Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Latest News

Mike Johnson says House GOP working full steam ahead on Trump’s ‘affordability agenda’

No Comments

Making life more affordable for Americans will be a key part of House Republicans’ remaining agenda for this Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Friday.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, the leader of the House of Representatives acknowledged there was a ‘short amount of time’ for lawmakers to be in D.C. before the end of this year but said they would be working toward a number of goals, including President Donald Trump’s ‘affordability’ agenda.

‘We have a lot of executive orders that we want to continue to codify through the end of the year. We’re still doing regulatory reform to end the Biden-era regulations. We did some of that this week,’ Johnson said.

‘There’s a lot of initiatives left on the table, things for us to do and a short amount of time to do it in.  But we’re really bullish about the ideas that we’re bringing forward over the next few weeks and in the coming months about reducing the cost of living.’

He said ‘affordability’ was ‘the buzzword of the day.’

‘We have an affordability agenda, as the president has been touting, and we have to do that in earnest. Healthcare is part of that. But it’s just the costs across the board,’ Johnson said.

He blamed the previous Democratic administration’s policies for the high cost of living seen today, arguing former President Joe Biden approved policies that led to higher inflation.

‘We the people rightfully revolted against that, and gave us the power again in January. But the economy is a very complex thing, you don’t flip a switch and just change it all in one week. It takes a while,’ Johnson said.

The beginning of Biden’s term was marked by record-high inflation, but that eased somewhat as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly subsided. Throughout his four years, however, the rise in consumer prices outpaced average wage growth, according to a Texas A&M University analysis.

Republicans promised to lower the cost of living when they took over the levers of power in Washington earlier this year. Johnson said a hallmark of that was Trump’s ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill Act,’ since rebranded as the ‘working families’ tax cut.’

‘By the time we get into the first and second quarter of next year, as Treasury Secretary Bessent has said, we should have an economic boom because of all of these pieces will be coming into play. Taxes will be lower, no tax on tips and overtime, lower taxes on seniors. And then there’ll be more investment because we have all the pro-growth policies and tax policies that will allow the job creators, entrepreneurs, risk-takers, innovators to do what they do,’ Johnson argued.

‘Everything I just described will happen in due time, and it will. So we’re very bullish about it.’

Republicans are also expected to spend the next several weeks working on a healthcare package aimed at lowering sky-high premiums many Americans face, while also seeking to reform what they see as a badly flawed Obamacare system.

Several House committees are also expected to advance legislation in the coming weeks focused on lowering energy costs, including fixing an outdated system for permitting new energy projects.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Economy

The Gold Standard, Explained

No Comments

Introduction

The gold standard was a monetary system that defined a unit of a nation’s currency as a fixed weight of gold and made the two mutually exchangeable. For much of modern history, several versions of this pairing served as the foundation of global trade and finance. Under the gold standard, governments promised to redeem paper money for a defined amount of gold on demand, which made the value of currencies stable and predictable. That stability fueled unprecedented global integration, linking the prosperity of many nations through the shared economic logic of gold.

The gold standard was largely abandoned during the twentieth century, but debate over its virtues and flaws endures. Supporters see it as a bulwark against inflation and government overspending; critics call it too rigid for modern economies. Understanding what the gold standard was, how it worked, and why it fell out of favor helps to clarify not only a pivotal era in economic history but also recurring arguments about money, fiscal discipline, and currency stability. 

What Is the Gold Standard?

Under an active gold standard, a country defines its currency as equivalent toa specific weight of gold. Governments or central banks advertise willingness to buy or sell gold at that fixed price, ensuring that paper money is “as good as gold.” When the United States adopted the classical gold standard, one dollar equaled about one-twentieth of an ounce of gold. Anyone could, in theory, exchange paper currency for that amount of metal. 

This convertibility linked every participating currency to gold, and to one another, creating a system of fixed exchange rates. A dollar, a pound, or a franc all represented certain weights of gold, making international trade and investment far more predictable. Because the supply of gold changed only slowly, the total amount of money governments could print was naturally limited. That constraint is what advocates of the gold standard consider its greatest strength: it restricted governments from printing money without real value behind it. 

Over time, the gold standard evolved in several forms. The gold specie standard, dominant in the nineteenth century, involved coins made of gold circulating alongside paper notes that were fully redeemable for gold. After World War I, many nations moved to a gold bullion standard, in which paper money could be exchanged for large bars of gold held by central banks, but gold coins disappeared from daily use. Later, the gold exchange standard — most notably the Bretton Woods system after 1944 — linked national currencies indirectly to gold through reserve currencies such as the US dollar. Each version reflected an attempt to preserve gold’s stability while adapting to changing political and economic conditions. 

How the Gold Standard Worked

The gold standard operated through a simple but powerful mechanism: every unit of currency was a claim on a fixed quantity of gold held by the issuing authority. Central banks or treasuries maintained gold reserves to back that commitment. When a country ran a trade surplus, gold flowed in; when it ran a deficit, gold flowed out. These movements automatically regulated domestic money supplies and prices. 

This dynamic was captured in the price-specie flow mechanism, first described by the nineteenth-century economist David Hume. If a nation imported more than it exported, gold left the country to pay for those goods. The resulting contraction of the money supply reduced prices and wages, making exports cheaper and imports dearer until balance was restored. Conversely, gold inflows expanded the money supply and lifted prices, damping exports and stimulating imports. In theory, this automatic adjustment kept the global economy in equilibrium without the need for government manipulation. 

The gold standard’s self-correcting nature was both a discipline and a constraint. Governments could not simply expand credit or pursue inflationary spending without risking a drain of gold reserves. At the same time, this rigidity left little room for active responses to recession, war, or financial panic. 

By the late nineteenth century, the major industrial nations — Britain, Germany, France, Japan, and the United States — had adopted this system. Their currencies were convertible into gold at fixed rates, creating what historians call the classical gold standard (1870s–1914). The resulting predictability underpinned an era of extraordinary growth in trade, capital flows, and industrialization. 

Advantages of the Gold Standard

A number of benefits distinguished the gold standard from later fiat-money systems.

Price Stability 

Because gold production increases only slowly, the total supply of money expands at a slow and generally steady pace. This natural limitation kept long-term inflation low. Over decades, average prices under the classical gold standard remained remarkably stable, especially when compared to the persistent inflation of the fiat-currency era. 

Predictability and Confidence 

The promise that paper money could be converted into gold made currencies credible. Businesses could plan investments and trade agreements without fearing sudden currency devaluations. Fixed exchange rates reduced uncertainty in international commerce and encouraged the flow of capital across borders. 

Fiscal and Monetary Discipline 

Linking money creation to gold restrained governments from overspending or financing deficits by printing currency. Monetary policy was effectively automatic: a nation could not expand its money supply unless it acquired more gold. For this reason, advocates view the gold standard as a guardrail against political manipulation of money and a deterrent to reckless borrowing. 

Promotion of International Trade 

A universal gold anchor simplified exchange and reduced transaction costs. With stable exchange rates, traders and investors faced fewer risks, and international settlements could be made in a currency recognized everywhere. 

Protection Against Manipulation 

Unlike modern systems, in which central banks can devalue currencies or engage in “quantitative easing,” the gold standard made competitive devaluations and “currency wars” far more difficult. Its rules constrained the temptation to seek economic advantage through monetary distortion. 

Encouragement of Saving and Investment 

Stable prices preserved the purchasing power of money, fostering an environment in which long-term planning, capital accumulation, and thrift were rewarded. Investors could rely on real returns rather than on nominal gains eroded by inflation.

To the gold standard’s defenders, these traits explain why the classical gold standard coincided with rapid industrialization, robust trade expansion, and rising living standards across much of the world. 

