Author

admin

Browsing

WACO, TEXAS — Two of this primary season’s fiercest rivals have one thing in common: unflinching support for President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, are both leaning into their relationship with Trump and their record of support over the years as they vie for the Republican nomination in Texas’ contentious Senate primary. While it’s a crowded primary, including Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, all eyes are on Paxton and Cornyn. 

And as they push for Trump’s coveted endorsement in the final stretch of their intense campaign, their support of the president has remained unwavering.

Paxton told Fox News Digital outside his final campaign event ahead of the March 3 primary that he believed Trump ‘did the right thing’ with Operation Epic Fury. When asked what voters were saying, he said, ‘No one wants foreign wars.’

‘But the reality is, when you’ve got a country that’s trying to build nuclear weapons, that is willing to use them, and that has demonstrated terrorist activity for decades, 40 or 50 years, you’ve got to deal with that, or eventually it comes to you,’ Paxton said.

Cornyn had a front-row view of Trump’s decision.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan ‘Raizin’ Caine said Tuesday during a press conference at the Pentagon that Trump gave the go-ahead to launch Operation Epic Fury while en route to Corpus Christi, Texas, to promote his energy agenda.

Cornyn and others from the Texas delegation were on Air Force One when Trump gave the order. When asked by Fox News Digital whether he was aware of the plan while traveling with the president, Cornyn said Trump was ‘a very cool customer.’

‘He asked us whether we supported a strike on Iran,’ Cornyn recalled. ‘The members of Congress who were there in the cabin of Air Force One all raised our hands and said we did support that, recognizing the gravity of the decision and that only the president, as commander in chief, could make it.’

In Washington, D.C., lawmakers are grappling with the decision, with members of both parties calling for a vote to limit Trump’s war powers in the region. Both Paxton and Cornyn said they are open to debate on the matter.

Cornyn argued it comes down to a simple choice.

‘I want to know who’s standing on the side of American peace and security, and who’s standing on the side of a nuclear-armed Iran,’ Cornyn said. ‘I think that’s the choice.’

How long the country remains involved in the operation remains an open question. Trump said in a video address that the U.S. would continue operations ‘until all of our objectives are achieved,’ but later suggested it could take ‘four weeks or less.’

Some Senate Democrats, including Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., argued the strike was ‘the same dangerous and foolish decision’ former President George W. Bush, a fellow Texan, made more than two decades ago in the Middle East.

‘I think the president is doing his best to get in and out. Bush was into nation-building, a very different approach to things. I do not think that’s Trump’s idea here or his endeavor,’ Paxton said. ‘I’m very confident that he’s going to do whatever he can to take them out, and he’s encouraging the people in Iran to take their country back.’

‘He’s not encouraging us to move in and help them do that,’ Paxton added. ‘We’re just taking out the bad guys, and then it’s up to them to build their country in a way that they see fit.’

Related Article

Bipartisan revolt targets Trump
Bipartisan revolt targets Trump’s war powers after massive Iran strikes

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A clip of former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has resurfaced online where she flatly defended the then-Obama administration’s decision to strike Libya — without the congressional authorization she believes President Donald Trump should have secured before conducting his own strikes over the weekend.

‘You’re saying that the president did not need authorization initially and still does not need any authorization from Congress on Libya?’ a reporter asked Pelosi at a press event back in 2011.

‘Yes,’ Pelosi answered plainly.

The unambiguous answer contrasts sharply with Pelosi’s view of Trump’s strikes against Iran on Saturday.

In a joint effort targeting Iranian military leadership, the U.S. and Israel killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday, citing an imperative to halt Iran’s pursuit of developing a nuclear weapon.

Pelosi swiftly condemned the operation.

‘President Trump’s decision to initiate military hostilities into Iran starts another unnecessary war which endangers our servicemembers and destabilizes an already fragile region,’ Pelosi said in a post to X.

‘The Constitution is clear: decisions that lead our nation into war must be authorized by Congress.’

Pelosi, alongside other Democrats, is pursuing a war powers resolution that would limit Trump from taking further military action against Iran without express congressional approval.

Trump’s strikes bear similarity to President Barack Obama’s decision to strike Libya in 2011 under Operation Odyssey Dawn.

In that operation, Obama ordered a series of strikes against Libya in March 2011, looking to deter Muammar Gaddafi from attacking civilian protesters.

Gaddafi, known as the ‘Mad Dog of the Middle East,’ was the ruler of Libya from 1969 to 2011. He had a long and complicated relationship with the U.S. — at times aligning with national objectives and, at others, governing in a manner the U.S. couldn’t ignore.

The final straw came in the Libyan revolt of 2011, when demonstrations broke out in Benghazi and other cities. Like recent uprisings in Iran, Gaddafi met the threat to his rule with crushing force, marching his forces toward several Libyan cities that had resisted his power.

In what he described as attempts to uphold international law, Obama said the U.S., in partnership with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), had taken the strikes to protect Libya’s civilians to protect Libya’s civilians.

‘We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it,’ Obama said in remarks after the attacks.

The strikes did not kill Gaddafi.

Gaddafi was killed later that year at the hands of revolutionaries in October.

While Obama said he had consulted a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers, he did not pursue a declaration of war before carrying out his strikes.

‘So, for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do,’ Obama said.

Pelosi’s office did not respond to a request for comment on whether she saw any key differences between the attacks carried out by Obama and those now ordered by Trump.

