    ‘As President Trump has said, all options are on the table as he works to combat the scourge of narcoterrorism that has resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of innocent Americans,’ White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘All of these decisive strikes have been in international waters against designated narcoterrorists bringing deadly poison to our shores.’

    Fox News Digital’s Diana Stacy contributed to this report.

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Keep Reading
    Investing

    Heliostar Announces Positive Prefeasibility Study for Cerro del Gallo with Significant Expansion Potential

    Investing 23 Mins Read

    Company Highlights:

    • Upside Case shows US$972M post tax NPV5, 59.3% IRR, with a 1.4 year payback at a US$3,900/oz gold price

    • 1.31M GEOs produced over a 15.3 year mine life, averaging approximately 85,700 GEOs/yr (94,000 GEOs/yr over Years 1-5) at a co-product AISC of US$1,390/GEO

    • Initial capital expenditure of US$195.3M for an open pit, heap leach mine and SART plant, including owner’s costs, contingency and initial working capital requirements

    • Average annual free cash flow of US$47.6M at $2,300/oz gold price (US$104.5 at $3,900/oz) driven by 0.73 g/t AuEq life of mine head grade, low strip ratio (0.3:1) and low sustaining capital

    • Indicated resource of 240Mt grading 0.63 g/t AuEq for 4.9M GEOs (0.38g/t gold, 13.78g/t silver, 0.10% copper), and an Inferred resource of 24Mt grading 0.52 g/t AuEq for 0.4M GEOs (0.28g/t gold, 13.67g/t silver, 0.09% copper), providing significant upside opportunities if property boundary constraints lifted

    Vancouver, British Columbia–(Newsfile Corp. – December 11, 2025) – Heliostar Metals Ltd. (TSXV: HSTR,OTC:HSTXF) (OTCQX: HSTXF) (FSE: RGG1) (‘Heliostar‘ or the ‘Company‘) is pleased to announce strong economics in an updated Prefeasibility Study (‘PFS’) for its 100% owned Cerro del Gallo project located in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico.

    Heliostar CEO, Charles Funk, commented, ‘The Cerro del Gallo Prefeasibility Study demonstrates a mine that fits perfectly with Heliostar’s growth trajectory to larger, lower cost operations. The project has low CAPEX, shows strong free cash flow at a conservative gold price and significant resource upside. With this study the value of Cerro del Gallo to Heliostar has now been established, having been delayed due to our initial focus on operations following the acquisition of the mines and properties in November 2024. This study confirms Cerro del Gallo as an important development project in the Heliostar portfolio, and the Company plans to continue technical work, permitting and community engagement to advance the project to a feasibility level. Organic growth from Ana Paula first, and later from Cerro del Gallo, is planned to launch Heliostar to 300,000 ounces of annual gold equivalent production by the end of the decade.’

    The technical report supporting this news release will be available on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and on the Company’s website (www.heliostarmetals.com) within the next 45 days. The Cerro del Gallo technical report that is the subject of this news release will use United States dollars (USD or US$) unless otherwise noted.

    Cerro del Gallo Prefeasibility Study Overview

    The Prefeasibility Study is based on the current reserve base of 2.27M GEOs of Probable Mineral Reserves as shown in the Mineral Reserves Update effective July 31, 2025.

    The study outlines a 15.3 year mine life, producing 85,700 koz gold equivalent ounces (‘GEOs’) per year at an average total cash cost of $1,252/GEO and an all-in sustaining cost (AISC) of $1,390 GEO, and costing $195.3M in initial capital expenditures (‘CAPEX’) to bring into production. At the base case gold price of $2,300 per ounce, this results in an after-tax NPV of $424M, an IRR of 33.1% and a payback period of 2.3 years.

    The Cerro del Gallo project is envisaged as a 6 million tonne-per-year open-pit mining operation using conventional drill, blast, load, and haul methods, with mining activities performed by a contractor-supplied fleet. Ore will be crushed using a multi-stage crushing circuit, including conventional crushing and High Pressure Grinding Roll (‘HPGR’), and stacked on a lined heap-leach pad. Leaching will use conventional cyanide solution application. Pregnant solution will be processed through an adsorption, desorption and recovery (‘ADR’) circuit for gold recovery, producing gold doré on-site. Copper and silver dissolved in solution will be recovered through a sulphidization, acidification, recycling, and thickening (‘SART’) circuit and shipped to smelters.

