Corazon Mining Ltd (ASX:CZN) (‘Corazon’ or ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the granting of two key tenements at its Two Pools Gold Project (‘Two Pools’ or the ‘Project’) in the Gascoyne region of Western Australia (Figure 1).
Highlights
Two core tenements at the Two Pools Gold Project have been successfully granted by the West Australian Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DEMIRS).
Granting allows Corazon to expedite works to enable diamond drilling to commence in early 2026, pending completion of heritage surveys, and discussion with drilling contractors have commenced.
The initial program is designed to confirm high-grade historical results and provide essential structural controls on mineralisation.
Planning for follow-up Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling at Two Pools is also underway as part of the Company’s systematic exploration campaign.
The granting marks another key milestone in the Company’s positive operational reset over the past three months.
The granting of Exploration Licences E52/4460 and E52/4468, which were vended into the Company as part of the Two Pools acquisition – represents a significant regulatory milestone. With tenure now secured, Corazon is moving immediately to finalise preparations for its maiden drill program.
Corazon Mining Ltd Managing Director, Simon Coyle, commented:“The granting of these tenements is an important green light, allowing us to get boots on the ground at Two Pools. We are now moving quickly to secure a rig and finalise logistics to ensure we are drilling early in the new year. Our maiden diamond program is designed to give us a definitive look at the geology and structure of the high-grade zones, setting the stage for a systematic and aggressive exploration campaign throughout 202c.
The reset of the Company over the last three months has been extremely positive and productive. With the team now fully operational and our key tenure granted, we look forward to the exceptional development of both Two Pools and Feather Cap Gold Projects in 202c.”
The Trump administration is making good on its promise to shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy, starting with the Department of Education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon recently announced that her department has signed six interagency agreements with four other federal departments – Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, and State – to shift major functions away from the Education Department.
These agreements will redistribute responsibilities like managing elementary and secondary education programs, including Title I funding for low-income schools, to the Department of Labor; Indian Education programs to the Interior Department; postsecondary education grants to Labor; foreign medical accreditation and child care support for student parents to Health and Human Services; and international education and foreign language studies to the State Department, to agencies better equipped to handle them without the added layer of bureaucratic meddling.
Interagency agreements, or IAAs, aren’t some radical invention. They’re commonplace in government operations. The Department of Education already maintains hundreds of such pacts with other agencies to coordinate on everything from data sharing to program implementation. What makes this move significant isn’t the mechanism – it’s the intent. By offloading core duties, the administration is systematically reducing the department’s scope, making it smaller, less essential, and easier to eliminate altogether. This approach is the next logical step in a process aimed at convincing Congress to vote to abolish the agency entirely.
Remember, the Department of Education was created by an act of Congress in 1979, so dismantling it requires congressional action. In the Senate, that means overcoming the filibuster, which demands a 60-vote supermajority. Without it, Republicans would need a handful of Democrats to cross the aisle – or they’d have to invoke the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for this legislation.
Conservatives have wisely resisted that temptation. Ending the filibuster might feel expedient now, but it would set a dangerous precedent, allowing Democrats to ram through their big-government agendas – like expanded entitlements or gun control – with a simple majority the next time they hold power. It’s better to build consensus and preserve the procedural safeguards that protect limited government.
The Trump team’s strategy is smart: It breaks down the bureaucracy piece by piece, demonstrating to the public and lawmakers that other agencies can handle education-related workloads more efficiently. Why prop up a standalone department riddled with waste when existing structures can absorb its functions? The administration’s approach goes beyond administrative housekeeping to serve as proof of concept that education policy belongs closer to home, not in the hands of distant D.C. officials.
Of course, the only ones howling about sending education back to the states are the teachers unions and the politicians in their pockets. Groups like the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) thrive on centralized power. It’s easier for them to influence one federal agency where they’ve already sunk their claws than to battle for control across 50 states and thousands of local districts.
We’ve seen this playbook in action. During the COVID-19 pandemic, unions lobbied the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – another federal entity – to impose draconian guidelines that made school reopenings nearly impossible. They held children’s education hostage, demanding billions in taxpayer-funded ransom payments through stimulus packages.