Related Article

Massie-led push to handcuff Trump on Iran gets Jeffries
Massie-led push to handcuff Trump on Iran gets Jeffries’ backing

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh was hit by two drones from Iran on Monday as Americans in Saudi Arabia were instructed to shelter in place. The embassy was empty at the time of the hits and no injuries were reported as a result of the attack.

On Tuesday, the embassy issued a security alert saying that the shelter in place order for Jeddah, Riyadh and Dhahran remained in effect, and it added that U.S. citizens throughout Saudi Arabia were advised to remain indoors. It also advised U.S. citizens to ‘avoid the embassy until further notice’ due to the attack.

‘We advise all U.S. citizens to maintain a personal safety plan. Crises can happen unexpectedly while traveling or living abroad, and a good plan helps you think through potential scenarios and determine in advance the best course of action,’ the embassy’s Tuesday alert read.

In the security alert, the embassy urged U.S. citizens to shelter in place, monitor its website for updates, enroll in the State Department’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), ensure their passports are valid for potential short-notice travel, remain aware of their surroundings, avoid demonstrations and large gatherings, follow local authorities’ instructions and monitor official information sources for the latest updates.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a video posted on X urged Americans in the Middle East to register with STEP, saying that it would allow them to see the latest safety and security guidance amid the ‘cowardly attacks’ from Iran.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry released a statement condemning the attack, saying ‘the repetition of this cowardly and unjustified attack blatantly violates all international norms and laws, including the 1949 Geneva Convention and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.’

‘The Kingdom emphasizes that the repetition of this flagrant Iranian behavior, which comes despite the Iranian authorities’ knowledge that the Kingdom has affirmed it will not allow its airspace or territory to be used to target Iran, will push the region toward further escalation,’ the foreign ministry’s statement read.

Iran has launched attacks in the region against Israel and several countries that have U.S. interests in retaliation for the U.S. and Israel’s joint military offensive known as Operation Epic Fury. Saudi Arabia condemned the retaliation on Feb. 28.

‘The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its rejection and condemnation in the strongest terms of the blatant and cowardly Iranian attacks that targeted the Riyadh Region and the Eastern Province, which were successfully intercepted,’ the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s Feb. 28 statement read. ‘These attacks cannot be justified under any pretext or in any way whatsoever, and they came despite the Iranian authorities’ knowledge that the Kingdom had affirmed it would not allow its airspace or territory to be used to target Iran.’

Amid the retaliatory strikes, the State Department has ordered the evacuation of non-emergency personnel and their families from Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

Related Article

US casualties rise to 6 following Iranian retaliation for massive strikes
US casualties rise to 6 following Iranian retaliation for massive strikes

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The State Department on Monday urged Americans to depart immediately from more than a dozen countries across the Middle East, warning of ‘serious safety risks’ as the Iran war intensifies.

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar said U.S. citizens should leave from Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

The department said Americans who need help arranging departure via commercial means can contact the State Department 24/7 at +1-202-501-4444 from abroad or +1-888-407-4747 from the U.S. and Canada.

The travel push was amplified by the State Department’s official travel account, which urged Americans abroad to enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program, or STEP, at step.state.gov to receive the latest security updates from their nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.

Officials have warned that conditions in the region remain volatile, and that security situations can change quickly as fighting tied to the Iran conflict continues.

The warnings come days after the United States launched Operation Epic Fury, striking command-and-control centers, Iranian air defense capabilities, missile and drone launch sites.

In a Feb. 28 Worldwide Caution security alert, the State Department said Americans worldwide, and especially those in the Middle East, should exercise increased caution, monitor local security alerts and expect potential travel disruptions, including periodic airspace closures.

The evacuation push follows a cascade of security alerts issued by U.S. embassies across the region since Saturday, many ordering or recommending Americans to shelter in place.

At least nine U.S. missions, including Bahrain, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar and Israel, have issued repeated shelter-in-place directives or advisories over the past several days.

In multiple cases, embassy personnel and their families were ordered to remain at home, with Americans urged to stay in secure structures away from windows and be prepared for incoming missiles or drones.

In Saudi Arabia, the embassy in Riyadh closed Tuesday after two Iranian drones struck the building, prompting expanded shelter-in-place orders for Jeddah, Riyadh and Dhahran. No injuries were reported.

Related Article

Iran’s security chief accuses Trump of ‘Israel First’ policy,
Iran’s security chief accuses Trump of ‘Israel First’ policy, ‘delusional fantasies’ in region

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

New satellite images offer a stark look at the devastation inside Iran after U.S.-Israeli strikes, while also revealing the damage left behind by Tehran’s retaliatory attacks across the region.

According to U.S. Central Command, which oversees American military operations across the Middle East, U.S. forces struck more than 1,250 targets during the first two days of Operation Epic Fury.

Planet Labs satellite imagery captured burning ships and damaged facilities at the Konarak base in southern Iran, as well as significant destruction at Iran’s naval headquarters in Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf, reflecting the scale of the strikes on military infrastructure.

Imagery from Vantor shows the Choqa Balk drone facility in western Iran was hit, along with damage to other key military and strategic sites targeted in the U.S.–Israeli strike campaign. 

Radar systems at the Zahedan air base in eastern Iran — near the country’s borders with Pakistan and Afghanistan — were also struck.

The two facilities are about 800 to 900 miles apart, underscoring the broad reach of the coordinated strikes.

Additionally, satellite imagery from Planet Labs shows thick smoke plumes rising above Tehran, signaling explosions and fires inside the Iranian capital.

The smoke underscores how the conflict has moved beyond isolated military sites and into the heart of Iran’s political center.