    A dedicated waste rock storage facility will be located adjacent to the open pit, sized according to life-of-mine requirements, with engineered drainage and environmental controls. Processing residues will consist primarily of leached material on the heap-leach pad; therefore, no conventional tailings storage facility will be required. Site infrastructure will include an upgraded connection to the national power grid, a reliable water supply from permitted local wells, and supporting buildings such as a maintenance shop, warehouse, administration offices, security facilities, and expanded camp accommodations for operational staff.

    Key Highlights

    Forecast Production Highlights
    Ore Feed 6,000 Ktpa
    Strip Ratio 0.32:1 W:O
    Grade – LOM 0.73 g/t AuEq
    Grade – Years 1-5 0.80 g/t AuEq
    Life of Mine Produced 1,310 Koz GEO
    Processing Rate 16,438 Tpd
    Process Recovery (Gold / Silver / Copper) 59.4 / 49.3 / 61.8 %
    Life of Mine 15.3 Years
    Annual Production – LOM 85.7 Koz GEO
    Annual Production – Years 1-5 94.2 Koz GEO

     

    Forecast Financial Highlights
    Average Cash Costs (US$ per GEO) 1 $1,252 /oz
    Average AISC (US$ per GEO) 1 $1,390 /oz
    Total Initial Capital Cost $195.3 M
    Total Sustainable Capital Cost $160.3 M
    Total Life of Mine Capital Cost 2 $355.6 M

     

    1. Non-International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) measures. All-in sustaining costs (AISC) were first issued by the World Gold Council (WGC) in 2013 with an updated Guidance note issued in 2018.
    2. Includes US$132.0 million reclamation expenditure at the end of the mine life.
     Forecast Return Estimates based on Gold Price 1, 2
       US$2,300/oz 3  US$3,900/oz 4
     IRR 33.1%  59.3%
     NPV @ 5% discount $423.9M  $972.4M
     Payback 2.3 years  1.4 years

     

    1. All other key parameters set at base assumptions, including the 5% discount rate used. More detailed analysis will be presented in the full technical report.
    2. After tax return estimates.
    3. Base gold price assumption used in the technical report.
    4. Comparison gold price of US$3,900 with reference to US$4,198 London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) PM gold price on trading day December 9, 2025.

    Figure 1 – Isometric View of Cerro del Gallo Resource with Reserve Pit Shell

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/277693_7638a1be94ca1834_001full.jpg

    Figure 2 – Cross Section through Cerro del Gallo Resource with Reserve Pit Shell

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/277693_7638a1be94ca1834_002full.jpg

    Forecast Operating Cost Estimates

    Operating costs at the Cerro del Gallo Project will benefit from the simplicity of a truck and shovel open pit mine, very low strip ratio, and access to low-cost grid power and regional infrastructure. The crush-agglomerate-heap-leach-ADR-SART flowsheet utilizes industry standard equipment and processes. It supports efficient processing of the Cerro del Gallo ore with moderate reagent use and no requirement for milling or conventional tailings storage.

    Estimations of total cash costs average US$1,252/GEO, with AISC of US$1,390/GEO over the 15.3-year mine life. Revenue credits from copper and silver recovered through the SART circuit further strengthen operating margins and contribute to a robust, long-life cost profile.

    Total Operating Cost Summary

    Operating Costs Operating Cost
    (US$/GEO)     		Operating Cost
    (US$/t ore)
    Total mining $274.02 $3.79
    Total processing $658.44 $9.12
    Total site general and administrative $65.61 $0.91
    Smelter, Refinery and Transport $68.55 $0.95
    Cash operating costs $1,066.62 $14.77
    Production taxes $80.29 $1.11
    Royalties $105.12 $1.46
    Total cash costs $1,252.03 $17.33
    Sustaining capital costs $138.2 $1.91
    Total AISC $1,390.23 $19.25

     

    Forecast Capital Cost Estimates

    The initial capital cost for the project is estimated to be $195.3M including $15.6M for initial working capital (60 days) and $22.3M in total contingency. The total initial required capital expenditure will benefit from proximity to infrastructure and the assumption of a contractor-supplied fleet. Sustaining capital costs are primarily related to completion of a powerline to the site and three leach pad expansions. The cost estimate is based on more advanced work that will progress into a feasibility study, however, it includes a contingency of 17.5% of the total cost.

