Author

admin

Browsing

Nevgold Corp. (‘NevGold’ or the ‘Company’) (TSXV:NAU,OTC:NAUFF) (OTCQX:NAUFF) (Frankfurt:5E50) is pleased to announce the high-grade oxide gold-antimony discovery of the ‘Armory Fault’ at the Bullet Zone at its Limousine Butte Project (the ‘Project’, ‘Limo Butte’) in Nevada. The discovery of the ‘Armory Fault’ is a key, transformational development in defining the high-grade structural controls of mineralization at the evolving Bullet Zone. All drillholes at the Bullet Zone from the 2H-2025 drill program intercepted substantial oxide gold-antimony mineralization, significantly expanding the mineralization footprint at the Project. The Company continues to focus on dual track project development by advancing the near-term antimony production scenario from the historical gold leach pads at surface, while it drills the Project to define an initial gold-antimony Mineral Resource Estimate (‘MRE’).

Key Highlights

  • ‘Armory Fault’ discovery identifies key structural control of high-grade mineralization at the Bullet Zone with oxide gold-antimony of 8.51 g/t AuEq* over 10.6 meters (8.11 g/t Au and 0.10% Sb), within 2.32 g/t AuEq* over 86.8 meters (1.94 g/t Au and 0.10% Sb):
    • LB25-017 Lower Zone (step-out, new ‘Armory Fault’ discovery): 12.34 g/t AuEq* over 3.0 meters (11.95 g/t Au and 0.10% Sb) within 8.51 g/t AuEq* over 10.6 meters (8.11 g/t Au and 0.10% Sb), within 2.32 g/t AuEq* over 86.8 meters (1.94 g/t Au and 0.10% Sb); due to drilling conditions, the hole terminated in 8.25 g/t oxide Au, with the highest interval up to 12.80 g/t oxide Au
    • LB25-017 Upper Zone (step-out, expansion of near-surface high-grade oxide antimony-gold): 5.46 g/t AuEq* over 3.1 meters (0.82% Sb and 2.27 g/t Au) within 3.14 g/t AuEq* over 9.2 meters (0.48% Sb and 1.27 g/t Au) within 1.59 g/t AuEq* over 21.3 meters (0.25% Sb and 0.61 g/t Au) starting at 4.6 meters; high-grade antimony is concentrated along the low-angle thrust fault under the ‘upper plate dolomite’ (Figure 2)
    • LB25-016 (step-out, adds over 50 meters north of mineralization footprint): 1.25 g/t AuEq* over 10.7 meters (0.63 g/t Au and 0.16% Sb), within 0.66 g/t AuEq* over 30.5 meters (0.31 g/t Au and 0.09% Sb)
    • *Gold equivalents (‘AuEq’) are based on assumed metals prices of US$3,000/oz of gold and US$40,000 per tonne of antimony, and assumed metals recoveries of 80% for gold and 75% for antimony.
  • ‘Armory Fault’ is transformational to the Project as it identifies important structural controls of high-grade oxide gold-antimony mineralization (Figure 1): 
    • 30 holes completed in the current 2025-2026 drill program with 12 holes pending release 
    • Antimony is one of the highest priority Critical Minerals due to its strategic importance and military applications; Limo Butte is a brownfield mine site located in the State of Nevada with near-surface, high-grade antimony mineralization   

    Limo Butte Planned 2025-2026 Activities / Status Update
    NevGold will continue its active exploration program at Limo Butte including:

    • Evaluating the historical geological database with focus on gold and antimony (completed);
    • Advancing metallurgical testwork (continuous activity);
    • Continuing to drill test gold-antimony targets (30 drillholes completed, 2026 drill program will continue to test new high-grade Bullet Zone and Armory Fault discoveries, and identified project-wide targets);
    • Advancing the Crushed and Run of Mine (‘ROM’) leach pads toward near-term antimony production (Phase I sampling completed, Company has engaged sonic drill contractor to drill leach pads, metallurgical testwork is continuing);
    • Completing initial gold-antimony Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) (in progress).

    NevGold CEO, Brandon Bonifacio, comments: ‘The discovery of the Armory Fault at the Bullet Zone is transformational from an exploration standpoint, as it identifies what is thought to be a key structural control of high-grade oxide gold-antimony mineralization. This fault was never modelled previously, and our technical team has done a tremendous job developing this target. Our geological model testing the ‘under the upper dolomite’ target concept has been validated as we have intercepted significant gold-antimony mineralization in every single drillhole at the Bullet Zone. The mineralization footprint and upside that we have added to the future potential gold-antimony Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) is significant, and we will start our 2026 drill program as rapidly as possible to further test this evolving, high-grade target area. We also strongly believe that this target model can be replicated project-wide, and we have many high-priority targets that are now emerging with this key transformational step-change in the project geological model. We continue to execute on all of our various work programs at Limo Butte, and the Project is one of the highest grade gold-antimony projects in the United States.‘ 

    Figure 1 – Resurrection Ridge target area with the Bullet Zone discovery and newly defined high-grade Armory Fault. Figure also includes completed NevGold 2025 drilling and identified expansion areas with the thrust faulted Upper Plate Dolomite. Red outline is the previous mineralization footprint at Resurrection Ridge, and the green outline is the key expansion area for 2026 drilling. To view image please click here

    Figure 2 – Long section with results from 2025 drilling and the Bullet Zone and Armory Fault discoveries. Light blue bar graphs (left) show Antimony (Sb ppm) in drilling, and yellow to red discs (right) show Gold (Au ppm) in drilling. Transparent drillholes are from prior to 2025, with many holes not analyzed for antimony. Mineralization remains open in all directions at the Bullet Zone discovery. To view image please click here

    Figure 3 – Long section with results from 2025 drilling and new high-grade Armory Fault discovery. Light blue bar graphs (left) show Antimony (Sb ppm) in drilling, and yellow to red discs (right) show Gold (Au ppm) in drilling. Updated geologic model shows faults with high magnitude of offset between vertical holes, which are high priority targets for 2026 drilling. All holes drilled into this area intercepted significant oxide gold-antimony mineralization adding significant growth to the mineralized footprint at the Project. Mineralization trends to surface.
    To view image please click here

    2025-2026 Drill Results

    Hole ID Length, m* g/t Au % Sb g/t AuEq** From, m To, m
    Resurrection Ridge & ‘Bullet Zone’ Discovery
    LB25-017 Upper 21.3 0.61 0.25% 1.59 4.6 25.9
       including 9.2 1.27 0.48% 3.14 13.7 22.9
       also including 3.1 2.27 0.82% 5.46 15.2 18.3
    LB25-017 Lower*** 86.8 1.94 0.10% 2.32 187.5 274.3
       including 10.6 8.11 0.10% 8.51 263.7 274.3
       also including 3.0 11.95 0.10% 12.34 263.7 266.7
    LB25-016 141.7 0.11 0.03% 0.23 0.0 141.7
       including 30.5 0.31 0.09% 0.66 0.0 30.5
       including 10.7 0.63 0.16% 1.25 0.0 10.7

    *Downhole thickness reported; true width varies depending on drill hole dip and is approximately 70% to 90% of downhole thickness.
    **The gold equivalents (‘AuEq’) are based on assumed metals prices of US$3,000/oz of gold and US$40,000 per tonne of antimony, and assumed metals recoveries of 80% for gold and 75% for antimony.
    ***Several intervals had low recovery due to drilling conditions.

    Drillhole Orientation Details

    Hole ID Target Zone Easting Northing Elevation (m) Length (m) Azimuth Dip
    LB25-016 Bullet Zone (RR) 667291 4417567 2174 174 90 -75
    LB25-017 Bullet Zone (RR) 667121 4417247 2177 275 130 -60

    Limo Butte – Updated Geological Model Summary and Discovery of Bullet Zone
    The Devonian Pilot Shale (‘Pilot Shale’, ‘Pilot’) is the principal local host to Carlin-type mineralization at Limousine Butte. At Limousine Butte, positive gold grades commonly coincide with silicification and jasperoid breccias within the Pilot Shale, and this alteration style is also host to elevated antimony.