The unions’ power grab isn’t new. The Department of Education itself was born as a political payoff. Democrat President Jimmy Carter created it in 1979 to secure the NEA’s endorsement for his reelection bid. It’s no secret that teachers unions have long controlled Democrat politicians, but even some Republicans aren’t immune.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.) came out swinging against dismantling the department, claiming it was established “for good reason.” That “good reason” apparently includes his own ties to the unions. Fitzpatrick is the only Republican in Congress currently endorsed by the NEA. Back in 2018, the NEA even backed him over a Democrat challenger. Over the years, he’s raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from public-sector unions. Is it any wonder he’s against Trump’s plan?
Meanwhile, more than 98% of the NEA’s political donations went to Democrats in the last election cycle, yet less than 10% of their total funding went towards representing teachers. Follow the money, and you’ll see why federal control suits them just fine.
Sending education to the states would empower local communities, where parents and educators know best what’s needed. It would also mean more dollars reaching actual classrooms instead of lining the pockets of useless bureaucrats in Washington. Federal education spending gets skimmed at every level, with administrative overhead siphoning off funds that could buy books, hire teachers, or upgrade facilities.
Critics claim abolishing the department would gut protections for vulnerable students, but that’s a red herring. Federal special-needs laws, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, predated the department and can continue without it. Civil-rights enforcement in schools doesn’t require a dedicated agency; the Justice Department and other entities already handle similar oversight. Moreover, the word “education” appears nowhere in the US Constitution. The department’s very existence arguably violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.
The evidence against federal involvement is damning. Since the department’s inception, Washington has poured about $3 trillion into K-12 education. Achievement gaps between rich and poor students haven’t closed, and in many cases, they’ve widened. Overall academic outcomes have stagnated or declined. Per-student spending, adjusted for inflation, has surged 108% since 1980, yet test scores remain flat. The US spends more per pupil than nearly any other developed nation, but our results are an international embarrassment.
The Trump administration has already taken decisive action to chip away at this failed experiment. They’ve slashed millions in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants that promote division rather than learning. Thousands of department employees have been let go, streamlining operations and cutting costs. The unions are probably gearing up to sue over these latest interagency agreements. But they tried that before – challenging the administration’s personnel reductions – and lost at the Supreme Court. The chief executive has clear authority to manage the executive branch, and the unions would likely face another defeat if they push this latest move to litigation.
It’s time to end the charade. The Department of Education focuses on control rather than helping kids. By dispersing its functions and proving the sky won’t fall, the Trump team is paving the way for real reform. America’s students deserve better than a federal fiefdom beholden to special interests. Let’s send education back where it belongs: to the states, the localities, and the families who know their children best.
In an era where “democratic socialism” has gained renewed traction among politicians, activists, and intellectuals, one might assume the term carries a clear, operational meaning. Yet, a closer examination reveals a concept shrouded in ambiguity, often serving as a rhetorical shield rather than a blueprint for policy.
Proponents often invoke it to promise equality and democracy without the baggage of historical socialist failures, but this vagueness undermines serious discourse. Precise definitions are essential for theoretical, empirical, and philosophical scrutiny. Without them, democratic socialism risks becoming little more than a feel-good label, evading accountability while potentially eroding the very freedoms it claims to uphold.
The Historical Consensus on Socialism: State Ownership and Its Perils
During the socialist calculation debate of the early twentieth century, a clash between Austrian economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and their socialist counterparts, including Oscar Lange and Abba Lerner, the consensus definition of socialism was straightforward: state ownership of the means of production. As I demonstrate in my coauthored paper, “The Road to Serfdom and the Definitions of Socialism, Planning, and the Welfare State, 1930-1950,” this understanding was shared not only by critics but also by the socialist intellectuals of the time.