    The Company’s LOM plan allocates US$132.0M for reclamation work at the end of the mine life.

    Forecast Capital Cost Summary

    Capital Costs Initial
    (US$M)     		Sustaining
    (US$M)     		Total LOM
    (US$M)
    Mining Costs $1.4 – $1.4
    Mobile Equipment $3.9 – $3.9
    Site & Utilities General $10.2 – $10.2
    Power Generation & Site Distribution $11.0 – $11.0
    Crushing Circuit $28.8 – $28.8
    Agglomeration $4.9 – $4.9
    Stacking System $6.8 – $6.8
    Heap Leach Solution $21.1 – $21.1
    SART Plant $20.3 – $20.3
    Recovery Plant $13.3 $35.1 $48.4
    Reagents $2.5 – $2.5
    Laboratory $2.9 – $2.9
    Total direct costs $127.2 $35.1 $162.3
    Spare Parts $5.7 – $5.7
    Initial Fills $0.9 $0.9
    Contingency $22.1 $8.8 $30.9
    Indirect Costs $6.5 – $6.5
    Other Owner’s Costs $3.6 – $3.6
    EPCM $13.8 – $13.8
    Working Capital (60 days) $15.6 -$15.6 –
    Closure and reclamation – $132.0 $132.0
    Total indirect costs $68.2 $125.2 $193.4
    Total Costs (excluding IVA) $195.3 $160.3 $355.6

     

    Economic Analysis

    The economic analysis shows a base case after-tax net present value at a discount rate of 5% of US$423.9M, an after-tax internal rate of return of 33.1%, and a payback period of 2.3 years at US$2,300/oz gold. The projected mine life is 15.3 years in the PFS. Approximately 1,310k GEOs (888 koz gold, 22.2 Moz silver and 59 kT copper) are projected to be produced and sold over the life of the mine.

    Summary Economic Results

    Project Valuation Overview Units After Tax Before Tax
    Total cash flow US$ M $724.1 $1,166.9
    Average annual cash flow US$ M $47.6 $76.3
    Average annual cash flow – Years 1-5 US$ M $77.6 $104.7
    NPV @ 5.0% (base case) US$ M $423.9 $699.4
    Internal rate of return % 33.1% 44.9%
    Payback period Years 2.3 1.8
    Payback multiple x 4.4 6.5

     

    Metal Prices

    The gold market has experienced significant upward price movement in the past few years. The gold price at the effective date of the technical report is about 83% above the base case gold price used in the study.

    The sensitivity analysis presents gold price scenarios up to US$4,100/gold ounce (near spot prices) to understand the potential impact of continued gold price movements. From the base case price of $2,300/oz, a change in the average gold price of 10% (US$230/gold ounce) would change the after-tax NPV5% by approximately US$76.2M.

    The economics of the Prefeasibility Study are most sensitive to changes in gold price and grade and less sensitive to operating costs and initial capital costs.

    Gold Price Sensitivity Analysis

    Gold Price
    (US$/oz Gold)     		Net Cash Flow
    (US$M)     		After-Tax NPV
    @ 5.0% Discount Rate
    (US$ M)     		IRR
    (%)    		 Payback Period
    (years)     		Payback Multiple
    900 -$43.38 -$60.62 – 9.5 0.8
    1,100 $66.08 $9.89 6.1% 5.6 1.3
    1,300 $176.64 $79.94 12.4% 3.9 1.8
    1,500 $286.0 $148.8 17.3% 3.1 2.3
    1,700 $395.4 $217.6 21.6% 3.5 2.8
    1,900 $505.3 $286.8 25.7% 2.9 3.4
    2,100 $614.7 $355.4 29.5% 2.6 3.9
    2,300 $724.1 $423.9 33.1% 2.3 4.4
    2,500 $833.5 $492.5 36.7% 2.0 4.9
    2,700 $942.8 $561.0 40.1% 1.9 5.4
    2,900 $1,052.2 $629.6 43.5% 1.8 5.9
    3,100 $1,161.6 $698.2 46.8% 1.7 6.4
    3,300 $1,270.9 $766.7 50.0% 1.6 6.9
    3,500 $1,380.3 $835.3 53.2% 1.5 7.4
    3,700 $1,489.66 $903.85 56.3% 1.4 7.9
    3,900 $1,599.03 $972.41 59.3% 1.4 8.5
    4,100 $1,708.40 $1,040.97 62.3% 1.3 9.0