Alleged Disadvantages of the Gold Standard: A Balanced Examination

Critics of the gold standard see those same features — discipline and rigidity — as liabilities. But many alleged flaws reflect implementation failures or modern misinterpretations, rather than inherent defects. 

Inflexibility and Limited Policy Response 

Opponents argue that tying money to gold prevents governments and central banks from acting decisively during crises. Under the gold standard, expanding the money supply or lowering interest rates risked losing gold reserves. Supporters counter that this discipline prevented the political misuse of money and forced governments to confront fiscal realities instead of masking them with currency inflation. 

Deflationary Tendencies 

Because gold supplies grow slowly, economies under the standard could face mild deflation during periods of rapid productivity growth. Critics warn that falling prices increase debt burdens and discourage investment. Much of this “deflation,” however, was of the benign kind — reflecting efficiency gains rather than collapsing demand — and often coincided with strong economic growth. 

Vulnerability to Gold Supply Shocks 

The discovery of new gold deposits could modestly increase money supplies, while scarcity could constrain growth. Still, such changes were gradual and predictable (about one percent per year) compared with the abrupt inflationary shocks that fiat regimes can unleash through policy error or political expediency. 

Constraints on Growth 

Some economists claim that a gold-based system limits credit creation. Historically, however, banking systems developed fractional-reserve practices that allowed credit to expand well beyond physical gold holdings, so long as public confidence remained intact. The industrial revolutions of Britain, Germany, and the United States unfolded entirely under gold-linked regimes. 

Difficult International Coordination 

The interwar period demonstrated how uneven adherence to gold rules could destabilize the system. Yet the problem lay in inconsistent policies — overvalued currencies, protectionist trade barriers, and poor coordination — rather than in gold itself. 

Exposure to Crises 

Some have claimed that the gold standard worsened bank runs by restricting emergency liquidity. But under the classical system, private clearinghouses often filled that role effectively by issuing temporary certificates and policing member banks. Such crises also occur under fiat systems; their frequency since 1971 suggests that discretion is no panacea. 

Historical Instability 

The Great Depression is often cited as proof that the gold standard was fatally flawed. In fact, many economists — including Barry Eichengreen and Milton Friedman — acknowledge that poor policy choices, such as Britain’s overvalued return to pre-war parity and the Federal Reserve’s inaction in 1931-33, deepened the downturn. Nations that left gold earlier — like Britain in 1931 — recovered faster than those that clung rigidly to it. The failure was less about gold itself than about governments’ unwillingness to adapt intelligently. 

In short, while the gold standard imposed constraints, many of its supposed defects stemmed from mismanagement or misunderstanding. Every monetary system involves trade-offs; gold’s discipline may appear harsh, but it also forestalled the chronic inflation and debt accumulation that define modern economies. 

Rise of the Gold Standard

Gold has served as money for millennia because of its scarcity, divisibility, and durability. Ancient civilizations used gold coins as units of account and stores of value, but the formal linkage between gold and national currencies developed gradually with the rise of modern banking.

In early modern Europe, goldsmiths issued paper receipts for stored metal, which began circulating as money. The realization that not all depositors redeemed their gold simultaneously led to fractional-reserve banking — a key innovation that allowed credit expansion beyond physical reserves. 

Britain was the first major nation to codify a gold standard, officially adopting it in 1821 after years of wartime inflation. Its global influence ensured that others followed: Germany in 1871, the United States in 1879, France and Japan soon thereafter. By the 1870s, the classical gold standard had become the backbone of international finance. Currencies were freely convertible into gold, exchange rates were fixed, and trade imbalances were corrected through automatic gold flows. 

This system coincided with rapid globalization. Capital moved freely, shipping and communication costs fell, and international investment flourished. The gold standard’s credibility helped unify the world economy in a way unmatched until late in the twentieth century. 

Collapse of the Gold Standard

The end of the gold standard came not from economic theory, but from the pressures of war, depression, and political expedience. 

World War I (1914) 

The classical gold standard’s first collapse came when belligerent nations suspended convertibility to finance massive military spending. Paper money flooded economies, and inflation followed. By the war’s end, the system was in tatters. 

The Interwar Gold Exchange (or “Managed”) Standard (1919–1933) 

After the war, several nations tried to restore the pre-war order. Britain returned to gold in 1925 at its old parity, overvaluing the pound and triggering deflation. Other countries followed with similar missteps, attempting to maintain gold convertibility without the fiscal discipline that had once supported it. The result was a fragile and uncoordinated system that collapsed under the strain of the Great Depression. Britain abandoned gold in 1931; the United States followed in 1933 for domestic use, though it maintained limited international convertibility. 

The Bretton Woods System (1944–1971) 

In the wake of World War II, nations sought a more flexible gold-based order. The Bretton Woods agreement pegged other currencies to the US dollar, while the dollar itself was convertible into gold at $35 per ounce. For two decades, the system promoted stability and growth. Yet in its success were the seeds of its downfall. As global trade expanded, the supply of dollars grew far faster than US gold reserves. Massive spending on the military in Vietnam and on expansive social programs at home fueled deficits and inflation. Confidence in the dollar waned. 

In August 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the dollar’s convertibility into gold — a moment known as the Nixon Shock. Within two years, the world’s major economies had shifted to floating exchange rates. By 1973, the gold standard, in all its forms, had come to an end. 

Conclusion

The gold standard shaped global economic history for nearly two centuries. It imposed a clear, transparent rule linking money to a tangible asset, thereby restraining inflation and curbing political manipulation. That very discipline, however, proved incompatible with the fiscal demands of modern warfare, welfare states, and activist monetary policy. 

The shift to fiat money systems brought flexibility to spend more but also chronic inflation, recurring financial crises, and rising public debt. Today, few economists advocate a full return to gold, recognizing that the scale and complexity of global finance make it impractical. But the gold standard remains a touchstone in debates over monetary integrity, symbolizing a time when money was anchored in something real — and when the value of currency depended less on trust in the discretion of governments than on the weight of a metal measured in ounces. 

Even if the world never returns to a gold-based system, understanding how it worked — and why it failed — offers enduring lessons. Stability and discipline come at a cost, but so does the freedom to create money without constraint. The long arc of monetary history suggests that neither extreme provides a permanent answer, yet the gold standard endures as a benchmark against which every modern experiment is, in some sense, still judged.

References

Bordo, M. D., & Schwartz, A. J. (Eds.). (1984). A Retrospective on the Classical Gold Standard, 1821–1931. University of Chicago Press. 

Bordo, M. D. (1981). The classical gold standard: Some lessons for today. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 63(5), 2–17. 

Eichengreen, B. (1996). Globalizing Capital: A History of the International Monetary System (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. 

Eichengreen, B., & Sachs, J. (1985). Exchange rates and economic recovery in the 1930s. Journal of Economic History, 45(4), 925–946. 

Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. Princeton University Press. 

Luther, W. J., & Earle, P. C. (2021). The Gold Standard: Retrospect and Prospect. 

Menger, C. (1892). On the origin of money. Economic Journal, 2(6), 239–255. 

Officer, L. H. (2008). The price of gold and the exchange rate since 1791. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(1), 115–134. 

Rockoff, H. (1984). Drastic Measures: A History of Wage and Price Controls in the United States. Cambridge University Press. 

Smith, V. (1990). The Rationale of Central Banking and the Free Banking Alternative (L. H. White, Ed.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1936)

by
Read More
In Economy

America’s Next Industrial Geography: Wherever the Power Is Cheap

No Comments

On Capitol Hill this week, five Democratic senators accused the Trump administration of “sweetheart deals with Big Tech” that have “driven up power bills for ordinary Americans.” 

Their letter, addressed to the White House, faulted the administration for allowing data-center operators to consume “massive new volumes of electricity without sufficient safeguards for consumers or the climate.”