Socialism, in this context, entailed the state directing resources through planning, often requiring ownership to fund expansive welfare programs. This definition is crucial for interpreting Hayek’s seminal work, The Road to Serfdom (1944), which posits a unique threat to democracy arising from state ownership of the means of production. Hayek argued that central planning inevitably concentrates power, leading to authoritarianism as planners override individual choices to meet arbitrary goals. Far from a slippery slope toward any government intervention, Hayek’s warning targeted the specific dynamics of state-owned economies, where the absence of market prices stifles the flow of information and the structuring of incentives, ultimately endangering democratic institutions. Using this definition, my coauthors and I, in our paper “You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Chains?” empirically test and confirm Hayek’s hypothesis that democratic freedoms cannot be sustained under socialism.
Economists working in this tradition, from Mises to contemporary scholars, retain this rigorous definition. It serves as a foundation for understanding why socialist systems have repeatedly faltered: without private ownership of the means of production, rational economic calculation becomes impossible, resulting in waste, shortages, and coercion.
The Vagueness and Contradictions of Modern Socialist Rhetoric
Contrast this clarity with the approach of many contemporary socialists, including those advocating democratic variants. Definitions of socialism often shift, praised in moments of perceived success and disowned when failures mount. This pattern is not new; it has recurred across a range of historical experiments, from the Soviet Union to Venezuela. Kristian Niemietz’s Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies offers a comprehensive review of socialist rhetoric that highlights this inconsistency: regimes are initially hailed as “true” socialism, such as “worker-led” and “democratic,” only to be retroactively labeled as distortions or “state capitalism” once repression and economic stagnation emerge.
When Hugo Chavez introduced socialism in Venezuela in 2005, he claimed that he was re-inventing socialism so as to avoid the outcomes of the Soviet Union, stating that they would “develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition.” And that they “cannot resort to state capitalism.” Bernie Sanders famously endorsed this socialism, saying that the American dream was more likely to be realized in places like Venezuela and calling the United States a banana republic in comparison. Nobel laureate economist Joe Stiglitz was quick to point out the “very impressive” growth rates and the eradication of poverty. But socialism in Venezuela, according to the state ownership of the economy measure from Varieties of Democracy, corresponded to the classic definition of socialism, leading to the very blackouts, empty grocery shelves, and suppression of political freedom socialists explicitly sought to avoid.
This vagueness extends to democratic socialism today. Proponents often speak in lofty terms, such as “workplace democracy,” without specifying policies. Such abstractions allow evasion of empirical evidence. By rendering the concept unfalsifiable, socialists can dismiss critiques as attacks on straw men, perpetuating debates that stall progress. If democratic socialists insist on reclaiming the term “socialism,” as distinct from the technical term used by economists, the burden falls on them to explicitly state their divergence and provide a concrete definition amenable to empirical testing.
The Imperative of Precision for Empirical and Philosophical Inquiry
A precise definition is not mere pedantry; it is the prelude to meaningful investigation. To enable cross-country comparisons, socialism must be defined through specific policies, not vague platitudes. What exact measures constitute this vision? Some socialists point to the Nordic countries as their model, but these countries have important differences between them. And, if a country is the model, then democratic socialists must consistently advocate for all the policies in that country, including those that might contradict their ideals, such as flexible labor markets or low corporate taxes. The Nordic countries, as measured by state ownership of the economy, are capitalist. Similarly, as measured by Fraser Economic Freedom of the World Index, they are also some of the most economically free.
Empirical literature in economics often examines the effects of specific policies in isolation, separate from the discussion of comparative economic systems, revealing trade-offs often ignored by democratic socialists. Minimum wage laws, for example, often supported by unions, can reduce employment opportunities, particularly for low-skilled workers and minorities. Prevailing wage requirements, pushed by unions, may inflate costs and exclude smaller firms, suppressing economic mobility and also having racially disparate economic impacts.
Philosophical debates demand equal rigor. Consider unions, a cornerstone of many democratic socialist platforms. Do proponents support open ballot laws, which protect workers from intimidation during union votes, or do they favor secret ballots to ensure true democracy? Exempting unions—as labor cartels—from antitrust laws raises concerns: why allow monopolistic practices that could hike prices and limit competition, regressively harming consumers? If a national or subnational electorate democratically enacts right-to-work laws, preventing closed-shop unions, should this override a workplace vote? Such questions expose potential anti-democratic undercurrents, where “worker democracy” might privilege special interests over broader societal choice.