     

    Figure 3 – Planned Cerro del Gallo Site Layout

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/277693_7638a1be94ca1834_003full.jpg

    Figure 4 – Cerro del Gallo Process Flow Sheet

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/277693_7638a1be94ca1834_004full.jpg

    Figure 5 – Cerro del Gallo Planned Production Schedule

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/277693_7638a1be94ca1834_005full.jpg

    Next steps

    The next steps by Heliostar at Cerro del Gallo will focus on conversion of resources to reserves and additional resource growth.

    This plan includes additional resource and reserve drilling, updating geological interpretations, metallurgical testing and trade off studies. Positive changes to the gold price have resulted in an increase to the potential size of the reserve. Additional metallurgical analysis and data points are required on the deposit to support this increase.

    The Company intends to drill with a focus on increasing both mineral resources and reserves and to improve the geological interpretation for the deposit. Mineralization remains open to the north and at depth. The north is considered a high potential target for reserve growth but historically was not drilled due to surface access limitations. The drill density decreases at depth as noted in Figure 2 with in-fill drilling having potential to improve resource classifications. Further, mineralization is open at depth with potential to expand resources.

    Subject to confirming the extent of the mineral resource at Cerro del Gallo, the Company intends to refine the planned process flowsheet, start preparing permitting and social plans and commence work to prepare a feasibility study. Development of Cerro del Gallo is planned after Ana Paula has been commissioned and is in production.

    Mineral Resource Estimates

    Mineral Resources for the Cerro del Gallo deposit were updated as part of the 2025 Prefeasibility Study and are summarized in the accompanying table. The Mineral Resources have an effective date of July 31, 2025, and are reported on an in-situ basis in accordance with the 2014 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.

    Mineral Resources Statement

    Classification Material 
    Type    		 NSR Cutoff Tonnes (kt) Grade Contained Metal
    Au 
    g/t    		 Ag 
    g/t    		 Cu
    %    		 AuEq 
    g/t    		 Gold 
    (koz)    		 Silver (koz) Copper 
    (t)    		 AuEq (koz)
    Indicated Oxide $11.81 10,733 0.41 17.92 0.09 0.60 141 6,184 9,659 207
    Mix Oxide $10.66 13,613 0.28 11.12 0.08 0.50 123 4,867 10,890 219
    Mix Sulfide $11.81 70,066 0.40 13.70 0.09 0.68 901 30,862 63,060 1,532
    Sulfide $11.23 145,572 0.38 13.77 0.11 0.62 1778 64,447 160,129 2,902
    Total 239,984 0.38 13.78 0.10 0.63 2,944 106,359 243,739 4,859
    Inferred Oxide $11.81 2,042 0.19 21.08 0.09 0.40 12 1,384 1,838 26
    Mix Oxide $10.66 1,604 0.14 16.12 0.07 0.40 7 831 1,123 21
    Mix Sulfide $11.81 10,501 0.28 13.75 0.11 0.57 95 4,642 11,552 192
    Sulfide $11.23 10,300 0.33 11.74 0.07 0.51 109 3,888 7,210 169
    Total 24,448 0.28 13.67 0.09 0.52 224 10,746 21,722 408

     

    Notes to accompany Mineral Resources table:

    1. Mineral Resources are reported within a resource shell constrained by the property boundary using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.
    2. Mineral Resources have an effective date of 31 July 2025. The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Timothy O. Kuhl, Reg Mem SME and Principal Geologist with Mine Technical Services.
    3. An NSR is used for reporting Mineral Resources by material type. NSR cutoffs of $11.81 for Oxide, $10.66 for Mixed Oxide, $11.81 for Mixed Sulfide and $11.23 for Sulfide were used. The NSR is determined based on estimated processing costs of US$9.10/t, general and administrative costs of US$0.90t, production taxes and royalty costs of US$1.40/t. Metal prices of US$2,500/oz Au, US$30.50/oz Ag, and US$4.60/lb Cu were used in calculating the NSR. In addition, a gold recovery of 74%, a silver recovery of 60% and a copper recovery of 17% were used for Oxide material; a gold recovery of 68%, a silver recovery of 73% and a copper recovery of 62% were used for Mixed Oxide material; a gold recovery of 61%, a silver recovery of 58% and a copper recovery of 73% were used for Mixed Sulfide material; and a gold recovery of 53%, a silver recovery of 35% and a copper recovery of 59% were used for Sulfide material in the NSR calculation.
    4. Based on the stated metal prices and recoveries, the gold equivalent grades were calculated as AuEq = Au Grade + (((Cu Price in US$/lb * 22.0462 * Cu Recovery and Payable) / (Au Price in US$/g * Au Recovery and Payable)) * Cu Grade) + (((Ag Price in US$/g * Ag Recovery and Payable) / (Au Price in US$/g * Au Recovery and Payable)) * Ag Grade). The average overall payables from the smelter and refineries were estimated at 98.8% for gold, 90.1% for silver, and 88.2% for copper.
    5. Tonnage and grade estimates are in metric units.
    6. Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to rounding.