    NevGold’s 2021–2025 work included integrating historical drilling, new mapping, and surface sampling which produced an updated district model and refined property-wide controls on mineralization. At Resurrection Ridge, Devonian–Silurian dolomite is exposed immediately east of known gold-antimony mineralization. Earlier explorers inferred that the overlying Pilot Shale had been eroded in this area, and they did not test eastward, despite shallow high-grade intercepts in the easternmost holes drilled at Resurrection Ridge. The new model indicates the older dolomite was thrust over the prospective Pilot Shale unit (see Figure 4), creating structural preparation and a fluid trap that preserves the favorable host at depth, the classic architecture for a Carlin-type system.

    The holes drilled by the Company in 2025 with assays received have continued to validate the new NevGold geological model. Holes collared in dolomite, passed through the upper thrust plate, and intersected gold and antimony at multiple horizons within the underlying Pilot Shale validating the new geological model and materially expanding the potential mineralization footprint at the Project.

    The preserved Pilot Shale extends more than one kilometer east of prior drilling at Resurrection Ridge (see Figure 5).

    A screenshot of a computer AI-generated content may be incorrect.

    Figure 4 – Comparison of historical geological model (left) and new NevGold geological model (right) outlining the thesis that the older dolomite unit was thrust over the prospective Pilot Shale unit. The preserved Pilot Shale unit extends more than 1 kilometer east of prior drilling at Resurrection Ridge. To view image please click here

    Property-wide, the updated model outlines multiple Au–Sb target corridors that track outcrops and projected subsurface positions of the Pilot Shale, where repeated faulting and thrusting provided fluid pathways and focused mineralization. NevGold’s 2025-2026 drill program continues to test these high-priority targets.

    A map of the area AI-generated content may be incorrect.

    Figure 5 – Large cross section at the Project outlining the strong expansion potential between Resurrection Ridge and Crashed Airplane Valley, which spans +2.5 kilometers. To view image please click here

    Historical records within the project boundary document two small-scale antimony prospects—the Nevada Antimony Mine and the Lage Antimony Prospect (Figure 1). The Nevada Antimony Mine extracted stibnite (Sb₂S₃) from a hydrothermal breccia via shallow pits; the Lage prospect similarly reports limited antimony production. Complementing these records, rock-chip sampling from the Golden Butte pit (Brigham Young University thesis) returned numerous assays exceeding 1% Sb in jasperoid breccias, with several over 5% Sb, including a sample grading 9.6% Sb with visible stibnite and stibiconite (BYU Thesis Report ).

    Together, these datasets support a district-scale interpretation in which thrust repetition preserves the Pilot Shale at depth east of Resurrection Ridge and focuses Au–Sb mineralization along structurally prepared horizons, establishing multiple high-priority targets for step-out drilling and follow-up work.

    Importance of Antimony
    Antimony is considered a ‘Critical Mineral’ by the United States based on the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2022 list (U.S.G.S. (2022)). ‘Critical Minerals’ are metals and non-metals essential to the economy and national security. Antimony is utilized in all manners of military applications, including the manufacturing of armor piercing bullets, night vision goggles, infrared sensors, precision optics, laser sighting, explosive formulations, hardened lead for bullets and shrapnel, ammunition primers, tracer ammunition, nuclear weapons and production, tritium production, flares, military clothing, and communication equipment. Other uses include technology (semi-conductors, circuit boards, electric switches, fluorescent lighting, high quality clear glass and lithium-ion batteries) and clean-energy storage.

    Globally, approximately 90% of the world’s current antimony supply is produced by China, Russia, and Tajikistan. Beginning on September 15, 2024, China, which is responsible for nearly half of all global mined antimony output and dominates global refinement and processing, announced that it will restrict antimony exports. In December-2024, China explicitly restricted antimony exports to the United States citing its dual military and civilian uses, which further exacerbated global supply chain concerns. (Lv, A. and Munroe, T. (2024)) The U.S. Department of Defense (‘DOD’) has designated antimony as a ‘Critical Mineral’ due to its importance in national security, and governments are now prioritizing domestic production to mitigate supply chain disruptions. Projects exploring antimony sources in North America play a key role in addressing these challenges.

    Perpetua Resources Corp. (‘Perpetua’, NASDAQ:PPTA, TSX:PPTA) has the most advanced domestic gold-antimony project in the United States. Perpetua’s project, known as Stibnite, is located in Idaho approximately 130 km northeast of NevGold’s Nutmeg Mountain and Zeus projects. Positive advancements at Stibnite including technical development and permitting has led to US$75 million in Department of Defense (‘DOD’) awards, over $1.8 billion in indicative financing from the Export Import Bank of the United States (‘US EXIM’) (see Perpetua Resources News Release from April 8, 2024) (Perpetua Resources. (2025)), and recent strategic investments of US$180 million from Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited (‘Agnico’) and US$75 million from JPMorganChase’s $1.5 trillion Security and Resiliency Initiative. (see Perpetua Resources News Release from October 27, 2025)

    Figure 6 – Limousine Butte Land Holdings and District Exploration Activity To view image please click here

    ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD

    ‘Signed’

    Brandon Bonifacio, President & CEO

    For further information, please contact Brandon Bonifacio at bbonifacio@nev-gold.com, call 604-337-4997, or visit our website at www.nev-gold.com.

    Sampling Methodology, Quality Control and Quality Assurance
    NevGold QA/QC protocols are followed on the Project and include insertion of duplicate, blank and standard samples in all drill holes. A 30g gold fire assay and multi-elemental analysis ICP-OES method was completed by ISO 17025 certified American Assay Labs, Reno.

    The historic data collection chain of custody procedures and analytical results by previous operators appear adequate and were completed to industry standard practices. For the Newmont and US Gold data a 30g gold fire assay and multi-elemental analysis ICP-OES method MS-41 was completed by ISO 17025 certified ALS Chemex, Reno or Elko Nevada.

    Geochemical ICP (5g) analysis for the Wilson, Christianson and Tingey report was completed by Geochemical Services Inc. and the XRF analyses (glass disk or pellets) by Brigham Young University.

    Technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Greg French, CPG, the Company’s Vice President, Exploration, who is NevGold’s Qualified Person (‘QP’) under National Instrument 43-101 and responsible for technical matters of this release.

    About the Company
    NevGold is an exploration and development company targeting large-scale mineral systems in the proven districts of Nevada and Idaho. NevGold owns a 100% interest in the Limousine Butte and Cedar Wash gold projects in Nevada, and the Nutmeg Mountain gold project and Zeus copper project in Idaho.

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

    Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements

    This news release contains forward-looking statements that are based on the Company’s current expectations and estimates. Forward-looking statements are frequently characterized by words such as ‘plan’, ‘expect’, ‘project’, ‘intend’, ‘believe’, ‘anticipate’, ‘estimate’, ‘suggest’, ‘indicate’ and other similar words or statements that certain events or conditions ‘may’ or ‘will’ occur. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the proposed work programs at Limousine Butte, the exploration potential at Limousine Butte, and future potential project milestones such as the potential Mineral Resource Estimate (‘MRE’). Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from estimated or anticipated events or results implied or expressed in such forward-looking statements. Such risks include, but are not limited to, general economic, market and business conditions, and the ability to obtain all necessary regulatory approvals. There is some risk that the forward-looking statements will not prove to be accurate, that the management’s assumptions may not be correct or that actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which 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. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.

    References

    Blackmon, D. (2021) Antimony: The Most Important Mineral You Never Heard Of. Article Prepared by Forbes.

    Kurtenbach, E. (2024) China Bans Exports to US of Gallium, Germanium, Antimony in response to Chip Sanctions. Article Prepared by AP News.

    Lv, A. and Munroe, T. (2024) China Bans Export of Critical Minerals to US as Trade Tensions Escalate.  Article Prepared by Reuters.