Iran responded with missile and drone strikes of its own, expanding the conflict across the region. Satellite images reveal damage to the port city of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. The city of Sharjah is the third most populous after Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

The Jebel Ali Port, the region’s largest maritime hub, was also targeted, underscoring how the retaliation extended beyond military sites to key infrastructure.

The U.S. has warned that further retaliation could follow, as both sides signal they are prepared for additional rounds of strikes. Pentagon officials said U.S. forces in the region remain on high alert and have publicly cautioned that any new attacks on U.S. citizens would prompt a forceful response.

With damage now visible from western Iran to the Persian Gulf, the coming days could determine whether the confrontation stabilizes — or spirals into a wider regional war.

Related Article

Fires rage at Iran
Fires rage at Iran’s Bandar Abbas naval headquarters, Strait of Hormuz traffic stalled

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Blackrock Silver Corp. (TSXV: BRC,OTC:BKRRF) (OTCQX: BKRRF) (FSE: AHZ0) (‘Blackrock’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the issuance by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), through the Bureau of Air Pollution Control, the Class II Air Quality and Surface Disturbance Permit (the ‘Permit’) for the Company’s Tonopah West mineral project (‘Tonopah West’) located along the Walker Lane Trend in Nye and Esmeralda Counties, Nevada, USA.

The Permit allows for the disturbance of up to 150 acres (60.7 Hectares) at Tonopah West with appropriate dust control measures and an ongoing program using the best practical methods to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. The term of the Permit is five (5) years, which can be extended and modified as Tonopah West moves toward permitting and construction of its proposed exploration decline, test mining and bulk sample extraction programs.

Data collection continues for the hydrogeological and geochemical programs that will form the basis for the Water Pollution Control Permit. Five humidity cells are in process to review acid generating potential of the waste and mineralized lithologies that will be encountered and transported to the surface during the tunneling and construction of the exploration decline including stockpiles for mineralized material mined as part of the bulk sample program.

The hydrogeological program is designed to understand the groundwater dynamics focused on potential flow and volumes to support required management and disposal as needed during the test mining and bulk sample phase of the program. Waste dump, stockpiles and portal entry engineering designs are on schedule and will be completed and used to calculate surface disturbance that will be the cornerstone for the Modification to the Nevada Reclamation Permit. The permitting process is on schedule with all permits anticipated by mid-2027. Once all permits are in hand, the Company will decide when to commence with the exploration decline, test mining and bulk sample extraction programs at Tonopah West.

Qualified Persons

Blackrock’s exploration activities at Tonopah West are conducted and supervised by Mr. William Howald, Executive Chairman of Blackrock. Mr. William Howald, AIPG Certified Professional Geologist #11041, is a Qualified Person as defined under National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. He has reviewed and approved the contents of this news release.

About Blackrock Silver Corp.

Blackrock Silver Corp. is an American-focused emerging primary silver developer systematically advancing the high-grade Tonopah West Project, situated in the historic ‘Queen of the Silver Camps’ in a jurisdiction consistently ranked as one of the top mining regions globally. The Company is backstopped by a veteran board and technical team with a proven track record of discovering, financing, and building major precious metal mines in Nevada and globally. Blackrock is committed to establishing a secure, high-margin, domestic supply of silver and gold.

Additional information on Blackrock Silver Corp. can be found on its website at www.blackrocksilver.com and by reviewing its profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Information

This news release contains ‘forward-looking statements’ and ‘forward-looking information’ (collectively, ‘forward-looking statements‘) within the meaning of Canadian and United States securities legislation, including the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this news release relate to, among other things: the Company’s strategic plans; the Company’s permitting initiatives at Tonopah West, including the anticipated receipt of all permits by mid-2027; the proposed commencement of an exploration decline, test mining and bulk sample extraction programs at Tonopah West; the Company’s de-risking initiatives at Tonopah West; estimates of mineral resource quantities and qualities; estimates of mineralization from drilling; geological information projected from sampling results; and the potential quantities and grades of the target zones.

These forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s current views with respect to future events and are necessarily based upon a number of assumptions that, while considered reasonable by the Company, are inherently subject to significant operational, business, economic and regulatory uncertainties and contingencies. These assumptions include, among other things: conditions in general economic and financial markets; accuracy of assay results; geological interpretations from drilling results, timing and amount of capital expenditures; performance of available laboratory and other related services; future operating costs; the historical basis for current estimates of potential quantities and grades of target zones; the availability of skilled labour and no labour related disruptions at any of the Company’s operations; no unplanned delays or interruptions in scheduled activities; all necessary permits, licenses and regulatory approvals for operations are received in a timely manner; the ability to secure and maintain title and ownership to properties and the surface rights necessary for operations; and the Company’s ability to comply with environmental, health and safety laws. The foregoing list of assumptions is not exhaustive.

The Company cautions the reader that forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements contained in this news release and the Company has made assumptions and estimates based on or related to many of these factors. Such factors include, without limitation: the timing and content of work programs; results of exploration activities and development of mineral properties; the interpretation and uncertainties of drilling results and other geological data; receipt, maintenance and security of permits and mineral property titles; environmental and other regulatory risks; project costs overruns or unanticipated costs and expenses; availability of funds; failure to delineate potential quantities and grades of the target zones based on historical data; general market and industry conditions; and those factors identified under the caption ‘Risks Factors’ in the Company’s most recent Annual Information Form.

Forward-looking statements are based on the expectations and opinions of the Company’s management on the date the statements are made. The assumptions used in the preparation of such statements, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be imprecise and, as such, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date the statements were made. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements included in this news release if these beliefs, estimates and opinions or other circumstances should change, except as otherwise required by applicable law.