    Mineral Reserve Estimates

    Mineral Reserves for the Cerro del Gallo deposit as part of the 2025 Prefeasibility Study have an effective date of July 31, 2025, are reported at the point of delivery to the leach facility, and are stated in accordance with the 2014 CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.

    The Mineral Reserves estimate is based on a 6 Mtpa open-pit mining operation, with ore processed through the established crushing, agglomeration, heap-leach, ADR, and SART circuits. The resulting Mineral Reserves statement is provided in the following table.

    Mineral Reserves Statement

    Classification Material 
    Type    		 Tonnes (kt) Grade Contained Metal
    Au 
    g/t    		 Ag
     g/t    		 Cu
    %    		 AuEq 
    g/t    		 Gold 
    (koz)    		 Silver (koz) Copper 
    (t)    		 AuEq (koz)
    Probable Oxide 9,198 0.46 18.46 0.08 0.65 137 5,459 7,714 193
    Mix Oxide 4,411 0.42 10.74 0.09 0.64 59 1,524 4,115 91
    Mix Sulfide 38,761 0.50 15.26 0.10 0.80 629 19,020 37,354 995
    Sulfide 39,524 0.53 15.00 0.12 0.78 670 19,064 45,557 997
    Total 91,893 0.51 15.25 0.10 0.77 1,495 45,066 94,740 2,275

     

    Notes to accompany Mineral Reserves table:

    1. Mineral Reserves are reported at the point of delivery to the process plant, using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.

    2. Mineral Reserves have an effective date of 31 July 2025. The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Jeffrey Choquette, P.E., of Hard Rock Consulting.

    3. An NSR cutoff of $12.50/t was used for reporting the Mineral Reserves which is based on estimated processing costs of US$9.10/t, general and administrative costs of US$0.90t, production taxes and royalty costs of US$1.40/t. Metal prices of US$2,200/oz Au, US$26.50/oz Ag, and US$4.00/lb Cu were used in calculating the NSR. In addition, a gold recovery of 74%, a silver recovery of 60% and a copper recovery of 17% were used for Oxide material, a gold recovery of 68%, a silver recovery of 73% and a copper recovery of 62% were used for Mixed Oxide material, a gold recovery of 61%, a silver recovery of 58% and a copper recovery of 73% were used for Mixed Sulfide material and a gold recovery of 53%, a silver recovery of 35% and a copper recovery of 59% were used for Sulfide material in the NSR calculation.

    4. Based on the stated metal prices and recoveries, the gold equivalent grades were calculated as AuEq = Au Grade + (((Cu Price in US$/lb * 22.0462 * Cu Recovery and Payable) / (Au Price in US$/g * Au Recovery and Payable)) * Cu Grade) + (((Ag Price in US$/g * Ag Recovery and Payable) / (Au Price in US$/g * Au Recovery and Payable)) * Ag Grade). The average overall payables from the smelter and refineries were estimated at 98.8% for gold, 90.1% for silver and 88.2% for copper.

    5. Mineral Reserves are reported within the ultimate reserve pit design.

    6. Tonnage and grade estimates are in metric units.

    7. Mineral Reserve tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to rounding

    Qualified Persons

    The technical report for the Cerro del Gallo Project will be prepared for Heliostar Metals Ltd. by Mr. Ted Eggleston, Ph.D., RM SME, PGEO, Mr. Tim Kuhl, MSc, RPG, RM-SME, Mr. Jeffrey Choquette, P.E., Mr. Marvin Silva, PhD, PE, PEng., Mr. Todd Minard P.E., Mr. Travis Manning, P.E., QP, Mr. Carl Defilippi, RM SME, and Ms. Dawn Garcia, CPG. Each of these Qualified Persons has reviewed and approved the technical information contained in this news release in their area of expertise and are independent of the Company.