These inconsistencies highlight a deeper issue: democratic socialism often conflates social democracy – market economies with robust safety nets – with true socialism, diluting the latter’s radical edge while inheriting its definitional baggage. Without clarity, it risks repeating history’s errors, where good intentions devolve into coercion.
Toward Clarity and Accountability
Democratic socialism’s appeal lies in its promise of equity without tyranny, but its vagueness invites skepticism. Only by adhering to historical definitions and demanding specificity can we foster advancement in these debates. What policies do democratic socialists argue for exactly? How will they avoid the pitfalls of past experiments in socialism, which often started with the noblest of intentions? Until answered, democratic socialism remains an elusive mirage.
The global pharmaceutical market is set to surpass a total value of US$1.75 trillion by the end of the decade, according to Evaluate Pharma.
Experienced and novice investors alike may want to consider pharmaceutical exchange-traded funds (ETFs) as a way to gain exposure to the top pharma companies. Like all ETFs, pharmaceutical ETFs are a good option for those who want to trade a set of assets in the pharmaceutical industry instead of focusing solely on individual pharmaceutical stocks.
The main advantage of a pharmaceutical ETF is the fact that it can provide exposure to an overarching sector, but still trades like a stock. Pharma ETFs also offer less market volatility and lower fees and expenses.
Big Pharma ETFs
Many of these funds have diverse holdings across some of the most important sectors in the pharmaceutical industry, including pain therapeutics, oncology, vaccines and biotechnology. Data was gathered on November 20, 2025.
1. VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF (NASDAQ:PPH)
Total assets under management: US$1.15 billion
Established in late 2011, the VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF tracks the MVIS US Listed Pharmaceutical 25 Index. It has the capacity to provide big returns, even though there are some risks attached to the ETF. An analyst report indicates that investors looking for ‘tactical exposure’ to the pharma sector might consider this ETF as an investment option.
The ETF has 26 holdings, with the top five being Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY), Novartis (NYSE:NVS), Merck & Company (NYSE:MRK), Novo Nordisk (NYSE:NVO) and the McKesson (NYSE:MCK).
2. iShares US Pharmaceuticals ETF (ARCA:IHE)
Total assets under management: US$669.2 million
Created on May 5, 2006, the iShares US Pharmaceuticals ETF tracks some of the top US pharma companies. In total, the iShares US Pharmaceuticals ETF has 45 holdings, with the vast majority being large-cap stocks.
Of its holdings, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and Eli Lilly are by far the largest portions in its portfolio, combining for nearly 50 percent, followed by Merck, Royalty Pharma (NASDAQ:RPRX) and Viatris (NASDAQ:VTRS).
3. Invesco Pharmaceuticals ETF (ARCA:PJP)
Total assets under management: US$299.48 million
The Invesco Pharmaceuticals ETF is primarily focused on providing exposure to US-based pharma companies. An analyst report states that this ETF chooses individual securities based on certain investment criteria, namely stock valuation and risk factors.
This ETF was started on June 23, 2005, and currently tracks 31 companies. Its top holdings are Eli Lilly, Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN), Johnson & Johnson, Merck and AbbVie (NYSE:ABBV).
4. State Street SPDR S&P Pharmaceuticals ETF (ARCA:XPH)
Total assets under management: US$189.93 million
The State Street SPDR S&P Pharmaceuticals ETF came into the market on June 19, 2006, and represents the pharmaceutical sub-industry sector of the S&P Total Market Index (INDEXSP:SPTMI).
This pharma ETF tracks 52 holdings, with relatively close weighting among its holdings, a fact that sets it apart from other entries on this list. XPH’s top five holdings are Jazz Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:JAZZ), Tarsus Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:TARS), Eli Lilly, Ligand Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:LGND), and Crinetics Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:CRNX).
5. KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF (ARCA:KURE)
Total assets under management: US$95.29 million
The KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF was launched in February 2018 and tracks an index of large- and mid-cap Chinese stocks in the healthcare sector, all weighted by market capitalization. According to an analyst report, the fund provides investors with ‘exposure to a relatively small slice of the Chinese economy.’