    Lv, A. and Jackson, L. (2025) China’s Curbs on Exports of Strategic Minerals. Article Prepared by Reuters.

    Perpetua Resources. (2025) Antimony Summary.  Articles and Videos Prepared by Perpetua Resources.

    Sangine, E. (2022) U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2023. Antimony Summary Report prepared by U.S.G.S

    U.S.G.S. (2022) U.S. Geological Survey Releases 2022 List of Critical Minerals. Reported Prepared by U.S.G.S

    Wilson, D.,J., Christiansen, E., H., and Tingey, D., G., 1994, Geology and Geochemistry of the Golden Butte Mine- A Small Carlin- Type Gold Deposit in Eastern Nevada: Brigham Young University Geology Studies, v.40, P.185-211. BYU V.40 P.185-211.  

    Primary Logo

    News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Blackrock Silver Corp. (TSXV: BRC,OTC:BKRRF) (OTCQX: BKRRF) (FSE: AHZ0) (‘Blackrock’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce it has been named to the 2026 TSX Venture 50™ list of top performing companies.

    Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/676/284200_tsxv2026_223.jpg

    2026 TSX Venture 50™

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/676/284200_tsxv2026.jpg

    Andrew Pollard, Blackrock’s President and CEO, commented: ‘2025 was a transformative year for Blackrock, and we are grateful to the TSX Venture Exchange for recognizing the shareholder value we have created. We enter 2026 with strong momentum, supported by a robust treasury, an updated Preliminary Economic Assessment on track for delivery this quarter, and key permitting initiatives advancing at our flagship Nevada project. With silver now designated as a strategic and critical mineral in the United States, Tonopah West stands out as one of the few high-grade, domestic mineral projects progressing towards development.

    TSX Venture 50TM is an annual ranking of the top performing companies over the last year on the TSX Venture Exchange. The companies are ranked based on three equally weighted criteria of one-year share price appreciation, market capitalization increase, and Canadian consolidated trading value.

    In 2025, the Company’s share price appreciated 273% and its market cap growth was 353%, positioning the Company as twenty-fifth overall on the 2026 TSX Venture 50™ list.[1]

    More details on the TSX Venture 50 can be found at: www.tsx.com/Venture50.

    About Blackrock Silver Corp.

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

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

    Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Information

    This news release contains ‘forward-looking statements’ and ‘forward-looking information’ (collectively, ‘forward-looking statements‘) within the meaning of Canadian and United States securities legislation, including the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this news release relate to, among other things: the advancement of the Tonopah West project towards development, including the acceleration of permitting and de-risking initiatives at the Tonopah West project through key permitting and pre-development initiatives; and the intention to complete an updated Preliminary Economic Assessment on the Tonopah West project in the first quarter of 2026.

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

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

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

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

    For further information, please contact:

    Andrew Pollard, President & Chief Executive Officer
    Blackrock Silver Corp.
    Phone: 604 817-6044
    Email: andrew@blackrocksilver.com

    Sean Thompson, Head of Investor Relations
    Blackrock Silver Corp.
    Email: sean@blackrocksilver.com

    [1] As at December 31, 2025.

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/284200

    News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    1911 Gold Corporation (TSXV: AUMB,OTC:AUMBF) (OTCQX: AUMBF) (FSE: 2KY) (‘1911 Gold’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it has been recognized by TSX Venture Exchange (‘TSXV’) as a 2026 Top 50 Company. 1911 Gold achieved a share price appreciation of 468% and market cap growth of 1,026% in 2025, positioning the Company as fourth overall on the 2026 TSX Venture 50TM list.

    ‘We are honoured to be recognized as the #4 top performer on the 2026 TSX Venture 50 list,’ stated Shaun Heinrichs, President and CEO. ‘We have come a long way on our journey, and this award reflects the combined effort and commitment from our team as we move toward restarting gold production at our fully built and permitted True North Mine. With our recent Preliminary Economic Assessment confirming robust project economics, we remain on track to commence production in 2027 while simultaneously advancing exploration to de-risk and grow our district-scale assets for our shareholders.’

    The 2026 TSX Venture 50 showcases the top 50 of over 1,600 TSXV issuers. Eligible listed issuers are ranked based on three equally weighted criteria of one-year share price appreciation, market capitalization increase, and Canadian consolidated trading value as of December 31, 2025.

    More details can be found at the following link: tsx.com/venture50

    About 1911 Gold Corporation

    1911 Gold is an advanced gold explorer and developer focused on its 100%-owned True North Gold Project in the Archean Rice Lake Greenstone Belt in Manitoba, Canada. The Company controls a large, highly prospective ~62,000-hectare land package with numerous past-producing gold operations within trucking distance of the fully built and permitted True North mine and mill complex. 1911 Gold is positioning itself to restart operations in 2027 and offers a unique, near-term production story with significant exploration upside. The strategy is to build a district-scale gold mining operation around a centralized, and readily expandable infrastructure to support a socially and environmentally responsible, long-term mining operation with little development risk and a growing mineral resource base.

    1911 Gold’s True North complex and the exploration land package are located within and among the First Nation communities of the Hollow Water First Nation and the Black River First Nation. 1911 Gold looks forward to maintaining open, cooperative, and respectful communications with all of our local communities and stakeholders to foster mutually beneficial working relationships.

    ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

    Shaun Heinrichs
    President and CEO

    For further information, please contact:

    Shaun Heinrichs
    Chief Executive Officer
    (604) 674-1293
    ir@1911gold.com
    www.1911gold.com

    CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

    This news release may contain forward-looking statements. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as ‘plans’, ‘expects’ or ‘does not expect’, ‘is expected’, ‘budget’, ‘scheduled’, ‘estimates’, ‘forecasts’, ‘intends’, ‘anticipates’ or ‘does not anticipate’, or ‘believes’, or describes a ‘goal’, or variation of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘might’ or ‘will’ be taken, occur or be achieved.

    All forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s beliefs and assumptions based on information available at the time the statements were made. Actual results or events may differ from those predicted in these forward-looking statements. All of the Company’s forward-looking statements are qualified by the assumptions that are stated or inherent in such forward-looking statements, including the assumptions listed below. Although the Company believes that these assumptions are reasonable, this list is not exhaustive of factors that may affect any of the forward-looking statements.

    Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, future events, conditions, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, predictions, projections, forecasts, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. All statements that address expectations or projections about the future, including, but not limited to, statements about the planned re-start of mining operations at the True North Mine, and the timing thereof, are forward-looking statements. Although 1911 Gold has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

    All forward-looking statements contained in this news release are given as of the date hereof. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

    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.

    SOURCE: 1911 Gold

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/284262

    News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    A senior U.S. official offered new details Tuesday night about an alleged nuclear bomb test conducted by China in June 2020.

    Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Yeaw spoke at a Hudson Institute event in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, and said evidence of the explosion came from a seismic station in Kazakhstan. The station detected a magnitude 2.75 explosion located at China’s Lop Nur test grounds on June 22, 2020.

    ‘I’ve looked at additional data since then. There is very little possibility I would say that it is anything but an explosion, a singular explosion,’ Yeaw said, adding that data was not consistent with mining detonations.

    ‘It’s also entirely not consistent with an earthquake,’ he added. ‘It is … what you would expect with a nuclear explosive test.’

    China’s embassy in Washington has rejected the Trump administration’s claim, telling NBC News that the report is ‘political manipulation,’ and the U.S. is ‘evading its own nuclear disarmament responsibilities.’

    ‘China urges the U.S. to reaffirm the five nuclear-weapon states’ commitment on refraining from nuclear tests, uphold the global consensus against nuclear tests, and take concrete steps to safeguard the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime,’ spokesperson Liu Pengyu told the outlet.

    U.S. officials warned that Beijing may be preparing tests in the ‘hundreds of tons’ range — a scale that underscores China’s accelerating nuclear modernization and complicates efforts to draw Beijing into arms control talks.