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

For Further Information, Contact:

Andrew Pollard
President and Chief Executive Officer
(604) 817-6044
info@blackrocksilver.com

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/286059

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Proceeds to be used to Accelerate Procurement and Component Assembly for Demonstration Facility Deployment in Iceland

Syntholene Energy CORP. (TSXV: ESAF,OTC:SYNTF) (FSE: 3DD0) (OTCQB: SYNTF) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Syntholene’) is pleased to announce that it has closed its previously announced non-brokered private placement for aggregate gross proceeds of $3,750,000 (the ‘Financing’).

We are thrilled to have successfully closed this financing, which reflects strong investor confidence in Syntholene’s technology and vision,’ said Daniel Sutton, Chief Executive Officer. ‘These proceeds will accelerate the development of our demonstration facility in Iceland as we continue to advance our mission of delivering cost-competitive, carbon-neutral synthetic fuel.’

An aggregate of 8,333,333 units (each, a ‘Unit‘) were issued at a price of $0.45 per Unit pursuant to the Financing, with each Unit comprised of one common share of the Company (a ‘Common Share‘) and one non-transferable common share purchase warrant (a ‘Warrant‘). Each Warrant is exercisable into one additional Common Share at an exercise price of $0.63 for a period of two years from the date of issuance, subject to an acceleration provision whereby the Company may accelerate the expiry date of the Warrants if the daily trading price of the Common Shares equals or exceeds $0.90 on the TSX Venture Exchange for a period of ten consecutive trading days, in which case the Warrants will expire on the 30th day after the date on which notice is given by news release (the ‘Acceleration Provision‘).

Gross proceeds from the Financing are expected to be used toward the procurement and assembly of components for the Company’s planned demonstration facility in Iceland, and toward corporate marketing initiatives, investor relations and working capital.

In connection with the Financing, the Company entered into a fiscal advisory agreement dated February 11, 2026 with Canaccord Genuity Corp. ( ‘Canaccord‘), pursuant to which the Company and Canaccord agreed to extend the right of first refusal under the agency agreement between the Company, Canaccord and other agents dated September 18, 2025 to a period ending 18 months from closing of the Financing, and for the Company to pay certain fees to Canaccord in connection with the Financing. On closing of the Financing, Canaccord was paid a cash commission of $112,032, issued 248,960 non-transferable broker warrants, 111,111 corporate finance shares and 111,111 non-transferrable corporate finance warrants. Each broker warrant is exercisable into one Common Share at $0.45 per share for a period of two years from the date of issuance. Each corporate finance warrant is exercisable into one Common Share at $0.63 per share for a period of two years from the date of issuance, subject to the Acceleration Provision.

In addition, the Company entered into a finders’ fee agreement dated March 2, 2026 with Haywood Securities Inc. (‘Haywood‘), pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay certain fees to the Canaccord in connection with the Financing. On closing of the Financing, Haywood was paid a cash commission of $7,992 and issued 17,760 non-transferrable broker warrants. Each broker warrant is exercisable into one Common Share at $0.45 per share for a period of two years from the date of issuance.

All securities issued pursuant to the Financing are subject to a statutory hold period of four months and one day from the date of issuance, in accordance with applicable securities laws. The securities offered pursuant to the Financing have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

The Financing constitutes a related party transaction within the meaning of Multilateral Instrument 61-101 – Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (‘MI 61-101‘), as certain related parties of the Company participated in the Financing as follows: John Kutsch, director and officer acquired 1,455,556 Units for $655,000, Grant Tanaka, Chief Financial Officer acquired 111,111 Units for $50,000, and Anna Pagliaro, director acquired 22,222 Units for $10,000. Pursuant to Sections 5.5(b) and 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101, the Financing is exempt from the requirement to obtain a formal valuation and minority shareholder approval in respect of this transaction as the Company is not listed on the specified markets set out in MI 61-101 and the fair market value of the consideration from the related parties participating in the Financing is not greater than 25% of the market capitalization of the Company. The aforementioned directors disclosed their interest in the Financing to the board of directors of the Company, and the disinterested members of the board approved the Financing and related party transactions under applicable corporate law. In connection with the Financing, each investor in the Financing entered into a standard form of subscription agreement with the Company containing customary terms for a private placement of the nature of the Financing. The Company did not file a material change report in respect of the Financing at least 21 days before the closing of the Financing, which the Company deems reasonable in the circumstances in order to complete the Financing in an expeditious manner.

Early Warning Disclosure – Acquisition by John Kutsch

John Kutsch, a director of the Company, acquired 1,455,556 Units pursuant to the Financing for aggregate consideration of $655,000 representing a price of $0.45 per Unit. Immediately prior to closing of the Financing, Mr. Kutsch beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, 15,583,467 Common Shares, 543,400 Options, 100,000 RSUs and 2,386,755 deferred consideration shares (‘DCSs‘), representing approximately 22.6% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a non-diluted basis and, assuming the settlement of all RSUs into Common Shares, exercise of all Options into Common Shares and issuance of all DCSs, approximately 25.86% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a partially diluted basis. Immediately following closing of the Financing, Mr. Kutsch beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, 17,039,023 Common Shares, 543,400 Options, 100,000 RSUs, 2,386,755 DCSs and 1,455,556 Warrants, representing approximately 21.96% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a non-diluted basis and, assuming the settlement of all RSUs into Common Shares, exercise of all Options and Warrants into Common Shares and issuance of all DCSs, approximately 26.23% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a partially diluted basis. The Common Shares held by Mr. Kutsch are held for investment purposes and were acquired for investment. Mr. Kutsch has a long-term view of the investment and may acquire additional securities of the Company either on the open market, through private acquisitions or as compensation or sell the securities on the open market or through private dispositions in the future depending on market conditions, general economic and industry conditions, the Company’s business and financial condition, reformulation of plans and/or other relevant factors. Certain securities held by Mr. Kutsch as subject to Tier 2 escrow in accordance with TSXV policies, as described in the Filing Statement dated November 30, 2025, a copy of which is filed on the Company’s profile on SEDAR+.