    Qualified Persons with Respect to this News Release

    Gregg Bush, P.Eng. and Mike Gingles, the Company’s Qualified Persons, as such term is defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, have reviewed the scientific and technical information not derived from the updated technical reports and included in this news release in the Company Overview, Commentary by the Company on Relevant Matters and Commentary by the Company on Next Steps and Permitting sections for each property and have approved the disclosure herein.

    Data Verification

    The Qualified Persons for the technical reports verified the data in the report for their areas of expertise and concluded that the information supported Mineral Resource estimation, and could be used in mine planning and economic analysis. The verification completed by each Qualified Person is discussed in each technical report and included site visits, and could include data audits, evaluation of the suitability of data for use in estimation and mine planning, quality assurance and quality control checks, review of available technical and economic study data, review of data collection and evaluation methods, review of production data including reconciliation where available, review of actual cost data for operations, and review of third-party inputs to forecasts.

    The Company’s Qualified persons verified the information that was not derived from the technical reports. The data verification included site visits, data audits, review of available study data, review of data collection and evaluation methods, review of production data including reconciliation where available, review of actual cost data for operations, and review of third-party inputs to forecasts, and consideration of the Company’s plans for the projects.

    About Heliostar Metals Ltd.

    Heliostar is a gold mining company with production from operating mines in Mexico. This includes the La Colorada Mine in Sonora and the San Agustin Mine in Durango. The Company also has a strong portfolio of development and exploration stage projects in Mexico and the USA. These include the Ana Paula project in Guerrero, the Cerro del Gallo project in Guanajuato, the San Antonio project in Baja Sur, all in Mexico and the Unga project in Alaska, USA.

    FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

    Charles Funk
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    Heliostar Metals Limited
    Email: charles.funk@heliostarmetals.com
    Phone: +1 844-753-0045    		 Rob Grey
    Investor Relations Manager
    Heliostar Metals Limited
    Email: rob.grey@heliostarmetals.com
    Phone: +1 844-753-0045

     

    Neither 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 Forward-Looking Information

    This news release contains ‘forward-looking statements’ and ‘forward-looking information’ (together, ‘forward-looking statements’) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements and are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date hereof. Forward-looking statements in this release include, but are not limited to: the economic potential or projections of the PFS, including, but not limited to, estimates of capital and operating costs, mine life, throughput, grades, recoveries, production rates, payback period, NPV and IRR; statements regarding expected timing, scope and cost of planned exploration, drilling, metallurgical and engineering programs, or any future work or social programs generally; the anticipated timing of completion of a Feasibility Study; expectations concerning permitting, submission and approval of amendment applications; the timing and potential development of an underground decline or early-works program; the potential for additional mineralization at depth and future exploration success or improvements in resource classification; the availability of the PFS within the prescribed deadline, the Company’s plans regarding financing arrangements, including the potential for a project finance facility; the expectation that cash flow from existing operations may fund future development; projections of future metal prices; the potential for Cerro Del Gallo to be placed into production and the timing thereof; and other statements regarding the Company’s future plans, strategies, objectives, expectations and intentions.

    Forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions considered reasonable by management at the time of making such statements, including, without limitation: the accuracy of the PEA assumptions and parameters; that required permits and approvals will be obtained on reasonable terms and within expected timeframes; the availability of financing for exploration and development activities on acceptable terms; that projected metallurgical recoveries and operating costs will be achieved; that community and governmental support for operations will continue; the reliability of certain assumptions and known risks; and general stability in economic and market conditions, exchange rates and commodity prices.

    Forward-looking statements are 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, without limitation: the preliminary nature of the PFS; risks related to exploration, development, permitting and operating activities; cost escalation and inflation; geopolitical or economic uncertainty or force majeure events; changes in metal prices and exchange rates; financing and liquidity risks; community and environmental risks; reliance on contractors and third parties; title, tax and legal risks; and those risks set out in the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca).