    Thomas DiNanno, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said recently that the United States has evidence China conducted an explosive nuclear test at its Lop Nur site.

    ‘I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,’ DiNanno said during remarks at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.

    He added, ‘China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020.’

    DiNanno also accused Beijing of using ‘decoupling’ — detonating devices in ways that dampen seismic signals — to ‘hide its activities from the world.’

    China’s foreign ministry has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of politicizing nuclear issues and reiterating that Beijing maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.

    The accusation has sharpened questions about verification, deterrence and whether the U.S. stockpile stewardship program — which relies on advanced simulations rather than live detonations — remains sufficient in an era of renewed great-power nuclear competition.


    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Introduction

    Central planning — the idea that an economy can be rationally directed from the top down — has long appealed to reformers who seek to eliminate waste, inequality, and uncertainty. Its critics, however, have argued that no government can gather and process the vast, ever-changing information that markets generate spontaneously.

    Among the most forceful opponents of central planning were two economists of the Austrian School: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek. Though allies, they approached the problem from distinct, complementary angles. Mises argued that without private property and market prices, rational economic calculation is impossible. Hayek deepened the critique, showing that knowledge itself is dispersed and can only be coordinated through the market process.

    This explainer examines their reasoning — where it overlaps, where it differs, and why the two scholars’ combined insights still matter in an age of big data and artificial intelligence.

    The Rise and Appeal of Central Planning

    The twentieth century saw governments attempt to replace broad market coordination with narrow, centralized direction. The idea gained traction amid the upheavals of the First World War and the Great Depression, when planned production seemed to promise stability and fairness. Lenin’s central planning administration Gosplan in the Soviet Union and later socialist models in Eastern Europe embodied the dream of a rationally ordered economy.

    The same faith influenced Western intellectuals. If engineers could build bridges and factories, why couldn’t economists and bureaucrats design entire economies? To Mises and Hayek, this was a category error: the economy is not a machine, but a living network of human action and knowledge.

    Mises and the Calculation Problem

    In his 1920 essay “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” Ludwig von Mises made a devastating claim: socialism is not merely inefficient — it is impossible.

    Under socialism, the state owns all means of production. Because ownership is unified, there can be no buying and selling of capital goods, and therefore no market prices for them. Without prices, planners cannot determine whether resources are being used efficiently.

    For example, should a new railway line run through the mountains or around them? The choice involves trade-offs — between labor, steel, and land — and only market prices can reveal them. In a socialist economy, there is no way to compare the economic cost of one option versus another. Without the guidance of market prices, planners “grope in the dark,” the Austrian economist wrote.

    Mises’s point was not moral but logical: rational economic calculation requires private property, voluntary exchange, and monetary prices. Without them, the coordinating mechanism of the economy collapses.

    Hayek and the Knowledge Problem

    Two decades later, Friedrich Hayek expanded Mises’s critique. Writing in the 1930s and 1940s, Hayek argued that even if a central authority somehow possessed all available data and perfect computational power, it still could not plan effectively.

    In his classic 1945 essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” Hayek explained that the crucial information needed to allocate resources efficiently is dispersed, tacit, and constantly changing. It exists not in databases but in the minds and experiences of millions of individuals — shopkeepers, consumers, engineers, and entrepreneurs — each responding to local conditions. 

    Prices, in Hayek’s view, are signals that communicate this information. When the price of tin rises, consumers cut back, producers seek substitutes, and entrepreneurs search for new supplies — all without knowing (nor needing to know) why the price changed. This decentralized process coordinates countless decisions that no planner could ever collect or comprehend.

    Where Mises showed that calculation was impossible without prices, Hayek explained why only free markets can generate those prices meaningfully: they embody real-time knowledge that no central authority can aggregate.

    The Socialist Response and the Debate That Followed

    The Mises–Hayek critique ignited what became known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Economists such as Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner responded that planning boards could simulate markets by setting prices, monitoring shortages and surpluses, and adjusting accordingly.

    To Mises and Hayek, this response misunderstood the essence of markets. Market prices are not arbitrary numbers to be guessed at by bureaucrats; they are the outcome of entrepreneurial discovery — a competitive process that tests profit and loss, risk and innovation.

    Lange’s “trial and error” planning was, in Hayek’s eyes, a static imitation of a dynamic reality. Real markets continuously generate and revise knowledge through competition. Bureaucratic simulation lacks the incentives, ownership, and feedback that make this possible.

    Where Their Theories Differ

    Although united in their opposition to central planning, Mises and Hayek approached the problem from distinct perspectives:

    DimensionMisesHayek
    Core ProblemEconomic calculation is impossible without market prices.Relevant knowledge is dispersed and cannot be centralized.
    FocusThe logical and institutional preconditions of rational choice.The epistemological and communicative limits of centralized control.
    MethodDeductive reasoning (praxeology).Empirical and evolutionary reasoning about complex systems.
    EmphasisProperty and prices as necessary for calculation.Competition and communication as necessary for coordination.

    Mises showed why central planning cannot compute rationally; Hayek showed why it cannot know what to compute in the first place. Their insights are not substitutes, but layers of the same diagnosis.

    How Their Ideas Complement Each Other

    Mises and Hayek’s views form a single, coherent understanding of market order.

    • Mises explains why the planner lacks a common ratio of exchange: without property rights and market prices, there is no basis beyond arbitrariness for allocative decisions.
    • Hayek explains why the planner lacks the information to generate those prices in the first place: they are under constant revision by market actors with narrow, special knowledge.

    The two arguments converge on the same conclusion: coordination in a complex society must arise from voluntary, decentralized interaction — not central command. The market is not an arbitrary human invention but the only known system capable of processing vast, scattered, ever-changing information.

    Real-World Evidence: Planning in Practice

    The twentieth century tested these theories at tragic scales, and at unimaginable human cost. Socialist economies like the Soviet Union attempted to coordinate production through massive bureaucracies such as Gosplan. The results confirmed Mises and Hayek’s warnings:

    • Chronic shortages of consumer goods
    • Surpluses of useless output (too many size-12 shoes, pants no one wanted)
    • Distorted incentives to meet quotas rather than serve needs
    • Falsified data to satisfy political superiors.

    Each plan cycle created new misallocations, because planners could not adapt fast enough to shifting realities. As Hayek might have predicted, information traveled too slowly and too dishonestly in a system where truth was punished and incentives were skewed by politics.

    China’s gradual reforms after 1978 — reintroducing private enterprise and market pricing to a tightly controlled state economy — marked an implicit concession: to make socialism “work,” planners had to scale back central planning.

    The Soviet Collapse: A Tale of Two Explanations

    When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, it was not only a political implosion but also an economic one — the largest centrally planned system in history collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. For both Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, the Soviet collapse would have appeared less as a surprise than as the inevitable outcome of systemic design flaws they had warned about decades earlier. Yet each would have interpreted the downfall in a subtly different way.

    To Mises, the Soviet failure confirmed the calculation problem. Without private property and genuine market exchange, the administrators at Gosplan had no way to measure economic efficiency. The prices they used were arbitrary, disconnected from real scarcities or consumer wants. Their statistics could record physical quantities — tons of steel, miles of rail, bushels of wheat — but not value. Over time, the entire system became an elaborate façade: apparent order concealing mounting disorder. Factories met quotas by producing useless goods, local managers falsified reports, and the central plans themselves became exercises in make-believe and misinformation. For Mises, this was not accidental mismanagement. It was the unavoidable result of an economy that had abolished the very instrument of rational calculation — the price system.

    To Hayek, the same collapse demonstrated the knowledge problem. Even if Soviet planners had access to accurate data, the knowledge required to allocate resources efficiently never existed in any central repository. It resided in the dispersed minds of millions of individuals — consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs — whose preferences and innovations could never be fully communicated through bureaucratic channels. The Soviet system’s rigidity was thus a cognitive failure: it could not adapt to change, learn from errors, or evolve through decentralized experimentation. The plan could issue orders, but it could not generate discovery. Hayek might have said that the Soviet economy did not so much break down as fail to learn.