A copy of John Kutsch’s early warning report will be filed on the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and may also be requested by mail at Syntholene Energy Corp. Suite 1723, 595 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V7X 1J1, Attention: Corporate Secretary or phone at 604-684-6730.

About Syntholene

Syntholene is actively commercializing its novel Hybrid Thermal Production System for low-cost clean fuel synthesis. The target output is ultrapure synthetic jet fuel, manufactured at 70% lower cost than the nearest competing technology today. The company’s mission is to deliver the world’s first truly high-performance, low-cost, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuel at an industrial scale, unlocking the potential to produce clean synthetic fuel at lower cost than fossil fuels, for the first time.

Syntholene’s power-to-liquid strategy harnesses thermal energy to power proprietary integrations of hydrogen production and fuel synthesis. Syntholene has secured 20MW of dedicated energy to support the Company’s upcoming demonstration facility and commercial scale-up.

Founded by experienced operators across advanced energy infrastructure, nuclear technology, low-emissions steel refining, process engineering, and capital markets, Syntholene aims to be the first team to deliver a scalable modular production platform for cost-competitive synthetic fuel, thus accelerating the commercialization of carbon-neutral eFuels across global markets.

For further information, please contact:
Dan Sutton, CEO
comms@syntholene.com
www.syntholene.com
+1 608-305-4835

Investor Relations
KIN Communications Inc.
604-684-6730
ESAF@kincommunications.com

Neither 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.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘aims’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘objective’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘project’, ‘should’, ‘believe’, ‘plans’, ‘intends’ and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information or statements. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, including but not limited to statements regarding the proposed use of proceeds of the Financing, development of the test facility, commercial scalability, technical and economic viability, anticipated geothermal power availability, anticipated benefit of eFuel, and future commercial opportunities, are forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by the Company, including without limitation the assumption that the Company will be able to execute its business plan, including that it will use the proceeds of the Financing, if any, as described herein, that the Company will be able to advance its planned test facility, that the eFuel will have its expected benefits, that there will be market adoption, and that the Company will be able to access financing as needed to fund its business plan. Although the Company believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking statements and information are based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements and information because the Company can give no assurance that they will prove to be correct. Since forward-looking statements and information address future events and conditions, by their very nature, they involve inherent risks and uncertainties.

Actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks, including, without limitation, Syntholene’s ability to meet production targets, realize projected economic benefits, overcome technical challenges, secure financing, maintain regulatory compliance, manage geopolitical risks, and successfully negotiate definitive terms. Syntholene does not undertake any obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities laws.

Readers are advised to exercise caution and not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

NOT FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES OR THROUGH U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/286066

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Every few years, the century bond returns — not exactly with a bang, but with a new, shiny calculation involved. 

As reported by the FT and Bloomberg last month, Google’s parent company has been busy tapping the bond market for everything from 3-year to 50-year bonds in several major markets (US, Switzerland, UK). Now it’s trying for the ultimate prize: a century bond.

Century bonds are exactly what they sound like: a bond, often issued by a government or a long-lived institution like a university, that runs for a hundred years, often at interest rates somewhat above prevailing market rates or reference rates. For the issuer, they make a ton of sense, generationally and actuarially: They receive funds for investments right now, lock in financing costs for a long time, and face no financing rollover risk. 

It’s more of a puzzle why buyers show up for these issuances, especially since the market participants have very recent examples of being seriously burned. As a bondholder of extremely long-dated bonds, you’re always living in financial terror, waiting for rates to rise and inflict multiplied damage on the market value of your investment. Since bond prices move inversely with interest rates, the effects are more pronounced the further into the future — the longer-dated — the bond is. The loss of market value on a hundred-year bond when interest rates increase is far greater than on a ten- or two-year bond. When it does, this “dangers of duration,” as FT journalist Robin Wigglesworth has called it, completely undermines your finances for decades on end.

The last two times century bonds popped out of academic obscurity, they got a well-deserved bad rap. In the 1990s, several large companies tried them — and locked in steep and expensive rates in the five-percent region while interest rates kept falling toward zero for decades. In the late 2010s, with ZIRP dominating the world’s financial markets and trillions of mostly government debt traded at negative yield, we started seeing new players dusting off this old idea, since money now was just so cheap to be had: Universities like UPenn, Virginia, Oxford, and Rutgers took in funds for a hundred years in the two to four percent range. Then the opportunistic governments (including Ireland, Belgium, Mexico, Argentina) also successfully placed century bonds at eye-poppingly low rates. The most extreme participant was Austria, whose perfectly timed century bonds — of 2.1 percent in 2017, and then 0.85 percent and even zero percent right on the cusp of the ‘rona inflation — saved its taxpayers a fortune. 

Logic alone dictates that if you sell debt due in 2120 for zero percent or 0.85 percent a year, and then CPI (and thus your incomes and tax revenues) rise to upward of 10 percent for a few years, you’re doing great. Indeed, bond math logic made that exercise even more painful, with some of these placements trading at cents on the euro a few years after issuance, vaporizing bondholders’ money. 