    There can be no assurance that the Cerro del Gallo Project will be developed into a producing mine or that the results of the PFS will be realized. The purpose of the forward-looking statements is to provide information about management’s current expectations and plans and may not be appropriate for other purposes. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release. Except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    No Production Decision: The Company cautions that it has not made a production decision with respect to the Cerro del Gallo Project. Any such decision would only be made following completion of a Feasibility Study, the arrangement of project financing, and receipt of all necessary permits and approvals.

    Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors

    Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability, and U.S. investors are cautioned that terms such as ‘Measured,’ ‘Indicated’ and ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ are recognized and required by Canadian regulations but may not be comparable to similar terms used in U.S. reporting standards.

    Non-IFRS Financial Measures

    This news release includes certain non-International Financial Reporting Standards (‘IFRS’) performance measures, including cash costs (‘Cash Costs’) and all-in sustaining costs (‘AISC’). These measures are not standardized financial measures under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures used by other issuers. They are provided as additional information to investors and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. Cash Costs and AISC are common financial performance measures in the gold mining industry but do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS. The Company believes that, in addition to conventional measures prepared in accordance with IFRS, certain investors use these metrics to evaluate the economic performance of mining projects and their potential to generate operating earnings and cash flow.

    AISC is calculated in accordance with the guidelines published by the World Gold Council (‘WGC’) in 2013, as updated in 2018, which define AISC as the sum of total cash costs, sustaining capital expenditures, and corporate general and administrative costs, among other items. Other companies may calculate this measure differently due to variations in underlying principles and policies applied. Note that in respect of AISC metrics disclosed herein, corporate general and administrative expenses have not been included, as such economics are presented at the project level.

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/277693

    News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Keep Reading
    Politics

    Dueling Obamacare plans set to fail as deadline nears, pushing Senate toward bipartisan talks

    Politics 3 Mins Read

    There are two Obamacare proposals destined for failure on Thursday as the deadline to extend Biden-era subsidies inches closer, and both Senate Republicans and Democrats hope that a bipartisan path forward can be paved after the dust settles.

    Senate Democrats are going full speed ahead with their three-year extension of the Obamacare enhanced premium subsidies, which Republicans are expected to block over a lack of reforms in a plan that they have nearly all charged as unserious.

    And the GOP’s plan, which would abandon the subsidies altogether in favor of health savings accounts (HSAs), is expected to be blocked by Senate Democrats over the inclusion of anti-abortion restrictions and concerns that healthcare premium prices would still skyrocket.

    But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle hope that once the plans go down in flames, they can begin the work of crafting a bipartisan solution.

    ‘I think the question would be, are there the Democrats who, outside of their leadership, are actually interested in the solution, and not just an issue? You know, who want to work with some Republicans,’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital.

    ‘I can’t predict what’s going to happen, but there’s still a fairly high level of interest among members on our side, and I think some on the Dem side too,’ he continued. ‘But I think that, at least for now … I’m guessing they’ve been asked to stand down, you know, let them, let them get their messaging vote on it, and we’ll see what happens.’

    Bipartisan negotiations have been ongoing in the background, but both sides have opted to go with partisan plans instead. Should both fail, it leaves them little time to address the issue before Congress leaves Washington, D.C., next week until the New Year. 

    ‘I would hope that we could still negotiate in the near term,’ Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said. 

    Republicans argue that the subsidies are riddled with fraud and have drawn a red line on more stringent enforcement of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

    Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who has been working with Republicans on a plan, said that the Hyde Amendment argument was ‘not going to happen’ with his Democratic caucus colleagues.

    ‘Their insistence on that, and maybe that will go away, but their insistence on that basically means these premium increases are going to hammer the American people, and frankly, I don’t understand why — this should be a bipartisan,’ King said. ‘Let’s get together and figure this thing out.’

    Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital he hoped that the failed votes ‘brings everybody to the negotiating table, and then we’ll get serious about a bipartisan solution.’

    But Cornyn believed that it would likely be a problem that lawmakers would deal with in January, after the subsidies expire.

    Meanwhile, Senate Republicans argue that Schumer and Senate Democrats are using their plan as a political cudgel, painting the GOP into a corner on a position that they won’t support, and then using it down the line in the 2026 midterms should the subsidies expire.

    ‘There’s a very simple solution for them. If they really believe that is the Democratic strategy, they can defeat it by simply voting for this measure,’ Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital.

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Keep Reading