    In this sense, Mises and Hayek offered complementary autopsies of the same tragedy. Mises explained why rational allocation was impossible without prices; Hayek explained why no planner could ever know enough to set those prices meaningfully. The first diagnosis is institutional — a system without markets cannot calculate. The second is epistemological — even with data, central authority cannot know. The failure of Soviet socialism thus confirmed both men’s warnings: a planned economy can suppress error only by suppressing truth.

    Lessons for the Digital Age

    In the twenty-first century, some argue that big data, artificial intelligence, and high-speed computation have revived the dream of central planning. After all, if machines can process trillions of data points, why can’t they optimize production and distribution better than messy markets?

    This view repeats the same fallacy that Mises and Hayek identified. The knowledge required for coordination is not static data but living information: changing preferences, unforeseen innovations, and subjective judgments of value. Machines can crunch numbers, but they cannot determine what those numbers mean in human terms.

    Moreover, without property rights, competition, and entrepreneurial experimentation, there is no mechanism to reveal or validate the information that planners would feed into their algorithms. “Smart” central planning is still central planning, and still doomed — only with faster calculators.

    Broader Philosophical Implications

    Beneath their economics lay a shared defense of human freedom and humility.

    • For Mises, the market system reflects the logic of human action: individuals using scarce means to achieve chosen ends. Coercive planning replaces choice with obedience.
    • For Hayek, markets represent a spontaneous order: a social evolution shaped by countless interactions, not by deliberate design. Planning reflects what he called the “fatal conceit” — the illusion that reason can master the complexity of civilization.

    Both saw freedom not merely as a right but as a practical necessity. Only through liberty can society continually learn, correct errors, and adapt to change.

    Common Criticisms of Mises and Hayek

    “They opposed all government.”
    Both men recognized legitimate state functions — enforcing contracts, protecting property, and maintaining the rule of law. Their critique targeted economic control, not the legal framework of a free society.

    “Computers can solve the problems they described.”
    Computation cannot replace judgment. Prices emerge from voluntary exchange, not mathematical optimization. No computer can reproduce the creative discovery process of entrepreneurs in real time.

    “They ignored inequality or social justice.”
    Both understood that outcomes in free markets are unequal, but they argued that coercive equalization destroys the process that generates wealth. For Hayek, justice lies in fair rules, not guaranteed results.

    “Their ideas are outdated.”
    On the contrary, their insights explain modern failures of technocratic overreach — from failed industrial policies to rigid pandemic controls — all rooted in the same hubris that knowledge can be centrally mastered.

    The Enduring Legacy

    Mises and Hayek’s arguments reshaped modern economics, influencing fields from information theory to institutional design. Their insights inspired later thinkers — such as Israel Kirzner’s work on entrepreneurship and Elinor Ostrom’s studies of decentralized governance — that continue to illuminate how cooperation emerges without command.

    The core message is timeless: the complexity of human society cannot be engineered from above. Markets, far from being chaotic, are the most sophisticated information system ever developed. They allow billions of people, all of whom hold dispersed and limited and sometimes highly specialized knowledge, to achieve coordinated prosperity through voluntary exchange.

    Market Prices Are the Only Viable Coordinator

    Central planning promises order but delivers confusion. Its failure is not a moral accident or a temporary flaw but a structural impossibility.

    Mises showed that without market prices, planners cannot perform rational calculation. Hayek showed that without dispersed knowledge, they cannot know what to calculate.

    Together, they demonstrated that freedom is not only ethically superior but economically indispensable. The market, for all its imperfections, remains the only mechanism capable of processing humanity’s infinite complexity.

    Their warning endures today. Economic prosperity, and indeed civilization itself, depend less on what we can design than on what we can discover. And that discovery happens best via market prices as opposed to authoritarian directorates.

    Canada One Mining Corp. (TSXV: CONE,OTC:COMCF) (OTC Pink: COMCF) (FSE: AU31) (‘Canada One’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to report high-grade gold results, accompanied by copper and silver values, from the Reco target at the Copper Dome Project, (‘Copper Dome’, ‘Project’ or ‘Property’) located adjacent to the Hudbay Minerals Inc. producing Copper Mountain Mine, Princeton, B.C.

    ROCK SAMPLING HIGHLIGHTS

    SAMPLE ID GOLD (G/T) SILVER (G/T) COPPER (%)
           
    C0066671 8.17 6.83 1.75
           
    C0066670 9.96 9.62 0.78

     

    Table 1: Notable Rock Grab Sample Results from the 2025 Exploration Program at the Reco target.

    Reco Target Sampling

    In the fall of 2025, the geological team visited the Reco target, a previously known showing, and established seven new geological stations and collected four fresh rock samples (C0066668-C0066671). The two highest-grade samples collected from Reco were C0066670 (9.96 g/t Au, 9.62 g/t Ag, 0.78% Cu) and C0066671 (8.17 g/t Au, 6.83 g/t Ag, 1.75% Cu). Both samples returned elevated iron values, with sample C0066670 recording the highest iron content of the 2025 program at 12.75% Fe, reflecting intense iron oxide alteration and the potential weathering of significant sulphide mineralization at the target.

    Reco is located approximately 1.8 km SSE of the Friday Creek potassic zone. Assay results from Friday Creek, also collected during the fall 2025 program, are pending release.

    Peter Berdusco, President and CEO of Canada One, commented: ‘The presence of high-grade gold at Reco, part of the Copper Dome Project, significantly strengthens Canada One’s exploration thesis. The gold target sits strategically between our primary porphyry targets at Copper Dome, and the presence of near-surface gold is particularly promising given how porphyry systems often generate economically meaningful flanking gold zones—enhancing both the district-scale potential and the strategic value of our project portfolio.’

    Significance of Results

    Results from the Reco target meaningfully expands the Copper Dome opportunity from a ‘copper-porphyry only’ story into a broader multi-commodity mineral system that also includes a compelling high-grade, potentially near-surface, gold-silver-copper target. The standout grab samples are particularly encouraging, as such grades can signal a robust hydrothermal event capable of generating economically meaningful high-grade shoots on the margins of, or structurally linked to, porphyry centers.

    Strategically, Reco’s location between key porphyry targets raises the possibility that this gold-bearing structure could represent a flanking zone or structurally focused expression of the same district-scale system, improving drill targeting and increasing the project’s potential value by adding higher-grade upside and development optionality beyond bulk-tonnage porphyry copper alone.

    While rock samples are inherently selective and not necessarily representative of average grade, results of this tenor strongly justify systematic follow-up to define continuity, true width, and controls on mineralization.

    Reco Planned Follow-up

    Building on these promising results, the company plans to advance exploration at the target in 2026 through a larger-scale prospecting and mapping program. Additional rock sampling will help better define the extent of known mineralization, while detailed structural mapping will support interpretation of potential gold sources as they relate to the surrounding porphyry targets.

    Geological Discussion

    Reco was investigated in 2025 to locate and accurately geo reference historical workings and mineral showings. According to the MINFILE record, the target was explored as early as 1907, when a 167-metre-long adit was driven beneath vein outcrops between 1907 and 1909.

    Reco is hosted within fine-grained volcanic and volcano sedimentary rocks of the Nicola Group, including andesite and cherty tuffs. Intense silicification was documented, along with strong iron oxidation and sericitization of the host rocks. Pyrite and copper oxide minerals are common, with localized development of chalcopyrite stringers. The observed alteration assemblage and sulphide mineralogy are consistent with a phyllic alteration domain.

    Reco consists of a caved historical adit, with extensive exposure of a volcanic wall rock resulting from historical manual scree removal. Mineralization occurs as intensely oxidized, sulphidic calcite vein material hosted within a shear zone approximately 2-3 m wide. The vein and shear zone are steeply dipping and strike NE-SW. Structural measurements collected in 2025 indicate an orientation of 210°/71°, while historical measurements report orientations of 005°/78° and 038°/80°. The vein has been traced on surface for approximately 120 m and ranges from 0.1 to 1.8 m in width.