Enter Big Tech: The AI Investment Needs Meet Underwater Pension Systems

With Alphabet/Google’s placements in November, and now its Swiss franc and sterling placements, it’s the first time a big tech company has dared to come back to this perilous market since the 1990s. 

What’s so odd about this hunger for long duration is that in the 2010s and during the pre-inflation pandemic years, at least bond investors collectively were starved for yield, ready to do anything to eke out a few extra basis points of return. In 2026, there are still positive yields to be had. The mystery, then, is not why Google issued but why investors rushed in. 

The $20-billion USD placement finalized at treasury yields+95 bps, while the GBP bond of £5.5, about $7.5 billion, placed at 120 basis points above gilts; the £1 billion century bond was ten times oversubscribed, according to Reuters, and carries a coupon of 6.125 percent until 2126. With the fairly recent history of century bond investors burning obscene amounts of money on mistaken duration bets, the question remains: Why were these long-maturity debt placements massively oversubscribed, at rate spreads of only about a hundred basis points above safe assets? 

Three candidate explanations. 

First, defined-benefit pension funds are extremely hungry for long-dated debt. Reinsurers and life insurance providers, too. They have long-dated liabilities that rise and fall in (net present) value with interest rates; owning equally long-dated assets compensates somewhat for that. “Strong demand from UK pension funds and insurers has made the sterling market a go-to venue for issuers seeking longer-dated funding,” reported Tasos Vossos for Bloomberg.

Second, the large embedded rate-leverage is kind of capital efficient. Bond funds don’t buy individual issuances in isolation, but compose a portfolio with a combined desired outcome, constantly micromanaging exposure and duration vis-à-vis a benchmark index. Remarked Marcus Ashworth in an opinion piece, 

Buyers of these types of security are looking to dynamically balance the risk of an entire portfolio rather than caring about annual coupon weights. Ultra-long debt allows portfolio managers to barbell their duration needs by buying more 10-year liquid debt rather than illiquid 20- to 50-year maturities.

Which is, perversely, why riding that zero-percent Austrian century bond all the way to the basement between 2020 and 2025 could have been beneficial to certain bond portfolios that paired it with other investments. When rates fall, these bonds soar, letting market participants ride the convexity game in a broad macro rate (and now also FX) game. Under functional monetary regimes with price predictability, long-dated debt is both efficient and common — think about the perpetual British Consol, the financial instrument that made the British Empire.

Plus, there’s a ton of capital-intensive bond market efficiency involved in going way out on maturity. Explains quant researcher Navnor Bawa discussing the news on his Substack: 

A one percent decline in long-term rates generates approximately 40-50 percent capital appreciation on century bonds versus 15-20 percent on 30-year debt  —  making it the most capital-efficient duration exposure available for institutions positioning for lower long-term rates.

Third, this time is different and bond investors have inflation fatigue. Many might just believe that what happened during the pandemic was a once-in-a-generation one-off event and that central bankers will do better going forward. If inflation settles back near its more usual two to three percent, or indeed rates fall back toward zero in an easy/easier monetary policy regime, locking in long real duration today at slightly higher rates might look clever rather than reckless.

This might all work out great for the issuers, and bondholders will celebrate their contribution to the AI revolution… for a few years until we have the next bout of runaway inflation prints. Most likely, the investors in these oversubscribed bonds are setting themselves up for financial troubles, by the sudden jolt of interest rates jumping higher or the slow, gradual erosion of fiat purchasing power.

The spread over sovereign credit says something about the balance sheet strength and the optimism surrounding AI-related big tech investments, certainly with behemoths like Google. Funding operations at these rates show either incredible creditworthiness — with Google and the current wave of AI optimism, at least believable — or devastating mispricing. 

Investors got the memo about AI capacity building needs, loud and clear. With collective bond market amnesia, that was about the only meaningful bit they took away. 

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 opinion in the Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and if you’ve spent any time reading or watching the news in the past few days, you’ve probably seen some version of “the Court struck down Trump’s tariffs.” 

While true, the analysis also strips out almost everything that matters. Here’s what the decision actually does (and does not) mean:

1) This is not a ruling against tariffs. It’s a ruling against one way of imposing them.

First and foremost, it’s important to understand that the Court very clearly did not say that all Presidentially imposed tariffs are unconstitutional, period. It also did not say anything about the justifications that the President gave for imposing the tariffs: lowering trade deficits or curtailing fentanyl smuggling. What the Court did say is that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not, in and of itself, give the President the authority to impose tariffs. All other tariff powers remain intact. This report from the Congressional Research Service provides a useful overview of each of these powers and their limits.

While these powers could, in theory, replace many of the tariffs that President Trump originally imposed under IEEPA, they cannot replace all of the tariffs, and they each require additional hurdles or have specified limits. 

Section 122, which the President has already used, only allows tariffs up to 15 percent to address “balance-of-payment deficits.” Some have time limits, while others require reports, investigations, and consultations with foreign governments. 

Importantly, though, none allow the President to impose tariffs because he didn’t like how he was talked to by a fellow head of state.

2) The case turned on seven words

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 authorizes the President to “regulate… importation… during a declared national emergency.” The entire case turned on these seven words and whether they included the power to impose tariffs. Six justices of the Court said “no.” Justice Roberts, writing the majority’s opinion, held that tariffs are fundamentally a taxing power, not a foreign affairs power, and that they differed in kind, not just degree, from the trade tools that IEEPA explicitly authorizes.