The ETF tracks 50 holdings, and its top five are BeOne Medicines (NASDAQ:ONC), Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine (SHA:600276), Innovent Biologics (HKEX:1801), WuXi Biologics (HKEX:2269) and Sino Biopharmaceutical (HKEX:1177).
Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no investment interest in any of the companies mentioned in this article.
Speaking at Benchmark Week, Iola Hughes, head of battery research at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, outlined a market that is undergoing “very strong growth’ and becoming indispensable to energy security.
Hughes described energy storage as the fastest-growing segment in the battery sector today.
Benchmark expects the market to expand by roughly 44 percent this year, nearly doubling the growth rate of overall lithium-ion battery demand, which is projected at 25 percent.
As a result, energy storage is set to account for a quarter of total battery demand in 2025.
Global battery energy storage system deployment, 2022 to 2025.
Photo via Georgia Williams.
In the US, the trend is even more pronounced.
“We’re expecting energy storage to account for 35 to 40 percent of battery demand in the US in the next few years,” Hughes told the audience at the California-based conference. That shift is reshaping the supply chain, chemistry choices and the strategic priorities of both policymakers and manufacturers.
LFP chemistry takes center stage
The rise of utility-scale storage has in many respects become the story for lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistry.
LFP’s lower cost, strong performance profile and “dominance … on behalf of the innovation we’ve seen in LFP cells over the last few years” make it the chemistry of choice, Hughes said.
The cost advantage of LFP batteries is especially significant at a moment when policymakers are tightening sourcing standards and examining supply chains for vulnerabilities. Add to that the supply chain complexities associated with nickel, cobalt and manganese (NCM) chemistries and the LFP segment again stands out.
Despite rapid deployment, grid storage remains highly concentrated, with China and the US together representing 87 percent of all global installations to date. But that dominance may be tested sooner than expected.
Hughes pointed to Saudi Arabia, which “a year ago wasn’t even on this chart,” yet deployed 11 gigawatt hours of storage in just the first three months of this year. “It really goes to show just how early this market is,” she said.
New regions can move from nonexistent to major players “in a matter of months.”
That acceleration is directly linked to plunging costs.
Fully integrated storage systems in China are now sold below US$100 per kilowatt-hour, a milestone that dramatically strengthens project economics, even in environments where subsidies or tax supports have been reduced.
US energy storage market booming
Storage deployment in the US continues to surge, led by California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico.
New Mexico’s rise is particularly telling, according to Hughes.
“New Mexico being the fifth largest state … is just two or three projects,” she noted. That underscores just how early the US storage market still is, and how quickly major projects can reshape state-level capacity.
Hughes also said very large installations are becoming increasingly central. Benchmark defines “giga-scale” projects as those exceeding 1 gigawatt hour, once an industry novelty. Now they are transforming demand patterns.
“This year, we’re expecting nine of these to come online, accounting for 20 percent of battery demand,” Hughes said. By next year, 21 more are in the pipeline, accounting for nearly 40 percent of expected demand.
However, the US policy landscape is shifting. The Inflation Reduction Act’s investment tax credit remains intact for storage, but now comes with stricter sourcing rules for both cells and systems.
That has triggered a rush to secure US-eligible supply, particularly for LFP. The number of announced LFP gigafactories jumped 61 percent between January and November of this year.
Much of that new capacity is being driven by Korean manufacturers such as LG Electronics (KRX:066570), SK Innovation (KRX:096770) and Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930,OTC Pink:SSNLF).
Even so, manufacturers still face a major challenge in qualifying for the Section 45X production tax credit as cathode and precursor supply remains heavily dependent on China.
“That is definitely the biggest pinch point right now for the energy storage sector,” Hughes said.
Electricity demand set to surge in the US
The storage boom is tied to a deeper structural shift: electricity demand is rising after 15 years of stagnation.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, US electricity demand has been “basically flat,” Hughes said, as a result of offshored manufacturing and limited grid investment. But that stagnation is ending as artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, electrified heating, electric vehicle adoption and reshored industrial capacity drive consumption sharply higher.