    The vein is interpreted to have infilled a brittle fault zone, as evidenced by shattered host rock and the presence of gouge material adjacent to the vein. Intense supergene alteration of the wall rock is expressed as pervasive goethite and jarosite development at the target.

    Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10074/284307_canadaoneimg1_550.jpg

    Figure 1: (A) Rock sample C0066671 from the RECO target, showing mineralized sedimentary wall rock adjacent to a mineralized shear zone. The sample returned assays of 8.17 g/t Au, 6.83 g/t Ag, and 1.75% Cu.
    (B) Mineralized vein fill and gouge hosted within the shear zone at the target.

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10074/284307_canadaoneimg1.jpg

    Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10074/284307_cac78b5044a75aac_006.jpg

    Figure 2: 2025 rock sample locations with historical sampling at the RECO target area.

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10074/284307_cac78b5044a75aac_006full.jpg

    Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QAQC)

    All rock samples were collected from the fall 2025 fieldwork program and were submitted to ALS Geochemistry – Kamloops to be analyzed for gold and platinum group elements (PGM-ICP24 50 g fire assay), and multi-element geochemistry, including elements Cu, Pb, Zn, Co, and Ag (method ME-MS61).

    Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10074/284307_cac78b5044a75aac_007.jpg

    Figure 3: Overview map of the Copper Dome project sowing sample and data stations from the 2025 exploration program as well as project infrastructure.

    To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
    https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10074/284307_cac78b5044a75aac_007full.jpg

    About The Copper Dome Project

    Copper Dome is located in the lower Quesnel Trough porphyry belt, one of British Columbia’s most prolific mining districts. The Project directly adjoins Hudbay Minerals Inc.’s producing Copper Mountain Mine to the north, which the company reports as having Proven and Probable Reserves of ~367 Mt at 0.25 % Cu, 0.12 g/t Au, and 0.69 g/t Ag (Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2023)*. Multiple mineralized zones have been identified across the Property, with historical drilling confirming high-grade copper associated with northeast-trending structures similar to those hosting mineralization at Copper Mountain.

    The technical and scientific information regarding the adjacent Copper Mountain Mine is sourced from Hudbay Minerals Inc.’s published reports. Mineralization at Copper Mountain should not be considered indicative of the mineralization on the Copper Dome Project.

    Copper Dome benefits from excellent infrastructure, enabling year-round access, cost-efficient exploration, and a stable, low-risk jurisdiction.

    Historical Work Completed

    • Geophysics: 51 km of induced polarization (IP); airborne magnetic and electromagnetic (EM) coverage over ~50% of the Property
    • Sampling: 2,253 soils and 378 rocks collected
    • Drilling: 8,900+ m of diamond drilling
    • Trenching: Over 1 km excavated

    With a five-year drill permit in place, the Company is focused on advancing the Copper Dome toward drill-ready target definition.

    * Reference: Hudbay Minerals Inc. (2023). NI 43-101 Technical Report – Updated Mineral Resources & Mineral Reserves Estimate, Copper Mountain Mine, Princeton, British Columbia. Effective date: December 1, 2023. Qualified Person: Olivier Tavchandjian, Ph.D., P.Geo.

    About Canada One

    Canada One Mining Corp. is a Canadian junior exploration company focused on copper-the critical metal powering the global energy transition. The Company advances projects from discovery through resource definition with disciplined, data-driven exploration and responsible practices. Its flagship Copper Dome Project, near Princeton, British Columbia, targets a porphyry copper-gold system in a Tier-1 jurisdiction. Canada One aims to deliver sustainable growth and long-term value for shareholders and local communities.

    Acknowledgement

    Canada One acknowledges that the Copper Dome Project is located within the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Smelqmix People. We recognize and respect their cultural heritage and relationship to the land, honoring their past, present and future.

    Qualified Person

    The scientific and technical information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Ali Wasiliew, P.Geo., an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

    Contact Us

    For further information, interested parties are encouraged to visit the Company’s website at www.canadaonemining.com, or contact the Company by email at info@canadaonemining.com, or by phone at 1.877.844.4661.

    On behalf of the Board of Directors of
    Canada One Mining Corp.

    Peter Berdusco
    President
    Chief Executive Officer
    Interim Chief Financial Officer

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release includes certain ‘forward-looking information’ and ‘forward-looking statements’ (collectively ‘forward-looking statements’) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included herein, without limitation, statements relating to the future operating or financial performance of the Company, are forward looking statements. Forward-looking statements are frequently, but not always, identified by words such as ‘expects’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘potential’, ‘possible’, and similar expressions, or statements that events, conditions, or results ‘will’, ‘may’, ‘could’, or ‘should’ occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements in this press release relate to, among other things: statements relating to the anticipated timing thereof and the intended use of proceeds. Actual future results may differ materially. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Forward-looking statements reflect the beliefs, opinions and projections on the date the statements are made and are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by the respective parties, are inherently subject to significant business, technical, economic, and competitive 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 and the parties have made assumptions and estimates based on or related to many of these factors. Such factors include, without limitation: the timing, completion and delivery of the referenced assessments and analysis. Readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements and information contained in this news release concerning these times. Except as required by law, the Company does not assume any obligation to update the forward-looking statements of beliefs, opinions, projections, or other factors, should they change, except as required by law.

    TSX Venture Exchange Disclaimer

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

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/284307

    News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is pushing a new home-entry rule, one Americans might have thought they left behind in the old world. A whistleblower recently exposed an internal memo from ICE’s acting director, claiming that once an immigration judge — an employee of the executive branch — signs a final order of removal for someone, ICE agents may use that order (and their own administrative paperwork) to legally enter private homes to effect an arrest — all without ever asking an independent judge for a warrant.

    The Fourth Amendment was written for this exact moment. One of the major causes of the American Revolution was the practice of British officers using similar executive-authorized papers to enter colonists’ private homes. When the Framers enacted the Bill of Rights, they drew a bright line at the front door of the home — and said government may not sign its own paperwork to enter. In a free society, you can shut your door, and the state cannot force it open on its own say-so.

    Crucially, this holds true no matter why the state wants to come in. The Supreme Court has never blessed letting an agency-issued immigration form substitute for an independent judge’s warrant to enter an occupied home. That is why the most important word in this debate is also the most misleading one: “warrant.” 

    Warrants Require Independent Judgment and Probable Cause 

    A valid search warrant isn’t just a piece of paper with an official seal. It’s an authorization saying there is probable cause for the government to act. Probable cause is not certainty, but it is not a hunch; it is a set of specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe government agents will find the person they seek, or evidence of a particular crime, in the place they want to enter. 

    The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourth Amendment’s “protection consists in requiring” that the person deciding whether such probable cause exists be a “neutral and detached magistrate,” rather than an “officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise” of law enforcement. So the person deciding whether the government may intrude cannot be the same person — or on the same team — as the person seeking the warrant. The Court drove that point home in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, where it invalidated a warrant issued by the state attorney general, who clearly was not neutral as to investigations his office was conducting.

    The Fourth Amendment demands neutrality precisely because the risk of error is so predictable and commonplace. For example, in Martin v. United States, an FBI SWAT team forced their way into an innocent family’s home and pulled a gun on their seven-year-old son before realizing they were in the wrong place. Other examples (unfortunately) abound, since officers can have the right person in mind but the wrong location, or have the right location but the wrong idea about who lives there. By requiring a neutral judge sign off on a search warrant — in advance — the Fourth Amendment acts to keep officers from turning a guess into a home invasion. 

    Administrative search warrants provide none of this security. They are issued by officials in the very agency seeking to conduct the search or seizure, meaning the government agents are directly signing off on the integrity of their own work. And when that happens, there is great cause to fear that the agency will cut corners in a way they could not if probable cause must be found by an independent judge. 

    In City of Ontario v. Quon, the Court stressed that the Fourth Amendment applies “without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function.”