The Court also pointed out that no President had ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs before. While this is not in and of itself a winning argument (there is, after all, a first time for everything), it is still meaningful. Whenever an administration claims new power from a decades-old statute, the major questions doctrine throws up a red flag.

3) The Major Questions Doctrine is here to stay

This ruling is the latest, and possibly the most consequential, application of the major questions doctrine to date. Briefly, this relatively new doctrine contends that any time “an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear congressional authorization,” (emphasis original). 

In their 2001 opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., the Court said, “Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions — it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.”

Justice Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, put this clearly, writing, “the President claims, Congress passed that power on to him in IEEPA, permitting him to impose tariffs on nearly any goods he wishes, in any amount he wishes, based on emergencies he himself has declared. He insists, as well, that his emergency declarations are unreviewable. A ruling for him here, the President acknowledges, would afford future Presidents the same latitude he asserts for himself. So another President might impose tariffs on gas-powered automobiles to respond to climate change. Or, really, on virtually any imports for any emergency any President might perceive. And all of these emergency declarations would be unreviewable. Just ask yourself: What President would willingly give up that kind of power?”

It is for this reason, the Court’s majority held, that Congress must clearly give the power to the President. The President cannot simply assert that he has Article I powers.

4) The Dissent Deserves a Fair Hearing

Justice Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, accepts the validity of the major questions doctrine, but questions whether it applies in this particular case. He cites Justice Gorsuch’s four “telling clues” from West Virginia v. EPA (which can be found on pages 746–748) and argues on pages 35–44 of the Court’s opinion that at least three of them do not apply. 

For example, he argues that in 1976, Congress and the Court understood that the phrase “adjust the imports” found in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allowed the use of fees to do so despite this word not appearing in the Act. Since IEEPA was passed one year later in 1977, Justice Kavanaugh argues that the phrase “regulate… imports” also authorizes the imposition of fees, of which tariffs are but one option. Indeed, as he writes, “Any citizens or Members of Congress in 1977 who somehow thought that the ‘regulate… importation’ language in IEEPA excluded tariffs would have had their heads in the sand.”

The majority had responses to this, primarily pointing out the difference in the scale of what President Trump was doing versus what Presidents Ford or Nixon had done. Likewise, reasonable people can debate whether tariffs are a “tax” or a “fee” (hint: they’re a tax) and the semantic/legal differences therein. But as Kavanaugh points out, this is in direct opposition to the Court’s previous stance that the major questions doctrine is not a “magic words” test, whereby the Court is essentially requiring that Congress use very specific words to allow very specific actions by agencies, including the President. 

5) Refunds Are a Possibility

In addition to the above, Justice Kavanaugh is also the only Justice to bring up the issue of refunds in the Court’s ruling, and he does so only four times. He notes that “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” and that “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the US Treasury.” In a sense, he’s saying that American importers write the tariff check but pass on at least some of the tariff burden to American consumers in the form of higher prices. If the refund process happens, the refunds will all go to the American importers, not the end consumers. This process, as he acknowledges, will be “a mess.”

Indeed, we’re already seeing tariff refund cases submitted. FedEx has filed with the US Court of International Trade, and there are reasons to believe that they will not be alone. Will companies seeking refunds all be required to file individual lawsuits, and if so, in which court? Or will they be allowed to file a class-action lawsuit?

6) This Is Exactly What Checks and Balances Look Like

The easy, attention-grabbing headline that this is a win for free traders or a setback for economic nationalists is tempting, but misleading. The more important insight from this, whether you agree with the majority or the dissent, is that this is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

The White House pushed the boundaries of a statute beyond what its text and history would allow. Private parties challenged that action in court. The judicial branch reviewed it and overturned the White House.

Justice Gorsuch, on page 46, summarizes it nicely: “For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason… In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

The question before the Court was never “are tariffs good or bad?” The question was whether one person should be allowed to impose or alter tariffs against any nation at any time and for any reason he alone determines is an “emergency,” with no Congressional approval or judicial review. And the answer to that question, for now at least, is “no.”

That said, let’s not confuse this legal victory for an economic one. The President has already implemented new tariffs under Section 122, has promised that other countries won’t be celebrating for long, and has assured his supporters that he will “Keep Calm and Tariff On.” This Administration was not surprised last May when the International Trade Court ruled against it, and has long promised that they have alternative plans ready to go if needed.

Still, this ruling is a victory for dispersed power, constitutional limits, and legislative accountability. And we should celebrate it as such.

CALGARY, AB / ACCESS Newswire / March 3, 2026 / Valeura Energy Inc. (TSX:VLE,OTC:VLERF)(OTCQX:VLERF) (‘Valeura’ or the ‘Company’) acknowledges that Thailand’s Ministry of Energy has, by way of a press release, requested that domestic oil producers cooperate in supporting national energy security in Thailand, in light of disruptions to the normal supply of oil from the Middle East region. This request includes postponing any planned downtime of oil production facilities and temporarily suspending crude oil exports.

Valeura is seeking further clarification from the Ministry of Energy to ensure compliance with the request and to continue supporting Thailand’s economy with domestically-produced energy. Valeura anticipates that this new government action will not interfere with the Company’s ongoing operations in Thailand, and production is continuing as usual and in accordance with Valeura’s high standards for health, safety, and environmental stewardship.

Thailand’s local network of crude oil purchasers constitutes a viable market for Valeura’s crude oil, and includes both refiners and blenders who have direct experience with the Company’s particular crude oil streams. Typically, approximately one third of Valeura’s oil is sold into the domestic Thai market, and from time to time, each of Valeura’s oil streams have been sold within the domestic market.

Thailand is a net importer of oil, with approximately 92% of its daily crude oil requirements coming from foreign sources, predominantly the Middle East region (2025 data, Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy). Thailand has issued similar requests in response to geopolitical developments in the past, to support national energy security by temporarily mandating that domestically-produced petroleum remains within Thailand. Valeura is well-versed in responding to such requests and intends to comply, to support Thailand’s energy needs.

For further information, please contact:

Valeura Energy Inc. (General Corporate Enquiries) +65 6373 6940
Sean Guest, President and CEO
Yacine Ben-Meriem, CFO
Contact@valeuraenergy.com

Valeura Energy Inc. (Investor and Media Enquiries) +1 403 975 6752 / +44 7392 940495
Robin James Martin, Vice President, Communications and Investor Relations
IR@valeuraenergy.com

Contact details for the Company’s advisors, covering research analysts and joint brokers, including Auctus Advisors LLP, Beacon Securities Limited, Canaccord Genuity Ltd (UK), Cormark Securities Inc., Research Capital Corporation, Roth Canada Inc., and Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited, are listed on the Company’s website at www.valeuraenergy.com/investor-information/analysts/.

About the Company

Valeura Energy Inc. is a Canadian public company engaged in the exploration, development and production of petroleum and natural gas in Thailand and in Türkiye. The Company is pursuing a growth-oriented strategy and intends to re-invest into its producing asset portfolio and to deploy resources toward further organic and inorganic growth in Southeast Asia. Valeura aspires toward value accretive growth for stakeholders while adhering to high standards of environmental, social and governance responsibility.

Additional information relating to Valeura is also available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Advisory and Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Certain information included in this news release constitutes forward-looking information under applicable securities legislation. Such forward-looking information is for the purpose of explaining management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes, such as making investment decisions. Forward-looking information typically contains statements with words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘expect’, ‘plan’, ‘intend’, ‘estimate’, ‘propose’, ‘project’, ‘target’ or similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook. Forward-looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, the Company’s belief that the new government action will not interfere with the Company’s ongoing operations in Thailand; and the Company’s intent to comply with the government’s request, subject to further clarification.

Forward-looking information is based on management’s current expectations and assumptions regarding, among other things: political stability of the areas in which the Company is operating; continued safety of operations and ability to proceed in a timely manner; continued operations of and approvals forthcoming from governments and regulators in a manner consistent with past conduct; future drilling activity on the required/expected timelines; the prospectivity of the Company’s lands; the continued favourable pricing and operating netbacks across its business; future production rates and associated operating netbacks and cash flow; decline rates; future sources of funding; future economic conditions; the impact of inflation of future costs; future currency exchange rates; interest rates; the ability to meet drilling deadlines and fulfil commitments under licences and leases; future commodity prices; the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; royalty rates and taxes; future capital and other expenditures; the success obtained in drilling new wells and working over existing wellbores; the performance of wells and facilities; the availability of the required capital to funds its exploration, development and other operations, and the ability of the Company to meet its commitments and financial obligations; the ability of the Company to secure adequate processing, transportation, fractionation and storage capacity on acceptable terms; the capacity and reliability of facilities; the application of regulatory requirements respecting abandonment and reclamation; the recoverability of the Company’s reserves and contingent resources; future growth; the sufficiency of budgeted capital expenditures in carrying out planned activities; the impact of increasing competition; the ability to efficiently integrate assets and employees acquired through acquisitions; global energy policies going forward; future debt levels; and the Company’s continued ability to obtain and retain qualified staff and equipment in a timely and cost efficient manner. In addition, the Company’s work programmes and budgets are in part based upon expected agreement among joint venture partners and associated exploration, development and marketing plans and anticipated costs and sales prices, which are subject to change based on, among other things, the actual results of drilling and related activity, availability of drilling, offshore storage and offloading facilities and other specialised oilfield equipment and service providers, changes in partners’ plans and unexpected delays and changes in market conditions. Although the Company believes the expectations and assumptions reflected in such forward-looking information are reasonable, they may prove to be incorrect.

Forward-looking information involves significant known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Exploration, appraisal, and development of oil and natural gas reserves and resources are speculative activities and involve a degree of risk. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by the Company including, but not limited to: the ability of management to execute its business plan or realise anticipated benefits from acquisitions; the risk of disruptions from public health emergencies and/or pandemics; competition for specialised equipment and human resources; the Company’s ability to manage growth; the Company’s ability to manage the costs related to inflation; disruption in supply chains; the risk of currency fluctuations; changes in interest rates, oil and gas prices and netbacks; potential changes in joint venture partner strategies and participation in work programmes; uncertainty regarding the contemplated timelines and costs for work programme execution; the risks of disruption to operations and access to worksites; potential changes in laws and regulations, the uncertainty regarding government and other approvals; counterparty risk; the risk that financing may not be available; risks associated with weather delays and natural disasters; and the risk associated with international activity. See the most recent annual information form and management’s discussion and analysis of the Company for a detailed discussion of the risk factors.

The forward-looking information contained in this new release is made as of the date hereof and the Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless required by applicable securities laws. The forward-looking information contained in this new release is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction, including where such offer would be unlawful. This news release is not for distribution or release, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Ireland, the Republic of South Africa or Japan or any other jurisdiction in which its publication or distribution would be unlawful.

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

This information is provided by Reach, the non-regulatory press release distribution service of RNS, part of the London Stock Exchange. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.

SOURCE: Valeura Energy Inc.

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com