Benchmark now expects 20 to 30 percent growth in US electricity demand by 2030. That surge “has very strong implications for the grid, for energy security,” Hughes noted, and puts storage “at the center of that conversation.”
Large language models and AI hyperscalers are quickly becoming a dominant force. While data centers have existed for decades, the new generation requires far greater power — and, increasingly, on-site battery storage.
“These large projects are the ones that are going to be having high requirements for batteries” in the coming years, Hughes said, with the US positioned as the global epicenter of AI-driven load growth.
Beyond LFP: The next storage frontier
Looking ahead, chemistry innovation will shape how storage supports the grid at different durations.
LFP is expected to remain the clear winner in four hour applications, while sodium-ion compositions could emerge as a disruptor in the same range. Between four and 10 hours, LFP is increasingly pushing out technologies like flow batteries and sodium-sulfur batteries due to cost advantages. Beyond 10 hours, a new suite of technologies is still in development, with US companies particularly active in that long-duration space.
As Hughes concluded, the role of storage is only growing.
With electricity demand accelerating and policy tightening, battery systems have moved from a peripheral technology to a strategic necessity, and the global energy transition is quickly reshaping around them.
Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Surface Metals Inc. (CSE: SUR,OTC:SURMF) (OTCQB: SURMF) (the ‘Company’, or ‘Surface Metals’) announced today that the Company has closed a first tranche of its non-brokered private placement financing, previously announced on October 20, 2025. The Company issued 1,600,000 units (the ‘Units’) at $0.20 CAD per Unit for aggregate gross proceeds of $320,000 CAD.
Each Unit is comprised of one (1) common share and one-half of one (1) transferable common share purchase warrant, with each whole warrant entitling the holder to purchase one additional common share at a price of $0.40 for two (2) years from closing of the Offering.
The Issuer intends to use the proceeds of the offering to fund technical work at its Nevada gold and lithium projects, as well as for general working capital purposes.
Finder’s fee of $10,500 and 52,500 finder’s warrants were paid to arm’s lengths parties in connection with the Offering (each finder’s warrant exercisable on the same terms as the warrants forming part of the Units).
All securities that are issued pursuant to the offering are subject to, among other things, a hold period of four months and one day in accordance with applicable Canadian securities laws.
About Surface Metals Inc.
Surface Metals Inc. (CSE: SUR,OTC:SURMF) (OTCQB: SURMF) is a North American mineral exploration company focused on advancing a diversified portfolio of gold and lithium projects in Nevada, USA, and Manitoba, Canada. The Company’s Cimarron Gold Project is located in Nye County, Nevada, in a historically productive gold district. It’s Clayton Valley Lithium Brine Project hosts an inferred resource of approximately 302,900 tonnes LCE adjacent to Albemarle’s Silver Peak Mine. Surface Metals also holds additional lithium assets in Fish Lake Valley, Nevada, and through a joint venture with Snow Lake Energy in southeastern Manitoba.
On behalf of the Board of Directors,
Steve Hanson Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director Telephone: (604) 564-9045 info@surfacemetals.com
Neither the CSE nor its regulations service providers accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release. This news release contains certain statements which may constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws (‘forward-looking statements’). These include statements regarding the amount of funds to be raised under the Offering, and the use of such funds. There is no guarantee the Offering will be completed on the terms outlined above, or at all. Use of funds is subject to the discretion of the Company’s board of directors, and as such may be used for purposes other than as set out above. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise.
NOT FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES OR FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. WIRE SERVICES
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/276222
Corazon Mining Ltd (ASX:CZN) (‘Corazon’ or ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the granting of two key tenements at its Two Pools Gold Project (‘Two Pools’ or the ‘Project’) in the Gascoyne region of Western Australia (Figure 1). 
South Harz Potash Limited (SHP:AU) has announced Investor Presentation Scandinavian Copper-Gold Project
Aurum Resources (AUE:AU) has announced Aurum completes $22.98M Montage share sale
Altech Batteries (ATC:AU) has announced Altech – Board and Management Changes