    Administrative “Warrants” Exist In Immigration, But They Are Not Fourth Amendment Warrants

    Removal is generally a civil process, and agencies have long used administrative warrants to arrest immigrants for removal proceedings. DHS claims these warrants are “recognized by the Supreme Court,” implying that immigration enforcement somehow runs on a different constitutional track. But that is not so: In City of Ontario v. Quon, the Court stressed that the Fourth Amendment applies “without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function.”

    So a “civil” process cannot mean “Constitution-lite” at the front door. If the Constitution enacts strict limits before officers enter a home in the criminal law enforcement context, then the same must be true when the government is pursuing civil immigration enforcement.

    Yet that is the leap ICE (and its defenders) ask the public to accept. That they can take an agency form that authorizes them to detain an immigrant and treat it like a judge-issued warrant to justify entering a residence without consent. In support, they often cite the 1960 Supreme Court decision Abel v. United States, but in that case, agents did not use an administrative warrant as a constitutional key to an occupied home. 

    Yes, Abel involved an administrative deportation warrant. But that’s where the similarities end. Abel was arrested in a hotel room, and the later, warrantless search at issue occurred — with hotel management’s consent — after he checked out, vacated the room, and paid his bill, with agents collecting items Abel had left behind. The Court upheld that later search as reasonable because the hotel had regained control of the room and Abel had abandoned the property seized. 

    Therefore, Abel stands for a narrower proposition: administrative warrants may support certain civil immigration arrests and incidental searches of abandoned-property facts in a relinquished hotel room. It does not stand for ICE’s sweeping claim that an executive agency may issue its own “warrant” and then use it to cross a home’s threshold. 

    The Fourth Amendment Protects Our Homes Against Unreasonable Government Intrusion 

    The Supreme Court’s modern home-entry rule comes from the landmark 1980 case Payton v. New York. There, the Court held that police generally may not make a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to effect a routine felony arrest. The Court emphasized that the “physical entry of the home” is the “chief evil” the Fourth Amendment targets. Although the Court held that law enforcement officers may enter a suspect’s own home with an arrest warrant to make an arrest, they must have reason to believe he is inside.

    So, Payton says that where police have a judicial arrest warrant, they need not have a separate search warrant before entering the suspect’s own home. But ICE administrative warrants are not judicial warrants. They do not issue from a “neutral and detached magistrate.” They simply are not the kind of warrant Payton said would authorize entry. 

    And even when officers have that kind of judge-issued warrant, it still will not authorize them to enter a third party’s home to look for that suspect. In Steagald v. United States, the Supreme Court held that — absent consent or exigent circumstances — law enforcement must first obtain a search warrant before entering a third party’s residence to arrest the person named in the arrest warrant. Although an arrest warrant authorizes the government to seize a person, it alone does not justify invading the third-party homeowner’s security. Instead, the government must persuade a neutral and detached magistrate that they have probable cause to search the third party’s home for the suspect. 

    ICE’s tactic is to lean on criminal-law doctrines while stripping out the criminal-law safeguards. It borrows Payton’s language about “arrest warrants” to suggest that an immigration warrant can function the same way. But as Steagald shows, even a judicial arrest warrant is not enough to enter a third party’s home. An ICE administrative “warrant” is weaker still. Because it issues from inside the executive branch rather than from a neutral magistrate, it cannot credibly be treated as a constitutional substitute for entering a dwelling. 

    That is why Institute for Justice attorney Patrick Jaicomo has described these documents as “not a warrant at all,” but “a warrant-shaped object.” With them, the government uses the term “arrest warrant” to enter homes, knowing that most people will be intimidated and are likely to comply. All while it avoids the constitutional friction that makes a real warrant meaningful. 

    Nonetheless, Speaker Mike Johnson defended the practice, claiming that requiring judicial warrants would add another “layer” and make enforcement harder. Speaker Johnson is right: the Fourth Amendment exists to slow the government down at the very moment it feels most certain. It exists because officials have always been tempted by shortcuts, and history has shown that the most dangerous shortcut is a general-warrant mindset that lets agents be a law unto themselves by searching first and justifying later (if ever). 

    A free society depends on feeling secure that the government won’t break down your door without good cause and independent permission. So the real choice is not “enforce the law” versus “follow the Constitution” — after all, immigration enforcement for decades has operated consistent with the Fourth Amendment. It is whether we let the executive escape the Fourth Amendment by redefining a “warrant” into a self-issued permission slip. To do so would be to erode one of the most fundamental rights in a free society: the right to be secure in your home from arbitrary government intrusion.

    The U.S. is preparing to expand the deployment of advanced missile systems in the northern Philippines, placing additional long-range strike capability within range of key Chinese military assets and reinforcing Washington’s effort to counter Beijing’s growing assertiveness across the Indo-Pacific.

    U.S. and Philippine officials announced plans to increase deployments of ‘cutting-edge missile and unmanned systems’ to the treaty ally, as both governments condemned what they described as China’s ‘illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities’ in the South China Sea.

    The move comes as confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels have intensified in disputed waters and as Beijing continues to pressure Taiwan, raising the stakes across the region’s most sensitive flashpoints.

    It builds on the deployment of the U.S. Army’s Typhon missile system in northern Luzon, Philippines, a ground-based launcher capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles that can travel more than 1,000 miles.

    Tomahawks can travel more than 1,000 miles — a range that, from northern Luzon, Philippines, places portions of southern China and major People’s Liberation Army (PLA) facilities within reach. The positioning also allows the U.S. and Philippine militaries to cover large swaths of the South China Sea and key maritime corridors connecting it to the broader Pacific.

    The U.S. first deployed the Typhon system to Luzon, Philippines, in April 2024. An anti-ship missile launcher known as the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System was deployed in 2025 to Batan Island in the northernmost Philippine province of Batanes.

    That island faces the Bashi Channel, a strategic waterway just south of Taiwan that serves as a critical transit route for commercial shipping and military vessels moving between the South China Sea and the Western Pacific. Control of that channel would be vital in any potential Taiwan contingency.

    Beijing has urged Manila to withdraw the U.S. systems from its territory, but officials under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have rejected those demands.

    ‘China has consistently stated its firm opposition to the United States’ deployment of advanced weapons systems in the Philippines. The introduction of strategic and offensive weapons that heighten regional tensions, fuel geopolitical confrontation, and risk triggering an arms race is extremely dangerous. Such actions are irresponsible to the people of the Philippines, to Southeast Asian nations, and to regional security as a whole,’ Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu told Fox News Digital.  ‘The United States is not a party to disputes in the South China Sea and has no standing to intervene in maritime issues between China and the Philippines.’

    ‘The Taiwan question lies at the very heart of China’s core interests. China’s determination to defend its national sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity is unwavering. Any provocation that crosses red lines on Taiwan will be met with resolute countermeasures, and any attempt to obstruct China’s reunification is doomed to fail,’ Liu continued. 

    Neither side detailed how many additional systems would be sent or whether the deployments would be permanent, but Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez said U.S. and Filipino defense officials discussed deploying upgraded missile launchers that Manila may eventually seek to purchase.

    ‘It’s a kind of system that’s really very sophisticated and will be deployed here in the hope that, down the road, we will be able to get our own,’ Romualdez told The Associated Press.

    Romualdez stressed that the deployments are intended as a deterrent.

    ‘It’s purely for deterrence,’ he said. ‘Every time the Chinese show any kind of aggression, it only strengthens our resolve to have these types.’

    China repeatedly has objected to the missile deployments, warning they threaten regional stability and accusing Washington of trying to contain its rise.

    In a joint statement following annual bilateral talks in Manila, the U.S. and the Philippines underscored their support for freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce in the South China Sea — a vital global trade artery through which trillions of dollars in goods pass each year.

    ‘Both sides condemned China’s illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities in the South China Sea, recognizing their adverse effects on regional peace and stability and the economies of the Indo-Pacific and beyond,’ the statement said.