But the senators’ complaint points to a deeper reality neither party can ignore: artificial intelligence is changing America’s energy economy faster than policy can adapt. Every conversation with ChatGPT, every AI-generated image, every search query now runs through vast new physical infrastructure — data centers — that consume more electricity than some nations. 

The world’s appetite for digital intelligence is colliding with its appetite for cheap, reliable power. 

A New Industrial Landscape 

The anonymous-looking gray boxes—bigger than football fields—rising across Virginia, Texas, and the Arizona desert look like nothing special from the highway. Inside, however, they house the machinery of the new economy: tens of thousands of high-end processors performing trillions of calculations per second. These are the “intelligence factories,” where neural networks are trained, deployed, and refined — and where America’s energy system is pushed to its limits and beyond. 

“People talk about the cloud as if it were ethereal,” energy analyst Jason Bordoff said recently. “But it’s as physical as a steel mill — and it runs on megawatts.” 

According to the Pew Research Center, US data centers consumed about 183 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2024 — some 4 percent of total US power use, and about the same as Pakistan. By 2030, that figure could exceed 426 TWh, more than double today’s level. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that, worldwide, data-center electricity demand will double again by 2026, growing four times faster than total global power demand. 

The driver is artificial intelligence. Training and running large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and other models requires enormous computing clusters powered by specialized chips — notably Nvidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs). Each new generation of AI systems multiplies power requirements. OpenAI’s GPT-4 reportedly demanded tens of millions of dollars’ worth of electricity just to train. Multiply that by hundreds of companies now racing to build their own AI models, and the implications for the grid are staggering. 

Where the Power Is Going 

The American and global epicenter (for now) of this new build-out remains Loudoun County, Virginia — nicknamed “Data Center Alley” — where nearly 30 percent of that county’s electricity now flows to data facilities. Virginia’s utilities estimate that data centers consume more than a quarter of the whole state’s total generation.

Elsewhere in America, the story is similar. Microsoft’s burgeoning data center complex near Des Moines has forced MidAmerican Energy to accelerate new natural-gas generation. Arizona Public Service now plans to build new substations near Phoenix to serve a cluster of AI facilities; Texas grid operator ERCOT says data centers will add 3 gigawatts of demand by 2027. 

And the trend, by the way, isn’t limited to electricity. Most facilities require water for cooling. A single “hyperscale” campus can use billions of gallons per year, prompting local backlash in drought-prone regions.

The Political Blame Game 

Soaring demand has begun to translate into electric-rate filings. US utilities asked for $29 billion in rate increases in the first half of 2025, nearly double the total for the same period last year. Executives cite “data-center growth and grid reinforcement” as drivers. 

And so, we get the letter from Senate Democrats — among them Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse — urging the Department of Energy to impose “efficiency standards” and “consumer protections” before authorizing new power contracts for AI operators. “We cannot allow Silicon Valley’s hunger for compute to be fed by higher bills in the heartland,” they wrote. 

The Trump administration shot back a reply. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “The president will not let bureaucrats throttle America’s leadership in AI or its supply of affordable energy. If the choice is between progress and paralysis, he chooses progress.” 

That framing “progress versus paralysis” captures the larger divide. The administration has prioritized energy abundance, reopening leasing on federal lands, greenlighting LNG export terminals, rolling back environmental restrictions of all kinds, and signaling renewed support for coal and nuclear power. Democrats, fixated on climate commitments, have continued to oppose expanded drilling in Alaska’s Arctic and new offshore projects, while pressing for data centers to run on renewables. 

Powering the AI Boom 

Without continuous electricity, the AI boom falters. Nvidia, Microsoft, and OpenAI are already pushing the limits of available capacity. In April, Microsoft confirmed it will buy power from the planned restart of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 reactor — mothballed since 2019 — to feed its growing data-center fleet in Pennsylvania. “We’re essentially connecting a small city’s worth of demand to the grid,” said an energy executive involved in the project. “Data centers are an order of magnitude larger than anything we’ve built for before.” 

That “small city” reference is not an exaggeration. A single hyperscale facility can draw 100 megawatts — roughly the load of 80,000 households. Dozens of such projects are under construction. 

And while the industry’s largest players are also buying wind and solar power contracts, they admit that renewables alone cannot meet the 24-hour load. “When the model is training, you can’t tell it to pause because the sun set,” one data-center engineer quipped. 

The Economics of Constraint 

From an economic perspective, what matters is not only rising demand but constrained supply. Regulations restricting oil, gas, and pipeline development keep marginal electricity generation expensive. Permitting delays for transmission lines slows the build-out of new capacity. At the same time, federal subsidies distort investment toward intermittent sources that require backup generation — often natural gas — to stabilize the grid. 

A perfect storm of policy contradictions may be brewing: a government that wants both a carbon-neutral grid and dominance in energy-hungry AI. 

“The irony is that the very politicians demanding AI leadership are the ones making it harder to power,” said economist Stephen Moore. “You can’t have artificial intelligence without real energy.” 

In a free market, higher demand would spur rapid expansion of supply. Investors would drill, build, and innovate to capture new profit opportunities. Instead, production and permitting are politically constrained, so prices must rise until demand is choked off. That is the dynamic now visible in electricity bills — and in the Senate’s sudden search for someone to blame. 

The Global Race 

Complicating it all, to say the least, is the geopolitical dimension. China, the European Union, and the Gulf states are racing to build their own AI infrastructure. Beijing’s Ministry of Industry announced plans for 50 new “intelligent computing centers” by 2027, powered largely by coal. In the Middle East, sovereign wealth funds are backing data-center projects co-located with gas fields to guarantee cheap electricity. 

If the US restricts its own energy production, it risks ceding the field. “Energy is now the limiting reagent for AI,” venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote this summer. “Whichever country solves cheap, abundant power wins the century.”

That insight revives old debates about industrial policy. Should Washington subsidize domestic chip foundries and their power plants, or should it clear the regulatory thicket that deters private capital from building both? Innovation thrives on liberty, not mircomanagement. 

The New Factories 

Are data centers so different from factories of the industrial age? They convert raw inputs like electricity, silicon, cooling water, and capital into valuable outputs: trained models and real-time AI services. But unlike the factories of the past, they employ few workers directly. A billion-dollar hyperscale facility may have fewer than 200 staff. That does not sit well with the communities in which the vast data centers are located. The wealth is created upstream and downstream: in chip design, software, and the cascade of productivity gains AI enables. 

Still, the indirect productivity is vast. AI-driven logistics shave fuel costs, AI-assisted medicine accelerates diagnosis, and AI-powered coding tools raises output per worker. But all of it depends on those humming, appallingly noisy, heat-filled halls of servers. As OpenAI’s Sam Altman remarked last year, “A lot of the world gets covered in data centers over time.” 

If true, America’s next great industrial geography will not be steel towns or tech corridors, but the power corridor: regions anywhere that electricity is plentiful, cheap, and politically welcome. 

Already, states like Texas and Georgia are advertising low-cost energy as a lure for AI investment. 

Markets Versus Mandates 

From a free-market perspective, the lesson is straightforward. Economic growth follows energy freedom. When government treats energy as a controlled substance — rationed through regulation, taxed for vice, or distorted by subsidies — innovation slows. When markets are allowed to meet demand naturally, abundance results. 

In the early industrial age, the United States became the world’s workshop because it embraced abundance: of coal, oil, and later electricity. Every new machine and factory depended on those resources, and entrepreneurs supplied them without central direction. Today’s equivalent is the AI data center. Its prosperity depends on letting energy producers compete, invest, and innovate without political interference. 

Politics Ahead 

Over the next year, expect the power issue to dominate AI politics. Democrats will press for efficiency mandates and carbon targets; Republicans will frame energy freedom as essential to national strength. Federal officials already are discussing a kind of “clean AI” certification system tied to renewable sourcing — critics say that could amount to a de facto quota on computer power. 

Meanwhile, utilities are rethinking grid design for a world where data centers behave like factories that never sleep. The market is responding: small, modular nuclear reactors, advanced gas turbines, and geothermal projects are attracting venture funding as potential baseload sources for AI campuses. 

For policymakers, the challenge is to resist the urge to micromanage. As AIER’s scholarship often finds, spontaneous order, not centralized control, produces both efficiency and resilience. Allowing prices to signal scarcity and opportunity will attract the investment necessary to balance America’s energy equation.

The Freedom to Compute 

In the end, the debate over data centers and electricity bills is really about the freedom to compute. The same economic laws that governed the Industrial Revolution still apply: productivity rises when entrepreneurs can transform energy into work — whether mechanical or digital. 

Artificial intelligence may be virtual, but its foundations are unmistakably physical. To sustain the AI boom without bankrupting ratepayers, the United States must choose policies that unleash energy production rather than constrict it. 

The “cloud” will always have a power bill. The question is whether that bill becomes a burden of regulation or a dividend of freedom.

by
Read More
In Investing

Heliostar Drills 83.2m Grading 17.35 g/t Gold from 76.0m and Expands Program to 20,000m

No Comments

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • 83.2m grading 17.35 g/t gold from 76.0 m, including
    • 46.65 m grading 27.35 g/t gold from 88.95 m
  • 70.7m grading 9.38 g/t gold from 49.65 m
  • 92.1 m grading 4.33 g/t gold from 97.1 m
  • 65.2 m grading 5.39 g/t gold from 152.2 m
  • Ana Paula drill program to be extended to 20,000 metres of drilling

Heliostar Metals Ltd. (TSXV: HSTR,OTC:HSTXF) (OTCQX: HSTXF) (FSE: RGG1) (‘Heliostar’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce additional results from the current drill program at its 100% owned Ana Paula project in Guerrero, Mexico. The program aims to convert inferred ounces to higher confidence classifications. It will also support the ongoing Feasibility Study and testing the next exploration targets around the Ana Paula deposit.

Heliostar CEO, Charles Funk, commented, ‘It’s rare to find a deposit that consistently produces 50-100m wide drill intercepts of these gold grades. Ana Paula is wide, high-grade, and shallow, with good underground mining conditions. These factors drive the low $1,011 all in sustaining cost in our new PEA for the project. It will also drive high margins at the project. The current program is focused on upgrading inferred ounces to higher confidence categories and the new data will be incorporated into a Feasibility Study. The lower costs drive a lower cut-off grade in the planned mine that opens the potential for more inferred material conversion. To maximize this opportunity, we will expand the program by 33% to 20,000 metres to allow for more infill and exploration drilling at Ana Paula. Across the Company, we have another study, a Prefeasibility Study for Cerro del Gallo, planned this quarter. We are also drilling at San Agustin and La Colorada. These programs should increase production and unlock the value we see in our deep growth portfolio.’

Drilling Program

Heliostar has completed 44 holes and 12,615 metres drilled to date. Drilling is designed along north-south sections with angled holes to better define the overall east-west orientation of the High Grade Panel. Heliostar’s drilling approach at Ana Paula has been to change the direction of drilling by approximately 90 degrees from the majority of historic intercepts. The Company believes that this change contributed to demonstrating more continuous and higher-grade gold mineralization within the High Grade Panel than recognized by previous operators.

Where appropriate, the holes are also being used to collect rock strength data, hydrogeologic data and samples for further metallurgical studies that will directly influence the Ana Paula mine design in the ongoing Feasibility Study.

Drill Results Summary

Holes AP-25-331, AP-25-333, AP-25-334 and AP-25-336 are resource conversion holes drilled in the central part of the High Grade Panel. Holes AP-25-334 and AP-25-336 were drilled on the same fence, with AP-25-334 targeting the polymictic breccia and hanging wall mineralization, and AP-25-336 targeting the polymictic breccia and footwall mineralization. Hole AP-25-334 intercepted a wide zone of 92.05 metres (‘m’) grading 4.33 grams per tonne (‘g/t’) gold, whilst AP-25-336 returned intervals of 3.2 m at 15.58 g/t gold, 65.15 m at 5.39 g/t and 43.55 m at 4.66 g/t gold with a 3.05 m interval with 24.64 g/t gold.

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/275661_ee215e99b48368f4_003.jpg

Figure 1: Plan Map of the current drill program at Ana Paula

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/275661_ee215e99b48368f4_003full.jpg

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/275661_ee215e99b48368f4_004.jpg

Figure 2: Cross-Section through newly reported holes AP-25-334 and AP-25-336

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7729/275661_ee215e99b48368f4_004full.jpg

Hole AP-25-333 is located 60 m to the east of the above-mentioned fence and returned two high-grade intervals of 26.6 m grading 4.78 g/t gold and 83.2 m grading 17.35 g/t gold. Hole AP-25-331 is a step out 32 m to the southeast and returned a 7.95 m zone grading 7.92 g/t gold and a wide high-grade interval of 70.65 m at 9.38 g/t gold.

Holes AP-25-330, AP-25-332 and AP-25-335A are geotechnical holes for mine development planning and returned assay results in line with expectations, including intervals of 48.5 m of 5.48 g/t gold, 5.2 m of 4.23 g/t gold and 35.55 m of 6.73 g/t gold, respectively.

True widths are unknown. Mineralization at Ana Paula occurs as disseminations or vein stockworks with variable controls including rock porosity, lithology and fault networks.

Drilling continues throughout the High Grade Panel and its less well-defined east and west edges, with assays pending from twelve holes. Two of the drills have begun to target deeper inferred mineralization and the northern exploration zone, which is approximately 250 m north of the High Grade Panel that has two drill holes pending assay.

The next Ana Paula drill results are anticipated to be released in December.

Drilling Results and Coordinates Tables

Table 1: Significant Drill Intersections

Holey From
(metres) 		To
(metres) 		Interval
(metres) 		Au
(g/t) 		Topcut
Au (g/t) 		Hole
Purpose
AP-25-330 45.4 93.9 48.5 5.48 Geotechnical Hole
including 45.4 53.6 8.2 7.41
and 82.3 85.5 3.2 20.8
AP-25-331 29.9 38.85 8.95 7.27 Resource Hole
including 36.0 38.85 2.85 15.5
and 49.65 120.3 70.65 9.38 1
including 59.65 75.0 15.35 18.3
AP-25-332 140.5 145.75 5.25 4.23 Geotechnical Hole
AP-25-333 38.8 65.4 26.6 4.78 4.58 Resource Hole2
including 38.8 44.45 5.65 11.3 10.4 2
and including 59.7 65.4 5.7 9.45
and 76.0 159.2 83.2 17.3 15.8 1,2
including 88.95 135.6 46.65 27.3 24.5 3
and including 146.1 155.3 9.2 9.60
AP-25-334 97.1 189.15 92.05 4.33 Resource Hole
including 98.2 105.85 7.65 8.17
and including 140.15 147.15 7.0 8.49
and including 166.1 180.0 13.9 9.70
AP-25-335A 12.75 21.2 8.45 4.76 Geotechnical Hole
and 45.0 80.55 35.55 6.73
including 45.0 51.7 6.7 11.0
and including 62.2 80.55 18.35 7.94
and 102.6 108.2 5.6 4.67
and 140.55 145.8 5.25 5.01
AP-25-336 25.15 28.35 3.2 15.6 Resource Hole
and 128.35 141.7 13.35 2.50
including 128.35 132.0 3.65 6.85
and 152.2 217.35 65.15 5.39 4.98 4
including 152.2 162.4 10.2 13.6
including 173.8 176.85 3.05 24.6 15.8 4

 

1 Result reported in November 20th Q3, 2025 quarterly news release
2 Top cut to 47 ppm Au based on resource model domains
3 Top cut to 64 ppm Au based on resource model domains
4 Top cut to 38 ppm Au based on resource model domains

Drilling Coordinates Table

Table 2:  Drill Hole Details

Hole ID Easting
(WGS84 Zone 14N) 		Northing
(WGS84 Zone 14N) 		Elevation
(metres) 		Azimuth
(°) 		Inclination
(°) 		Length
(metres)
AP-25-330 410,274 1,997,960 962.6 0 -53 126.0
AP-25-331 410,205 1,998,038 917.7 180 -50 192.0
AP-25-332 410,030 1,998,137 972.8 180 -55 329.4
AP-25-333 410,191 1,998,065 907.1 180 -55 204.0
AP-25-334 410,126 1,998,071 931.8 178 -55 302.0
AP-25-335A 410,254 1,998,038 913.4 180 -46 237.0
AP-25-336 410,128 1,998,121 933.8 180 -55 353.0

 

Ana Paula Preliminary Economic Assessment Note

Heliostar announced the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment on November 6, 2025. References to the results in this release are provided in greater detail here.

Quality Assurance / Quality Control

Drill core is PQ size, and the core is cut in half, with half sent for analysis. Core samples were shipped to ALS Limited in Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Mexico, for sample preparation and for analysis at the ALS laboratory in North Vancouver. The Zacatecas and North Vancouver ALS facilities are ISO/IEC 17025 certified. Gold was assayed by 30-gram fire assay with atomic absorption spectroscopy finish, and overlimits were analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with gravimetric finish.

Control samples comprising certified reference and blank samples were systematically inserted into the sample stream and analyzed as part of the Company’s quality assurance / quality control protocol.

Statement of Qualified Person

Stewart Harris, P.Geo., a Qualified Person, as such term is defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, has reviewed the scientific and technical information that forms the basis for this news release and has approved the disclosure herein. Mr. Harris is employed as Exploration Manager of the Company.

About Heliostar Metals Ltd.

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

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

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

 

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

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This news release includes certain ‘Forward-Looking Statements’ within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and ‘forward-looking information’ under applicable Canadian securities laws. When used in this news release, the words ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘target’, ‘plan’, ‘forecast’, ‘may’, ‘would’, ‘could’, ‘schedule’ and similar words or expressions, identify forward-looking statements or information. These forward-looking statements or information relate to, among other things, show the full extent of the deposit, upgrade and expand the resource base, growing our annual production profile in the near term and bringing additional production online.

Forward-looking statements and forward-looking information relating to the terms and completion of the Facility, any future mineral production, liquidity, and future exploration plans are based on management’s reasonable assumptions, estimates, expectations, analyses and opinions, which are based on management’s experience and perception of trends, current conditions and expected developments, and other factors that management believes are relevant and reasonable in the circumstances, but which may prove to be incorrect. Assumptions have been made regarding, among other things, the receipt of necessary approvals, price of metals; no escalation in the severity of public health crises or ongoing military conflicts; costs of exploration and development; the estimated costs of development of exploration projects; and the Company’s ability to operate in a safe and effective manner and its ability to obtain financing on reasonable terms.

These statements reflect the Company’s respective current views with respect to future events and are necessarily based upon a number of other assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by management, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, political, and social uncertainties and contingencies. Many factors, both known and unknown, could cause actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from the results, performance or achievements that are or may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information and the Company has made assumptions and estimates based on or related to many of these factors. Such factors include, without limitation: precious metals price volatility; risks associated with the conduct of the Company’s mining activities in foreign jurisdictions; regulatory, consent or permitting delays; risks relating to reliance on the Company’s management team and outside contractors; risks regarding exploration and mining activities; the Company’s inability to obtain insurance to cover all risks, on a commercially reasonable basis or at all; currency fluctuations; risks regarding the failure to generate sufficient cash flow from operations; risks relating to project financing and equity issuances; risks and unknowns inherent in all mining projects, including the inaccuracy of reserves and resources, metallurgical recoveries and capital and operating costs of such projects; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties; laws and regulations governing the environment, health and safety; the ability of the communities in which the Company operates to manage and cope with the implications of public health crises; the economic and financial implications of public health crises, ongoing military conflicts and general economic factors to the Company; operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities; employee relations, labour unrest or unavailability; the Company’s interactions with surrounding communities; the Company’s ability to successfully integrate acquired assets; the speculative nature of exploration and development, including the risks of diminishing quantities or grades of reserves; stock market volatility; conflicts of interest among certain directors and officers; lack of liquidity for shareholders of the Company; litigation risk; and the factors identified under the caption ‘Risk Factors’ in the Company’s public disclosure documents. Readers are cautioned against attributing undue certainty to forward-looking statements or forward-looking information. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be anticipated, estimated or intended. The Company does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements or forward-looking information to reflect changes in assumptions or changes in circumstances or any other events affecting such statements or information, other than as required by applicable law.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/275661

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Crypto Market Update: Crypto Fear & Greed Index Hits “Extreme Fear”

No Comments

Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Friday (November 21) as of 9:00 p.m. UTC.

Get the latest insights on Bitcoin, Ether and altcoins, along with a round-up of key cryptocurrency market news.

Bitcoin and Ether price update

Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$84,479.56, down by 2.4 percent over 24 hours. Its lowest price of the day was US$82,623.93, and its highest was US$85,341.10.

Bitcoin price performance, November 21, 2025.

Bitcoin price performance, November 21, 2025.

Chart via TradingView.

Ether (ETH) was at US$2,736.67, down 3.8 percent over 24 hours. Its lowest price on Friday was US$2,685.25 and its highest was US$2,799.63.

Altcoin price update

  • XRP (XRP) was priced at US$1.94, down by 3.3 percent over 24 hours. Its lowest price of the period was US$1.89 and its highest was US$1.99.
  • Solana (SOL) was trading at US$127.23, down by 4.8 percent over 24 hours. Its lowest price of the day was US$124.20 and its highest was US$129.79.

Fear and Greed Index snapshot

CMC’s Crypto Fear & Greed Index plunged to 11, firmly in “extreme fear” and its lowest level since late 2022. Reports of large-scale whale liquidations have added to the uncertainty, amplifying pressure across an already fragile market.

CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index, Bitcoin price and Bitcoin volume.

CMC Crypto Fear and Greed Index, Bitcoin price and Bitcoin volume.

Chart via CoinMarketCap.

Crypto derivatives and market indicators

Open interest in Bitcoin futures declined slightly by 0.98 percent, settling at approximately US$58.67 billion, while Ether futures saw a larger drop of 2.50 percent, closing at US$32.39 billion. This contraction in open interest suggests some unwinding of speculative positions or reduced leverage in the derivatives markets for both leading cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin experienced US$30.48 million in contracts being liquidated, predominantly short positions, whereas Ether had a slightly higher US$32.43 million liquidated, also mostly shorts. This contrasts with recent days, where the vast majority of liquidations were long positions, indicating a shift in market dynamics and trader positioning.

Bitcoin’s relative strength index was low at 31.32, signaling that it is nearing oversold territory, which can often precede a price rebound or a period of consolidation. Its funding rate was recorded at a modestly positive 0.003 percent, indicating a nearly balanced market where long traders pay a small premium to shorts, reflecting moderate bullish sentiment or mild cost for holding long perpetual contracts.

Ether’s funding rate was higher at 0.01 percent, suggesting stronger bullish positioning and higher demand for long exposure in Ether perpetual futures. Generally, positive funding rates imply that longs are paying shorts, signaling optimism about price appreciation. However, considering liquidations skewed toward shorts recently, this could reflect traders attempting to position for a reversal or hedging against potential volatility.

Today’s crypto news to know

Anchorage expands institutional custody and staking support

Anchorage Digital now supports full custody and staking for HYPE tokens across the Hyperliquid ecosystem. Institutions can custody HYPE on HyperEVM and stake on HyperCORE through Anchorage Digital Bank, the only federally chartered crypto bank in the US, as well as through Anchorage Digital Singapore and the self-custody wallet Porto.

Partnering with staking provider Figment, Anchorage now offers a regulated pathway for institutional participation in the Hyperliquid DeFi ecosystem. This expansion also includes custody for additional ERC-20 tokens like Kinetiq, enhancing institutional access to Hyperliquid’s fast-growing blockchain infrastructure.

Crypto lawyer seeks New York attorney general seat

Khurram Dara, a 36-year-old cryptocurrency lawyer with experience at Coinbase Global (NASDAQ:COIN) and Bain Capital Crypto, has announced his candidacy for attorney general in the state of New York.

Dara is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge the incumbent Democrat, Letitia James, in the 2026 election. Dara’s campaign focuses on ending what he calls ‘lawfare,’ the use of legal tactics for political gain, reducing regulatory overreach, especially in the crypto sector and fostering a more business-friendly environment in New York.

Dara holds a JD from Columbia Law and is affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations and crypto advocacy groups. He resides in Brooklyn and will face Republican primary competition from Michael Henry.

BitMine reports strong earnings, plans Ether staking launch

BitMine Immersion Technologies (NYSEAMERICAN:BMNR) announced net income of US$328.2 million for its 2025 fiscal year, with fully diluted earnings per share of US$13.39.

The company also declared an annual dividend of US$0.01 per share, becoming the first large-cap crypto firm to pay a dividend. Notably, BitMine announced plans to launch its ‘Made-in-America Validator Network,’ an Ethereum staking infrastructure, in early 2026 with initial pilot partners selected for testing.

Coinbase rolls out Ether-backed loans

Coinbase has launched a new lending feature for eligible US users.

They will be able borrow up to US$1 million in USDC by using Ether as collateral. The product is integrated with the Morpho protocol on Base, though users interact with it entirely through Coinbase’s interface. Borrowers keep exposure to Ether’s price movements while accessing liquidity without having to sell their holdings.

The service is available across most US states, with the exception of New York due to regulatory requirements.

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

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Rubio claims ‘tremendous amount of progress’ in Ukraine peace talks following Geneva meeting

No Comments

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that discussions over ending the war in Ukraine have entered a productive phase, while claiming ‘a tremendous amount of progress’ had been made.

Following a round of talks with a Ukrainian delegation in Geneva, Switzerland, Rubio told reporters negotiators had ‘a very good day today.’

‘We had a very good day today. I think we made a tremendous amount of progress, even from the last time I spoke to you,’ Rubio said.

‘We began almost three weeks ago with a foundational document that we socialized and ran by both sides, and with input from both sides,’ he said.

Rubio described how negotiators had been refining the 28-point peace framework that outlines potential conditions for a ceasefire and long-term settlement for Ukraine and Russia.

‘Over the last 96 hours or more, there’s been extensive engagement with the Ukrainian side including our Secretary of the Army and others, being on the ground in Kyiv, meeting with relevant stakeholders across the Ukrainian political spectrum in the legislative branch and the executive branch, and the military and others to further sort of narrow these points.’

‘We arrived here today with one goal: to take what – it’s 28 points or 26 points, depending on which version, as it continued to evolve and try to narrow the ones that were open items. And we have achieved that today in a very substantial way,’ he said.

The weekend talks centered on a 28-point plan, which is a framework drafted by the U.S. outlining steps for a possible ceasefire and political settlement.

The document is said to cover security guarantees, territorial control, reconstruction mechanisms, and Ukraine’s long-term relationship with NATO and the EU.

The plan has reportedly evolved through several iterations, narrowing disputes point by point as both sides weigh concessions.

‘Now, obviously, like any final agreement, it’ll have to be agreed upon by the presidents, and there are a couple of issues that we need to continue to work on,’ Rubio clarified.

While declining to specify unresolved issues, Rubio described the moment as ‘delicate.’

‘This is a very delicate moment, and it’s important – like I said, there’s not agreement on those yet.  Some of it is semantics or language; others require higher-level decisions and consultation; others, I think, just need more time to work through,’ he said before touching on some issues.

‘There were some that involved equities or the role of the EU or of NATO or so forth, and those we kind of segregated out because we just met with the national security advisors for various European countries, and those are things we’ll have to discuss with them because it involves them.’

‘I don’t want to declare victory or finality here. There’s still some work to be done,’ he added.

Suggesting there is intent to ensure Ukraine’s security, Rubio said that they all ‘recognize that part of getting a final end to this war will require for Ukraine to feel as if it is safe, and it is never going to be invaded or attacked again.’

‘I honestly believe we’ll get there,’ he said, and when asked about next steps, Rubio said a possible call between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy could happen, adding, ‘I don’t know. It’s possible. I’m not sure.’

‘The deadline is we want to get this done as soon as possible. Obviously, we’d love it to be Thursday,’ he added.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

Locksley Resources LimitedStrengthens US Defence Supply Chain Strategy with New Appointment

No Comments

Perth, Australia (ABN Newswire) – Locksley Resources Ltd (ASX:LKY,OTC:LKYRF) (FRA:X5L) (OTCMKTS:LKYRF) announced the appointment of Ms. Stacy Newstead to its Advisory Board as Strategic Advisor – Materials Strategy.

Stacy Newstead brings U.S. defense materials expertise to advance Locksley’s critical mineral and commercialisation initiatives.

HIGHLIGHTS

– Stacy Newstead appointed as a Strategic Advisor to the Locksley Advisory Board

– Ms Newstead currently serves as Materials Strategy and Risk Manager at Lockheed Martin, overseeing U.S. supply chain risk mitigation for critical materials used in advanced defence systems

– Over two decades of experience across defence, critical minerals, and advanced materials sectors, including leadership roles at Huntington Ingalls Industries, Textron Systems, and Evolution Energy Solutions –

– Expertise spanning U.S. Department of Defence acquisition, system manufacturing and production, materials engineering, supply chain risk mitigation, critical component supply chains, and state and federal engagement for manufacturing facilities

– Appointment strengthens Locksley’s U.S. Government initiatives and supports commercialisation of American-sourced antimony and rare earth supply chains

– Locksley has submitted U.S. Govt White Paper funding request under Defence Production Act Title III DPA to advance project financing position and accelerate first mover status in re-establishing domestic Antimony industry and U.S supply chain strength

Ms. Newstead currently serves as Materials Strategy and Risk Manager at Lockheed Martin, where she leads initiatives to secure domestic and allied sources of key materials vital to U.S. defense manufacturing and national security. Her work focuses on assessing and mitigating material, pricing, and geopolitical risk across complex supply chains that underpin critical technologies including munitions, batteries, and aerospace systems.

A highly accomplished executive, Ms. Newstead brings more than 20 years of experience across U.S. Government, defense, and industrial sectors. Her prior roles include senior program leadership at Huntington Ingalls Industries and Textron Systems, as well as Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. subsidiary of Evolution Energy Minerals (ASX:EV1), where she led onshoring initiatives for graphite and advanced battery materials.

Her appointment reinforces Locksley’s position at the intersection of critical minerals, defense, and national security strategy, providing invaluable insight into U.S. policy, funding and industrial collaboration opportunities. This strengthens the Company’s ability to engage with U.S. partners and access Federal programs supporting domestic critical mineral supply chains, advancing Locksley’s mine-to-market strategy for U.S.-sourced antimony and rare earths.

Kerrie Matthews, Locksley CEO commented:

‘Stacy’s appointment represents another significant step in strengthening our U.S. advisory capability. Her deep understanding of defense material supply chains, coupled with her leadership at Lockheed Martin, brings exceptional strategic value to Locksley as we advance our mine-to-market development of American sourced antimony and rare earths.’

‘Her perspective on material security and risk will help guide our engagement with U.S. industry and government stakeholders as we scale from pilot to commercial operations.’

Ms Newstead commented:

‘The restoration of secure, transparent and domestic critical mineral supply chains is essential to both U.S. defense readiness and the broader energy transition. Locksley’s integrated mine-to-market model and U.S. operational footprint, position it as a key contributor to these national objectives. I’m honored to support the team’s strategy and growth trajectory.’

About Locksley Resources Limited:

Locksley Resources Limited (ASX:LKY,OTC:LKYRF) (FRA:X5L) (OTCMKTS:LKYRF) is an ASX listed explorer focused on critical minerals in the United States of America. The Company is actively advancing exploration across two key assets: the Mojave Project in California, targeting rare earth elements (REEs) and antimony. Locksley Resources aims to generate shareholder value through strategic exploration, discovery and development in this highly prospective mineral region.

Mojave Project

Located in the Mojave Desert, California, the Mojave Project comprises over 250 claims across two contiguous prospect areas, namely, the North Block/Northeast Block and the El Campo Prospect. The North Block directly abuts claims held by MP Materials, while El Campo lies along strike of the Mountain Pass Mine and is enveloped by MP Materials’ claims, highlighting the strong geological continuity and exploration potential of the project area.

In addition to rare earths, the Mojave Project hosts the historic ‘Desert Antimony Mine’, which last operated in 1937. Despite the United States currently having no domestic antimony production, demand for the metal remains high due to its essential role in defense systems, semiconductors, and metal alloys. With significant surface sample results, the Desert Mine prospect represents one of the highest-grade known antimony occurrences in the U.S.

Locksley’s North American position is further strengthened by rising geopolitical urgency to diversify supply chains away from China, the global leader in both REE & antimony production. With its maiden drilling program planned, the Mojave Project is uniquely positioned to align with U.S. strategic objectives around critical mineral independence and economic security.

Tottenham Project

Locksley’s Australian portfolio comprises the advanced Tottenham Copper-Gold Project in New South Wales, focused on VMS-style mineralisation

Source:
Locksley Resources Limited

Contact:
Kerrie Matthews
Chief Executive Officer
Locksley Resources Limited
T: +61 8 9481 0389
Kerrie@locksleyresources.com.au

News Provided by ABN Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Altech Batteries LtdSilumina Anodes Assessed by Major Battery Producer

No Comments

Perth, Australia (ABN Newswire) – Altech Batteries Limited (ASX:ATC,OTC:ALTHF) (FRA:A3Y) (OTCMKTS:ALTHF) announced a significant and strategically important development in its Silumina Anodes(TM) project, following formal engagement initiated from a leading global battery manufacturer and one of the world’s largest electric-vehicle battery manufacturer (‘Battery Group’). The Battery Group approached Altech expressing strong interest in the Company’s proprietary high-performance silicon-enhanced anode technology. This unsolicited approach represents a major validation of the technical progress achieved by Altech and underscores the growing global recognition of the breakthrough potential of its alumina-coated silicon innovations.

Following initial discussions, a mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) was executed to enable the confidential technical exchange and evaluation of materials. As part of this collaboration, Altech has prepared and supplied Silumina AnodesTM samples to the Battery Group. These samples, developed under the leadership of Altech’s Chief Technical Officer Dr Jingyuan Lui, have now been shipped to the Battery Group for formal testing in their advanced battery-evaluation laboratories in China.

The Battery Group’s team, during preliminary discussions, indicated that across the industry they have not yet seen silicon additions deliver such meaningful performance improvements at low percentages.

Traditionally, attempts to integrate silicon into commercial lithium-ion anodes have been challenged by expansion-related degradation, unstable solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) formation and rapid cycle-life fade. The strong performance of Altech’s coated silicon, achieved with only modest silicon loading, was highlighted as particularly noteworthy. The Battery Group acknowledged that very few material suppliers globally are producing silicon additives with this level of stability, consistency, and real-world applicability.

This early feedback reinforces the technical advantage and disruptive potential of Altech’s process.

The Battery Group has also requested that Altech undertake coating trials on their supplied graphite material to assess the performance impact of integrating Altech’s proprietary alumina technology directly onto their own anode substrate. Under the NDA, the Battery Group has dispatched several kilograms of representative graphite samples to Altech’s Perth laboratory, where Dr Lui’s team will apply the Company’s coating process and prepare evaluation batches. These coated graphite samples will then be returned to the Battery Group for benchmarking against their internal standards, providing a direct comparison of how Altech’s technology enhances their preferred graphite formulations.

UPDATE OF LONG CYCLE SILUMINA TESTING

Altech announced on 9 October 2025 a major advancement in its Silumina Anodes(TM) project, achieving the strongest battery-cycling performance recorded to date for its proprietary alumina-coated spherical silicon anode material. Since that announcement, the latest test results now demonstrate an impressive 83% capacity retention after 1,000 charge-discharge cycles with a 5% Silumina Anodes(TM) addition to a standard graphite anode. This represents a significant milestone for the Silumina Anodes(TM) technology, confirming both its durability and real-world commercial potential. Importantly, such cycle-life performance places Altech’s material at the forefront of next-generation silicon-enhanced anode technologies, strengthening its position in the rapidly evolving global battery materials market.

HOW SILUMINA ANODES(TM) IS MADE

Altech’s spherisation process transforms irregular silicon particles into perfectly rounded, alumina-coated spheres that integrate seamlessly within graphite anodes. The process begins with submicron silicon powders that are uniformly coated with a nanolayer of high-purity alumina, buffering against volume expansion during lithiation. These coated particles are then spherified through a precision-controlled thermal and mechanical process that rounds their geometry (refer Figure 1*). When blended into the graphite matrix, the spherical Silumina AnodesTM particles naturally occupy microscopic voids, where they can expand and contract freely during cycling without damaging the surrounding structure (refer Figure 2*). This optimised configuration mitigates mechanical stress, maintains electrode integrity, and enhances electrical connectivity. With only a 5% addition, the design achieves >40% capacity boost while preserving exceptional cycle stability over extended use.

Altech’s Managing Director Iggy Tan stated ‘This engagement from the world’s largest battery manufacturer is a powerful validation of our Silumina Anodes(TM) technology. Their early feedback, particularly noting they have not seen silicon additions perform this effectively at such low levels, reinforces the significance of our breakthrough. We are excited to advance this collaboration under the NDA and look forward to demonstrating how Altech’s coating technology can further enhance their graphite and anode performance.’

*To view tables and figures, please visit:
https://abnnewswire.net/lnk/444MKKI0

About Altech Batteries Ltd:

Altech Batteries Limited (ASX:ATC,OTC:ALTHF) (FRA:A3Y) is a specialty battery technology company that has a joint venture agreement with world leading German battery institute Fraunhofer IKTS (‘Fraunhofer’) to commercialise the revolutionary CERENERGY(R) Sodium Alumina Solid State (SAS) Battery. CERENERGY(R) batteries are the game-changing alternative to lithium-ion batteries. CERENERGY(R) batteries are fire and explosion-proof; have a life span of more than 15 years and operate in extreme cold and desert climates. The battery technology uses table salt and is lithium-free; cobalt-free; graphite-free; and copper-free, eliminating exposure to critical metal price rises and supply chain concerns.

The joint venture is commercialising its CERENERGY(R) battery, with plans to construct a 100MWh production facility on Altech’s land in Saxony, Germany. The facility intends to produce CERENERGY(R) battery modules to provide grid storage solutions to the market.

Source:
Altech Batteries Ltd

Contact:
Corporate
Iggy Tan
Managing Director
Altech Batteries Limited
Tel: +61-8-6168-1555
Email: info@altechgroup.com

Martin Stein
Chief Financial Officer
Altech Batteries Limited
Tel: +61-8-6168-1555
Email: info@altechgroup.com

News Provided by ABN Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Basin Energy LtdBinding Sale Agreement Executed for Marshall Uranium Project

No Comments

Perth, Australia (ABN Newswire) – Basin Energy Limited (ASX:BSN) (OTCMKTS:BSNEF) announced that it has entered into a binding letter of intent (‘LOI’) with Green Canada Corporation Inc (‘GCC’), a 54% owned subsidiary of PTX Metals Inc. (CVE:PTX) to sell the Marshall Uranium Project (‘Marshall’), located in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Key Highlights

– Basin to sell 100% of Marshall Uranium Project to Green Canada Corporation Inc (‘GCC’).

– GCC progressing toward public listing on Canadian Stock Exchange, in conjunction with a reverse takeover of Maackk Capital Corp.

– Basin will receive consideration of up to:

o C$600,000 payable in cash in four equal annual instalments;
o C$300,000 payable in shares over three equal annual instalments; and
o 9.99% of the total issued capital of the newly listed entity.

– GCC to conduct minimum of C$1.5 million of exploration expenditures over 24 months.

– Basin to retain a 25% project level buyback option and three-year Right of first refusal (ROFR) on any future sale.

– Transaction retains exploration upside to Basin shareholders at Marshall and broadens Basin’s leverage to quality uranium assets within the GCC portfolio specifically targeting Canadian unconformity mineralisation in the Baker and Amer Basins in Nunavut and the Otish Basin in Quebec.

– Transaction sharpens Basin’s strategic focus on shallow discovery opportunities.

– Basin and CanAlaska Uranium Ltd (CVE:CVV) (‘CanAlaska’) have also granted GCC a 9- month exclusivity for the North Millennium Project.

The transaction is proposed to occur in parallel to a proposed Reverse Takeover (‘RTO’) by GCC of Maackk Capital Corp (‘MAACKK’) and concurrent minimum C$2.5 million financing and admission to the Canadian Securities Exchange (‘CSE’) or such other stock exchange as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

In addition to the Marshall agreement, Basin and CanAlaska have agreed to grant GCC a 9-month exclusivity right to conduct due diligence and, if satisfactory, negotiate the terms of an earn-in option to acquire up to a 51% interest in the North Millennium joint venture project of CanAlaska and BSN.

Managing Director, Pete Moorhouse commented:

‘We are pleased to enter into an agreement and partnership with Green Canada Corporation to advance the Marshall project. The GCC team are well positioned to add value for Basin Shareholders both through the drill testing of the compelling targets at Marshall, and with the broader exposure to the GCC asset base.

We look forward to seeing these assets advance, whilst Basin retains focus on high-grade shallow opportunities’

Terms of the Deal

In consideration, GCC has agreed to the following payments to Basin:

– C$600,000 payable in cash in four equal annual instalments, with the first payment due on closing of the transaction;

– C$300,000 payable in shares, issuable in three equal annual instalments based on the 5-day Volume-Weighted Average Price on the business day immediately preceding the date of issuance; and

– 9.99% of the total issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares on a non-diluted basis after giving effect to the concurrent financing at the time of closing of the proposed RTO, subject to 12-month escrow.

Basin will receive an additional 400,000 shares in the resulting issuer upon closing of the RTO in return for granting the 9-month exclusivity right in the North Millennium joint venture.

Basin will have a right of first refusal on any sale of the Marshall Project by GCC for a period of three years following the closing date of the transaction. In addition, Basin will retain a repurchase right to acquire from GCC a 25% interest in the Marshall Project for C$1,000,000 for a period commencing on the closing date and ending on the earlier of: the date that is five years from the closing date or the date on which GCC has incurred total exploration expenditures of C$10,000,000 on the Marshall Project.

Pursuant to the terms of the LOI, GCC is required to fund exploration expenditures for an initial work program on the Marshall Project to be carried out within twenty-four months from the closing. The Initial Work Program will have a budget in an amount that is the greater of C$1,500,000, and the minimum amount required to maintain the mineral claims comprising the Marshall Project in good standing under applicable governmental regulations.

Basin will also have the right to nominate one director to the board of the resulting issuer.

GCC will retain the right to withdraw from the transaction at any time after the closing of the transaction, in which case the project will return to Basin and no further payments will be required.

The transaction is conditional on final due diligence from GCC, the completion of the RTO of MAACKK and GCC’s concurrent C$2.5 million minimum capital raise.

About Green Canada Corporation

GCC is a 54% owned subsidiary of PTX Metals Inc. (CVE:PTX) and a uranium exploration company with a portfolio of projects located in Thelon Basin, Nunavut, the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Quebec. Concurrent to the LOI to acquire Basin’s Marshall project, GCC announced that it has entered into a binding letter of intent with MAACKK pursuant to which GCC and MAACKK intend to complete a transaction that would result in a reverse take-over of MAACKK by the shareholders of GCC (the ‘Proposed RTO’). Closing of the Proposed RTO will be subject to, among other things, requisite regulatory approval for the listing of the resulting issuer of the Proposed RTO (the ‘Resulting Issuer’) on the Canadian Securities Exchange or such other stock exchange as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties, along with completion of concurrent financing and execution of the definitive agreements in respect of the acquisition of the Marshall project.

Upon completion of the Proposed RTO, the current directors and officers of MAACKK will resign and it is anticipated that the board of directors of the Resulting Issuer will be reconstituted to consist of Richard J. Mazur, Greg Ferron, Olivier Crottaz and a representative from the Basin.

About the Marshall and North Millennium Projects

The Marshall project is 100% owned by Basin, and the North Millennium Project is under joint venture agreement on a 40:60 basis with CanAlaska.

The Marshall and North Millennium projects are located less than 11 km from Cameco Corporation’s Millennium deposit (104.8Mlb at 3.8% U3O8) and around 40 km from the prolific McArthur River uranium mine, one of the world’s highest-grade uranium operations, refer to Figure 1*. Both projects are deemed prospective for unconformity style uranium exploration.

In 2024, ground electromagnetics (‘EM’) at Marshall identified three main targets which confirms the geological and exploration model. Of note is Target 1, refer to Figure 2*, where modelled EM plates below the unconformity align with a sandstone Z-Tipper Axis Electromagnetic (‘ZTEM’) anomaly, which is interpreted to be alteration within sandstone. The identification of these targets is encouraging and consistent with regional trends in the southeastern Athabasca and provides increased confidence in drill hole targeting.

*To view tables and figures, please visit:
https://abnnewswire.net/lnk/F491N9T7

About Basin Energy Ltd:

Basin Energy Ltd (ASX:BSN) (OTCMKTS:BSNEF) is a green energy metals exploration and development company with an interest in three highly prospective projects positioned in the southeast corner and margins of the world-renowned Athabasca Basin in Canada and has recently acquired a significant portfolio of Green Energy Metals exploration assets located in Scandinavia.

Source:
Basin Energy Ltd

Contact:
Pete Moorhouse
Managing Director
pete.m@basinenergy.com.au
+61 7 3667 7449

Chloe Hayes
Investor and Media Relations
chloe@janemorganmanagement.com.au
+61 458619317

News Provided by ABN Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More