    China claims virtually the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling in 2016 that invalidated many of its sweeping claims. In recent years, Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels have clashed repeatedly with Philippine ships near disputed shoals, including Second Thomas Shoal.

    The expanded missile deployments also come as the Pentagon balances rising tensions in multiple theaters. In recent weeks, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group — which had been operating in the Indo-Pacific — was redirected toward the Middle East as the U.S. moved to bolster its posture amid escalating tensions with Iran. 

    The deployments also reflect a broader U.S. effort to strengthen its military posture along the so-called ‘first island chain’ — a string of territories stretching from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines that forms a natural barrier to Chinese naval expansion into the Pacific.

    Washington has deepened defense cooperation with Manila under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, expanding U.S. access to Philippine bases, including sites in northern Luzon close to Taiwan.

    China in May released a national security white paper criticizing the deployment of an ‘intermediate-range missile system’ in the region — widely viewed as a reference to the U.S. Typhon launcher in the Philippines. The document accused unnamed countries of reviving a ‘Cold War mentality’ and forming military ‘small groups’ that aggravate regional tensions.

    For U.S. planners, dispersing mobile, land-based missile systems across allied territory complicates Beijing’s military calculus. Instead of relying solely on ships and aircraft, the U.S. can field ground-based systems that are harder to track and capable of holding Chinese naval and air assets at risk.

    For Beijing, however, such deployments reinforce its long-standing claim that the United States is encircling China militarily.

    As tensions simmer in both the South China Sea and around Taiwan, the positioning of long-range U.S. missile systems on Philippine soil underscores how the strategic competition between Washington and Beijing is increasingly being defined by geography — and by which side can project credible deterrent power across it.


    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    The House Oversight Committee is hearing from a billionaire on Wednesday who was named one of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators by a 2019 FBI document.

    Les Wexner is the latest person to be deposed in the House’s investigation into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case. 

    Unlike most previous depositions, however, committee staff and potentially some lawmakers are traveling to Ohio on Wednesday morning to depose Wexner in his home state.

    A spokesperson for Wexner declined to comment on the deposition and on whether he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to avoid answering questions.

    But if he cooperates with the committee’s questioning, Wexner’s insight is likely to be key to unlocking information on just how Epstein obtained his vast wealth before dying by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019.

    The 88-year-old businessman is the founder of L Brands, formerly called The Limited, through which he acquired well-known companies Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Express, and Abercrombie & Fitch, among others.

    He was also one of Epstein’s first major clients as a financial advisor, with Epstein being granted power of attorney over Wexner’s vast wealth.

    Wexner also sold his Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, which was later discovered to be one of the locations where federal authorities accused Epstein of abusing young women and girls under 18.

    But Wexner has never been criminally accused nor charged in relation to the late pedophile’s crimes.

    A letter from Wexner to his Wexner Foundation charity dated Aug. 7, 2019, said he ended his relationship with Epstein sometime after the first federal investigation into his crimes emerged nearly 20 years ago.

    Wexner also accused Epstein of misusing his vast wealth.

    ‘As the allegations against Mr. Epstein in Florida were emerging, he vehemently denied them. But by early fall 2007, it was agreed that he should step back from the management of our personal finances. In that process, we discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family,’ read the letter, obtained by Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

    ‘This was, frankly, a tremendous shock, even though it clearly pales in comparison to the unthinkable allegations against him now. With his credibility and our trust in him destroyed, we immediately severed ties with him. We were able to recover some of the funds.’

    Wexner is the fourth person appearing before the House Oversight Committee in its Epstein probe.

    House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., previously oversaw the panel through the depositions of former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr, ex-Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. attorney in Florida who signed off on Epstein’s infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, and convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

    Maxwell’s deposition lasted less than an hour after she invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions unless she was granted clemency by President Donald Trump.


    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Arguing that noncitizens could be on state voter rolls — something that is illegal under federal law — the Trump administration is escalating its campaign to obtain registration data ahead of the 2026 midterms, despite a string of federal court setbacks.

    The strategy has unfolded on three fronts: cooperation from Republican-led states willing to share voter data, lawsuits against roughly two dozen blue and purple states that have refused, and a legislative push in Congress to tighten national voting requirements. Federal judges have so far rebuffed the administration’s legal demands, but the Justice Department is widening its campaign as Election Day draws near. 

    Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative group Advancing American Freedom, said voter rolls are a central focus ahead of the midterms because of the Trump administration’s concerns that noncitizens are on them and could end up voting. It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

    ‘The problem is, blue states, like Oregon, they have no interest in that kind of verification, so they’re not actually doing what they ought to be doing, which is running data-based comparisons with the [Department of Homeland Security],’ von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital.

    The DOJ has made sweeping demands for not just publicly available voter roll data, but also sensitive information, such as voters’ partial Social Security numbers and dates of birth.

    The latest state to successfully fight the DOJ’s request is Michigan, where Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said the federal government was not entitled to its 7 million voters’ personal information beyond what was already available.

    The DOJ cited three federal laws, the Civil Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, that it said gave the Trump administration the right to the confidential information. Judge Hala Jarbou disagreed.

    ‘The Court concludes that (1) HAVA does not require the disclosure of any records, (2) the NVRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not records concerning the implementation of list maintenance procedures, and (3) the CRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not documents that come into the possession of election officials,’ Jarbou, a Trump appointee wrote.

    Federal judges in Oregon and California have also thrown out the DOJ’s lawsuits. The DOJ could appeal the decisions. A department spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

    But the DOJ has seen cooperation from red states, such as Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, who were among several to reach a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that led the states to hand over the information the department wanted.

    In another maneuver, Attorney General Pam Bondi pressured Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, to provide the Midwest battleground’s voter rolls, saying in a warning letter that such action would help ease unrest in the state that stemmed from a federal immigration crackdown there. 

    Democrats were enraged by the letter and have argued the Trump administration is infringing on states’ rights to conduct their own elections.

    Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., argued the letter was a ‘pretext for Trump to take over elections in swing states,’ while a state lawyer described the letter as a ‘ransom note.’ The DOJ, at the time, told Fox News Digital Democrats were ‘shamelessly lying’ about the letter’s purpose. Bondi said that handing over the voter rolls was among several ‘simple steps’ Minnesota could take to ‘bring back law and order.’ A lawsuit is still pending in Minnesota over the voter rolls.

    In Congress, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would make it a national requirement that people registering to vote provide in-person proof of citizenship, such as birth certificates or passports. The legislation also includes a new national requirement for photo ID at the polls.

    The bill has widespread Republican support. The House passed the SAVE Act last week, and even moderate Republican senators like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., have said they are on board with it. The bill is still stalled in the Senate, however, because it needs 60 votes to pass, meaning several Democrats would need to support it. Currently, none do. 

    Von Spakovsky noted that the SAVE Act had a key provision that would allow private citizens to bring lawsuits over it.

    ‘There’s no question in my mind that if the Save Act gets passed, there are election officials in blue states that will be reluctant to or may refuse to enforce the proof of citizenship requirement,’ von Spakovsky said. ‘The Save Act provides a private right of action, so that means that citizens in Oregon could sue those election officials if they’re refusing to comply with the Save Act.’

    He said the private right of action provision would also provide recourse for citizens if Democrats take over the DOJ in the next administration and refuse to enforce the SAVE Act.

    Trump has repeatedly argued that noncitizen voting poses a threat to election integrity and has pressed Republican lawmakers to tighten federal requirements. Last week, he floated attempting to impose identification requirements through executive order if Congress does not act.

    ‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW!’ Trump wrote on Truth Social. ‘If we can’t get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’

    A much broader bill called the Make Elections Great Again Act is still moving through the House and faces a steeper uphill climb to passage.

    In addition to national documented proof of citizenship requirement, the MEGA Act would end universal mail voting, eliminate ranked-choice voting and ban ballots postmarked by Election Day from being accepted after that day, which would outlaw postmark rules in 14 states and Washington, D.C.


    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS