Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Investing

CHARBONE to Present on the Emerging Growth Conference on February 25, 2026

No Comments

(TheNewswire)

Charbone Hydrogen Corporation

Brossard, Quebec TheNewswire – February 23, 2026 Charbone CORPORATION (TSXV: CH,OTC:CHHYF; OTCQB: CHHYF; FSE: K47) (‘Charbone’ or the ‘Company’), a North American producer and distributor specializing in clean Ultra High Purity (‘UHP’) hydrogen and strategic industrial gases, today announced that it will be presenting at the Emerging Growth Conference on February 25, 2026.

Charbone will be presenting virtually for 30 minutes on Wednesday February 25, 2026 at 11:25am ET covering a full overview of the company, upcoming milestones and will open the floor for questions following prepared remarks. Questions may be submitted in advance to Questions@EmergingGrowth.com or can be asked live during the event. Charbone invites individual and institutional investors, advisors and analysts to attend its live, interactive presentation.

 

Please register below to ensure you are able to attend the conference and receive any updates that are released.

 

Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026

Time: 11:25 – 11:55am ET

Register: https://goto.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1740947&tp_key=dbde48090b&sti=chhyf

 

If attendees are not able to join the event live on the day of the conference, an archived webcast will also be made available on EmergingGrowth.com and on the Emerging Growth YouTube Channel, http://www.YouTube.com/EmergingGrowthConference. We will release a link to that after the event.

About the Emerging Growth Conference

The Emerging Growth conference is an effective way for public companies to present and communicate their new products, services and other major announcements to the investment community from the convenience of their office, in a time efficient manner.

 

The Conference focus and coverage includes companies in a wide range of growth sectors, with strong management teams, innovative products & services, focused strategy, execution, and the overall potential for long term growth. Its audience includes potentially tens of thousands of Individual and Institutional investors, as well as Investment advisors and analysts.

 

All sessions will be conducted through video webcasts and will take place in the Eastern time zone.

About Charbone CORPORATION

Charbone is a developer and producer of clean Ultra High Purity (UHP) hydrogen with a growing industrial gas distribution platform. Through a modular approach, Charbone is focused on developing a network of clean hydrogen production facilities throughout North America and select markets abroad, starting with its flagship Sorel-Tracy project in Quebec. The Company’s integrated model reduces risk, enhances scalability, and enables diversified revenue streams through partnerships in helium and other specialty gases. Charbone is committed to supporting the global transition to a lower-carbon economy by providing accessible, decentralized clean hydrogen and specialty gas solutions while supporting underserved industrial gas customers and accelerating the shift to localized clean energy. Charbone is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV: CH,OTC:CHHYF), the OTC Markets (OTCQB: CHHYF), and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (FSE: K47). Visit www.charbone.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains statements that are ‘forward-looking information’ as defined under Canadian securities laws (‘forward-looking statements’). These forward-looking statements are often identified by words such as ‘intends’, ‘anticipates’, ‘expects’, ‘believes’, ‘plans’, ‘likely’, or similar words. The forward-looking statements reflect management’s expectations, estimates, or projections concerning future results or events, based on the opinions, assumptions and estimates considered reasonable by management at the date the statements are made. Although Charbone believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements, as unknown or unpredictable factors could cause actual results to be materially different from those reflected in the forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements may be affected by risks and uncertainties in the business of Charbone. These risks, uncertainties and assumptions include, but are not limited to, those described under ‘Risk Factors’ in the Corporation’s Management’s Discussion & Analysis for the period ended September 30, 2025, which is available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca; they could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements.

Except as required under applicable securities legislation, Charbone undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking information.

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

 

Contact Charbone Corporation

Telephone: +1 450 678 7171

Email: ir@Charbone.com

Benoit Veilleux

CFO and Corporate Secretary

 

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

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

Moralizing Markets: Vatican Bank Wades into Faith-Based Indexing

No Comments

Markets have long been accused of lacking morality. On February 10, the Vatican decided to supply one. The Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), commonly known as the Vatican Bank, partnered with Morningstar to launch two stock market indices designed to guide Catholic investors. The Morningstar IOR US Catholic Principles Index and the Morningstar IOR Eurozone Catholic Principles Index are “built following market best practices and in accordance with Catholic ethical criteria, and intended to serve as a global reference point for Catholic investing.” 

According to reporting by Business Insider, the US index is heavily anchored, with more than twenty percent of the portfolio concentrated in firms such as Meta, Apple, Tesla and Alphabet. The European index remains more geographically and sectorally diverse, with holdings including ASML, Santander, Hermes and Deutsche Telekom. 

The move marks a notable shift in tone from just over a decade earlier. In 2014 Pope Francis openly criticized financial markets and speculation. “It is increasingly intolerable that financial markets are shaping the destiny of peoples rather than serving their needs, or that the few derive immense wealth from financial speculation while the many are deeply burdened by the consequences.” 

The Vatican is not the first religious institution to enter the world of faith-based investing. As MoneyWeek notes, smaller religiously oriented products already exist, including the FIS Christian Stock Fund ETF (ticker: PRAY) and Global X’s S&P 500 Christian Values ETF (ticker: CATH). Still, it is striking to see one of the world’s oldest moral authorities step directly into modern capital markets, no longer condemning them from the sidelines, but attempting to navigate them.

This raises a more basic question: what is the stock market actually for? However noble the intention, the organizing principle of equity markets is profit, pricing risk, aggregating information, and allocating capital accordingly.

That uncomfortable truth was captured in the 1980s by Gordon Gekko in the film Wall Street. “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.” The sentiment was never seen as a sermon on virtue. It was a provocation about incentives, the truth about how markets discipline behavior not through moral judgment, but through the signals of profit and loss.

The most prominent episode in which the Catholic Church became directly entangled with financial mechanisms occurred during the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica, which was financed in part through the sale of indulgences in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. That episode blurred moral authority and monetary exchange in the service of a concrete institutional project, with consequences that extended well beyond Rome. Scripture itself draws a clear boundary between spiritual and worldly domains with the passage Matthew 22:21: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” 

Ironically, the Vatican Bank itself operates for profit. In 2024, it reported net income of €32 million (about $37.6 million), up seven percent from the prior year. Alongside this commercial reality, IOR’s investment policy for the new indices is explicitly moralized. The framework prioritizes the sanctity and respect for human life, environmental protection, and combating addictions, supplemented by an exclusion grid derived from social responsibility and sustainability criteria aligned with the United Nations Global Compact.

In practice, this approach closely mirrors Environmental, Social, and Governance investing. ESG frameworks place pressure on firms, and now religious institutions, to become vehicles for social objectives rather than providers of goods and services. While such an approach may appear more fitting for a moral authority than for a corporation, it still falls short of the profit-driven incentives that underpin capitalism’s effectiveness. Historically, broad-based capitalist growth has done more to improve human welfare than ESG programs have demonstrably achieved. As AIER contributor Russell Greene notes, “When it comes to results, the economic enlightenment enabled 128,000 individuals to escape abject poverty every single day. In contrast, it’s not clear if the ESG movement has accomplished anything of note.” 

Simple market participation such as investing in a broad benchmark like the S&P 500, with its long record and transparent construction, would have sufficed. For example, placing $1,000 into the S&P 500 twenty years ago would have quadrupled in value, “The index has grown by 448.7% since 2005, when you made your initial investment. So, your original $1,000 would now be worth $4,487, minus inflation adjustments.”

Writing in the same era that Gordon Gekko entered popular culture, economist Milton Friedman argued that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, not because profit is virtuous, but because it is accountable. 

“Only people have responsibilities,” Friedman wrote. “A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but ‘business’ as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense.”

Given that the IOR operates for profit and has now entered public capital markets, the Vatican Bank would do well to remember that markets discipline behavior through loss and reward, not moral proclamation. Investors may act on conscience, but when markets are asked to serve moral ends, whether from the UN or the Vatican, price signals are replaced with certification and branding. 

Profit is not a moral failure; pretending it can be replaced is. Markets coordinate human activity through incentives, not intentions. Asking them to do otherwise misunderstands both economics and morality.

by
Read More
In Latest News

CHAD WOLF: Space isn’t just the final frontier, it’s the ‘ultimate high ground’

No Comments

The race to the moon is on — again. But the strategic competition playing out today is much bigger than our race with the Soviet Union in 1969. If China reaches the moon ahead of the United States and establishes a permanent, manned presence — it will not treat the lunar surface as a peaceful scientific outpost, but as an extension of its campaign to surpass America, intimidate our allies and compromise our systems that keep the American homeland secure. This is no longer something of science fiction.

President Donald Trump understands this threat, signing the Executive Order on Ensuring American Space Superiority, which made it abundantly clear that he wants the United States to lead this new space race — returning Americans back to the moon by 2028 and building a permanent manned presence on the lunar surface.

Let me be clear, the fear that China could somehow ‘claim’ the moon by arriving first misunderstands both geography and international reality. Two of the main locations for settlement are the Shackleton Crater, which stretches about the distance from Washington, D.C., to Baltimore, Maryland, and the South Pole–Aitken Basin, which is roughly the distance from Washington, D.C., to Denver, Colo. The moon is vast.

The strategic concern and question for Congress is not who arrives ‘next,’ but who establishes a durable, scalable and defensible presence on the lunar surface. China understands this question and is well on their way to develop a reusable launch system to control this terrain and its abundant critical resources within a decade. The U.S. needs to recognize this threat and address it with the urgency it demands.

The Obama-Biden administration’s Space Launch System (SLS), which is currently being used for the Artemis missions, utilizes 1980s architecture developed from the shuttle missions and has been highly criticized by NASA’s former inspector general during the Biden administration who calculated the cost of a single SLS launch was $4.2 billion, with nearly $64 billion already spent despite only one operational flight since 2022. This is an enormous price tag with limited payload capacity and a launch cadence measured in years rather than months.

Seeing NASA’s struggles with the SLS, Chinese state-backed firms are now mimicking architectures that support fully reusable, self-landing heavy-lift rockets modeled on SpaceX’s Starship. As seen on Feb. 11, China’s Long March 10 booster (developed in just eight years) successfully guided itself to a powered, vertical ocean splashdown. This is an unmistakable signal that China is quickly catching up to us and recognizes that a nation that can launch more often and move more mass will dominate.

The critical national security question is this: What happens if the U.S. does not pivot quickly toward prioritizing cost, capacity and cadence, after Artemis III?

First, we will likely see the formation of a permanent Chinese, manned presence expanding Beijing’s intelligence collection and space awareness across the Earth–moon system helping China monitor U.S. and allied activity. Beijing has invested in capabilities designed to ‘degrade, damage, or destroy’ U.S. satellites — the backbone of American command-and-control and targeting. This has direct homeland security implications.

Challenger space shuttle claimed 7 lives 40 years ago

Trump is right to push a layered, space-enabled missile defense, known as the ‘Golden Dome,’ but if the Chinese control the ultimate high ground, it can build a moon-based counter-command designed to blind, spoof, disrupt or hold at risk the space layer that makes that shield possible. Put simply: you cannot defend the homeland from above if Beijing can contest the space above you. The United States should establish that capability first — call it the ‘Donald J. Trump Moon Base’ and lock in the operational advantage ahead of the Chinese.

Second, if China is left untouched on the lunar surface, it would surely increase the risk of espionage, sabotage and gray-zone interference against our own forthcoming lunar infrastructure.

Seeing NASA’s struggles with the SLS, Chinese state-backed firms are now mimicking architectures that support fully reusable, self-landing heavy-lift rockets modeled on SpaceX’s Starship.

Finally, Beijing will seek to turn its presence into control over resources on the lunar surface. It is critical for us to get ahead of the Chinese on the extraction of these critical minerals, which China already has a stronghold of on Earth. We need these critical minerals for national defense, economic prosperity, and, frankly, our sovereignty.

The moon is the ultimate high ground; we cannot afford to be first on Earth but second in space. If China gets to the moon, fine, but if it frequently returns, they will turn their presence into control — over the ‘Golden Dome,’ over our critical infrastructure on Earth and in low Earth orbit, and over the resources the moon provides — America will be permanently exposed to its greatest adversary.

To beat China, Congress should demand accountability for delays and cost overruns, stop blindly giving subsidies to outdated systems, and pivot to reusability. Our continued homeland security depends on it. Let’s put America first and prioritize cost, capacity and cadence.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

DHS shutdown drags into week two as Iran threat, SOTU clash complicate Hill talks

No Comments

A government shutdown, big or small, is usually a front-and-center issue for lawmakers — but the most recent partial closure could be put on the back burner as Congress returns to several issues in Washington.

Senate Democrats and the White House are still at odds over funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as the shutdown dragged into its 10th day. Neither side is budging, with the most recent concrete action coming early last week.

Trump, who proved pivotal in striking a funding truce with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in January, was not directly involved in recent negotiations. 

Trump has not had any ‘direct conversations or correspondence’ with congressional Democrats recently, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, noting that the White House and its representatives have been handling the dialogue.

‘But, of course, Democrats are the reason that the Department of Homeland Security is currently shut down,’ she said. ‘They have chosen to act against the American people for political reasons.’ 

Senate Democrats offered a counter to the White House’s own counterproposal, which quickly was rejected as ‘unserious’ by Leavitt. It’s a peculiar instance, given that this is the third shutdown during Trump’s second term, and neither side appears to be in a particular rush to end it.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital that there’s ‘some room for give and take’ in the negotiations, but remained firm in the GOP’s positioning against requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from getting judicial warrants, unmasking or other reforms sought by Democrats that could increase risks for agents in the field.  

‘I felt like, you know, the last offer the White House put out there was a really — it was a good faith one, and it was clear to me that they’re attempting, in every way, to try and land this thing so we can get DHS funded,’ Thune said. 

Funding the agency will be a top priority for the upper chamber, but they’ll be delayed because of winter storms descending on the East Coast. The weather has caused the Senate to delay a vote on the original DHS spending bill until Tuesday night, ahead of Trump’s State of the Union address.

There are other issues that could get in the way of hashing out a deal, including a possible conflict with Iran and Trump’s desire to move ahead with tariffs without congressional approval.

Trump told reporters Friday that he was ‘considering’ a limited military strike against Iran, which already has riled up some in Congress, who are demanding that lawmakers get a say on whether the U.S. strikes.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement that he has a war powers resolution to block an attack on Iran filed and ready, and challenged his colleagues to vote against it.

‘If some of my colleagues support war, then they should have the guts to vote for the war and to be held accountable by their constituents, rather than hiding under their desks,’ Kaine said.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling to torpedo his sweeping duties, Trump is considering bypassing Congress to move ahead with another set of global 10% tariffs.

That comes as some Republicans are quietly celebrating the end of the duties, and others are open to working with the administration on a path forward for trade policy.

On tariffs, a Republican aide told Fox News that the GOP was ‘waiting to see what POTUS does next.’

‘The State of the Union should be interesting,’ they said.


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

New York Can’t Afford to Sideline Private Developers

No Comments

New York City’s new mayor Zohran Mamdani made housing affordability a big part of his campaign. On his first day in office, he signed three executive orders related to housing policy, and his subsequent housing ideas have mostly involved more regulation or more taxpayer spending. Mamdani may mean well, but government cannot fix the Big Apple’s housing problem.

Mamdani’s most recent setback is related to the City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement program, or CityFHEPS. Roughly 60,000 households participate in the voucher program, and its costs have exploded in recent years, rising from $176 million in 2019 to a projected $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2025. Mamdani promised to expand CityFHEPS eligibility but recently said his administration needs more time to evaluate its options given the city’s bleak budget outlook. But time will not solve Mamdani’s money problem.

New York City is facing a $2.2 billion budget deficit, and in addition to his housing dreams, Mamdani recently announced a plan to provide taxpayer-funded childcare for two-year-olds at a projected cost of $6 billion annually. The truth is that New York City does not have the money to provide the housing it needs.

The only way to make housing truly affordable is to build a lot more of it in places people want to live. New York City cannot do this without the private sector. One recent estimate of New York City’s housing shortfall finds it needs 473,000 more units by 2032. The average cost to build an affordable unit in big cities is around $500,000 per unit. Multiplying the two numbers together equals $236.5 billion, or $34 billion per year over seven years. New York City raised $81 billion in tax revenue in 2025, meaning it would take 42 percent of all the city’s annual tax revenue to build the housing it needs if it wants to go it alone.

Mamdani’s political philosophy will be his undoing. As a self-identified democratic socialist supported by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), he sees little use for private developers. The DSA wants housing to be expropriated from its current owners and given to the “working class.” They believe tenants should control housing. As they put it, “Social housing does not offer an equal seat at the table to developers, investors, or city councilors. Social housing prioritizes and makes real the collective will of tenants.” While their long-term vision is an end to “commodified housing”, in the short term they want state-provided and publicly owned free housing available to anyone.

Mamdani seems committed to realizing the DSA’s vision. On his first day in office, he revitalized the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants and named Cea Weaver as its director. Weaver has come under fire for some past statements about treating private property as a “collective good” and calling homeownership “a weapon of white supremacy”. While these statements are alarming to people like me who value property rights and the prosperity they generate, they are consistent with how the DSA views housing.

This way of thinking exemplifies Mamdani’s problem. Fewer people will want to build or manage rental housing if the city makes it too hard to remove unruly tenants or those who do not pay. The landlords who do stick around will charge higher prices. New York City already has some of the strictest tenant protections in the country, and these laws contribute to the city’s high housing costs. One study analyzing tenant protections finds that stricter protections reduce the supply of rental housing and increase an area’s median rent by six percent. Another study also finds that good-cause or just-cause eviction laws increase rents by six percent to seven percent, with lower-income renters experiencing larger rent increases.

Raising taxes to generate more revenue is always an option for socialists like Mamdani, but his taxing power is constrained by people’s ability to move. From 2020 to 2022, over $38 billion of adjusted gross income and 485,000 people left New York state. Research shows people, especially wealthy people, move when taxes get too high. Dallas mayor Eric Johnson is already predicting financial firms would flee New York City if Mamdani raises taxes.

Mamdani and his DSA comrades may not like working with private developers, but if he wants to make housing more affordable in New York City he does not have much of a choice. And if he is open-minded, he might learn something, too: Competitive markets often generate amazing outcomes for all involved. New York City’s housing crisis is fixable, but only if Mamdani lets the private sector do its thing.

by
Read More
In Economy

Tariffs and the New Economic Lysenkoism

No Comments

Kevin Hassett’s recent call to “discipline” Federal Reserve researchers over a New York Fed study on tariffs is not just a political swipe. It is a troubling signal about the growing willingness of policymakers to delegitimize economic analysis they find inconvenient or unsupportive. 

Disagreement with research is a normal, healthy part of scientific inquiry. But attempts to intimidate researchers because their findings conflict with a preferred narrative undermine the credibility of policymaking itself. At a moment when trade policy is already generating uncertainty across markets, this kind of rhetoric risks turning economic debate into a loyalty test rather than an evidence-based process.

The New York Fed study in question found that US firms and consumers absorbed the vast majority of tariff costs in 2025, with importers bearing roughly 94 percent of the burden early in the year and still around 86 percent by November. These findings are not outliers. Similar conclusions have been reached by researchers at the Kiel Institute, Harvard University, Yale Budget Lab, and the Congressional Budget Office, all of which point to high pass-through of tariffs into US import prices. 

The basic economic mechanism is well understood: when tariffs are imposed, domestic buyers often face higher costs because foreign exporters rarely slash prices enough to offset the duties. Hassett may disagree with the methodology or emphasis, but calling the research “an embarrassment” that would fail a first-semester economics course dismisses a body of evidence that aligns with decades of empirical trade literature.

Hassett’s principal criticism — that the study focused on prices rather than quantities —  deserves debate, not disciplinary threats. Economists have long examined tariff incidence through price movements precisely because they reveal who ultimately pays. Quantity adjustments, wage effects, and currency adjustments can matter, but they are separate channels that require rigorous modeling and time to evaluate. Simply asserting that tariffs will raise domestic wages or improve consumer welfare does not invalidate evidence showing that price pass-throughs are substantial. Policy analysis requires grappling with tradeoffs, not declaring victory by ignoring uncomfortable metrics.

More concerning is the broader context. The administration has repeatedly attacked institutions and analysts whose conclusions diverge from its messaging, from pressuring private sector economists to dismissing unfavorable labor statistics. 

Federal Reserve officials, including Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, have warned that such attacks risk compromising the central bank’s independence, a cornerstone of credible monetary policy. Although the Federal Reserve’s current credibility may be open to debate, deliberately undermining it further is imprudent. A strength of the Federal Reserve system lies in its decentralized research structure, where district banks produce analysis that does not necessarily reflect official policy positions. Demanding punishment for economists who publish data-driven findings erodes that institutional integrity and sends a chilling message to researchers across the policy landscape.

There is nothing wrong with policymakers arguing that tariffs could produce broader strategic benefits, whether through reshoring, geopolitical leverage, or sectoral wage gains. Those claims should be debated openly, supported by models and evidence, and tested against real-world outcomes. But dismissing empirical research as “partisan” simply because it challenges a policy narrative turns economic discourse into political theater where bully pulpits have the advantage. 

If policymakers want to persuade markets and the public, they should present competing analyses. Hassett could have assailed the Fed study on the basis of tradeoffs, methodological assumptions, or competing interpretations of the data, rather than resorting to vacant dismissal.

Ignoring the economic effects of tariffs in the face of strong empirical evidence risks veering into a form of modern economic Lysenkoism where political loyalty takes precedence over analysis and communal scientific review. (Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet agronomist who rejected established genetic science, instead promoting politically-favored agricultural theories that aligned with Stalinist ideology. Under his influence, dissenting scientists were silenced, imprisoned, or purged, illustrating how injecting ideology into research handily squelches scientific progress.) 

The issue here is not whether tariffs are good or bad policy, although the administration has already conceded the harms associated with them. It is whether economic research can proceed without fear of reprisal when its conclusions prove inconvenient. Undermining that principle will surely generate a measure of sycophantic political applause, but carries long-term costs — not only for American economic health, but for scientific inquiry itself.

by
Read More
In Investing

Editor’s Picks: Gold, Silver End Week Higher, Experts Share Next Price Targets

No Comments

Gold and silver prices experienced declines early in the week, but ended higher.

The yellow metal closed the week at US$5,111.88 per ounce, while silver finished at US$84.65 per ounce, buoyed by reignited tariff uncertainty out of the US.

On Friday (February 20), the US Supreme Court stuck down tariffs put in place by President Donald Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. He quickly responded by announcing a new 10 percent global tariff and then increasing it to 15 percent, ramping up trade tensions.

Earlier in the week, Wednesday (February 18) brought the release of the US Federal Reserve’s latest meeting minutes, which show that although officials largely agreed with the January decision to hold interest rates steady, they aren’t aligned about the path forward as 2026 continues.

What’s received more attention is the Lunar New Year holiday.

Most Asian markets are closed for the occasion, and will reopen next week. I asked Ole Hansen of Saxo Bank about the significance of the closure, and he said that in his view, the more important question is what will happen when they’re back in business next week.

Here’s how he thinks that could play out:

‘I think … if they come back to more or less unchanged prices, they will see that probably as a buying opportunity. Simply — well, they probably hope that they might be able to pick it up cheaper in the absence. But if we can manage to hold these levels, then there could be a positive story building as we as we see China reopen.’

Hansen is bullish on gold this year, saying he sees it reaching US$6,000 in the next 12 months.

But interestingly, he has a different take on silver — he thinks the white metal’s upside could be limited by demand-side factors like substitution and higher supply from scrap material.

‘Gold over time can go to US$10,000, it can go to US$20,000 — it’s a monetary metal, which doesn’t really depend on demand from areas where demand could be negatively impacted with the price.

‘Silver hasn’t got that luxury. And that basically means if gold moves towards US$6,000, I would believe that — I would think that silver, at some point, will struggle to keep up, and we will see basically gold relatively outperform silver. But when that point, when that time comes, I can’t see. Again it’s very unclear, especially given the speculative demand, which can carry on for a while longer.’

I also heard this week from Christopher Aaron of iGold Advisor and Elite Private Placements, who has a much brighter outlook for silver — he said given that the metal has just broken out of a 45 year consolidation period, it still has much further to go:

‘Now that whole process, the 45 year consolidation breakout and now coming back, that is — for a number of people here — that is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime breakout. We’re talking a multi-generational breakout happening in silver right now. And it’s really important to — I mean, the bottom line is this: After 45 years of consolidation, a market doesn’t end just two months after a breakout and then kind of withering and petering out for the next 45 years. Again, that’s not how 45 year breakouts happen when we look back.’

Ultimately Aaron sees US$250 to US$350 as a reasonable price level for silver.

Bullet briefing — TSX Venture 50, BHP/Wheaton deal

Gold, silver dominate TSX Venture 50

The latest TSX Venture 50 list was released on Wednesday, with gold and silver juniors dominating. In fact, of the companies included, only three fall outside the mining sector.

The list ranks TSXV companies’ annual performance by market cap growth, share price performance and Canadian consolidated trading value. Taking the top spot was Santacruz Silver Mining (TSXV:SCZ,NASDAQ:SCZM), which had an impressive share price increase of over 1,100 percent.

As a group, the companies on the list delivered a share price increase of 431 percent.

We’ll have to wait and see whether these types of gains are repeated — or exceeded — in 2026, but the list definitely underscores the strength in gold and silver prices, and shows that their momentum is boosting not just the majors, but also the juniors.

BHP, Wheaton sign streaming deal

On the M&A side, BHP (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP) has entered into a long-term streaming agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals (TSX:WPM,NYSE:WPM).

Under the deal, which was signed by subsidiaries of BHP and Wheaton, BHP will receive an upfront payment of US$4.3 billion in exchange for the delivery of silver from the Peru-based Antamina mine, plus ongoing payments when metal is delivered. According to BHP, this is the most valuable streaming transaction to date based on upfront consideration received.

Antamina is a joint venture between commodities giants BHP, Glencore (LSE:GLEN,OTCPL:GLCNF), Teck Resources (TSX:TECK.A,TECK.B,NYSE:TECK) and Mitsubishi (TSE:8058,OTCPL:MSBHF), and Wheaton already has a silver stream in place with Glencore. Once the BHP arrangement closes, Wheaton will receive a combined 67.5 percent of the mine’s silver.

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

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

Cygnus targets resource growth with start of new drilling and geophysics programs

No Comments

Chibougamau Copper-Gold Project, Canada

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Cygnus sets up value drivers for 2026 with exploration and resource growth a high priority
  • At Cedar Bay, Downhole Electromagnetics (‘DHEM’) is in progress to identify follow-up targets from recent intersections1 such as:
    • 28.9m at 2.5g/t AuEq (1.0g/t Au, 1.0% Cu & 12.0g/t Ag) (CDR-25-16)
    • 10.6m at 4.1g/t AuEq (3.6g/t Au, 0.3% Cu & 2.8g/t Ag) (CDR-25-11W1)
  • This is the first time DHEM is being used at Cedar Bay in over 20 years
  • Drilling has started at Golden Eye to test extensions below the current resource, which stands at 0.5Mt at 5.6g/t AuEq for 91koz AuEq (Indicated) and 1.2Mt at 4.6g/t AuEq for 182koz AuEq (Inferred)2
  • At Joe Mann, a detailed Induced Polarisation (‘IP’) survey is underway to identify walk-up drill targets analogous to IAMGOLD’s Nelligan Complex deposits which contain 4.3Moz Au (M&I) and 7.5Moz Au (Inferred)3 located just 10km west of Joe Mann
  • Permits are being submitted for the Gwillim prospect for drilling in the coming quarter; This will co-funded by 50% JV partner Alamos Gold, which has a market capitalisation of ~C$25B. Initial targets will follow up historic intersections4 of:
    • 7.6m @ 38.1g/t Au from 314.9m (87-KOD-18);
    • 15.2m @ 9.4g/t Au from 155.1m (87-KOD-1); and
    • 16.4m @ 8.3g/t Au from 168.3m (87-KOD-10).
  • Cygnus believes there is significant potential to continue growing the Chibougamau resource, which stands at 6.4Mt at 3% CuEq for 193kt CuEq (M&I) and 8.5Mt at 3.5% CuEq for 295kt CuEq (Inferred)2

Cygnus Executive Chairman David Southam said: ‘There is overwhelming evidence which points to the potential for substantial resource growth at Chibougamau. The resources remain open in many places and we have a pipeline of compelling targets to test.

‘We have devised an extensive program of drilling and geophysics to unlock this upside. This will include brownfields drilling as well as testing new targets. After growing the resource by 29 per cent last year, we are confident that our exploration strategy will deliver more strong results and create more value for shareholders.

‘We are now drilling at Golden Eye and Cedar Bay, which provide substantial resource upside.

‘Joe Mann and Gwillim have excellent discovery potential and have been materially overlooked for the last 20 years. With this potential and the current gold price we are excited to commence exploration on these targets’.

Cygnus Metals Limited (ASX: CY5; TSXV: CYG,OTC:CYGGF; OTCQB: CYGGF) (‘Cygnus’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the start of extensive exploration programs aimed at growing the resources at its Chibougamau Copper-Gold Project in Quebec.

Resource growth and discovery remain a key pillar of Cygnus’ growth strategy as the Company continues to unlock the Chibougamau district. A key focus is brownfields exploration, including extensions to deposits such as Cedar Bay and Golden Eye.

At Cedar Bay, Downhole Electromagnetics (‘DHEM’) is in progress to define follow up drill targets from recent exploration drilling1 which returned:

  • 28.9m at 2.5g/t AuEq (1.0g/t Au, 1.0% Cu & 12.0g/t Ag) (CDR-25-16)
  • 10.6m at 4.1g/t AuEq (3.6g/t Au, 0.3% Cu & 2.8g/t Ag) (CDR-25-11W1)

Recent drilling successfully demonstrated extensions to the current resource at Cedar Bay of 0.3Mt at 8.1g/t AuEq for 67koz (M&I) and 0.8Mt at 7.8g/t AuEq for 205koz (Inferred).2 DHEM aims to define resource extensions as well as identifying high grade shoots which are typically associated with semi massive sulphides. This will be the first time DHEM is being used at Cedar Bay in over 20 years, presenting a huge opportunity for Cygnus.

At Golden Eye, drilling has commenced with three rigs to grow the Indicated Resource and extend the resource below the currently defined depth of just 450m. Golden Eye was a new resource defined by Cygnus last year of 0.5Mt at 5.6g/t AuEq for 91koz (Indicated) and of 1.2Mt at 4.6g/t AuEq for 182koz (Inferred)2 and remains open at depth with one of the deepest intersections5 from last year of:

  • 2.9m @ 10.2g/t AuEq (8.3g/t Au, 1.4% Cu & 3.3g/t Ag) from 463.8m (LDR-25-08)

The Company also has a strong focus on defining new resources and making discoveries. Two key areas identified as high priority are gold targets Joe Mann and Gwillim.

At Joe Mann, the Company has commenced a detailed Induced Polarisation (‘IP’) survey along major structures to identify walk-up drill targets for Q2 this year. Cygnus is targeting analogous mineralisation to IAMGOLD’s Nelligan Complex, which is located just 10km west of the project and contains 4.3Moz Au (M&I) and 7.5Moz Au (Inferred).3

This survey will help to generate further drill targets in addition to some of the high-grade historic intersections which also require follow up.4 These include:

  • 0.7m @ 480.2g/t Au from 92.3m (H-118);
  • 3.8m @ 20.8g/t Au from 287.2m (H-214); and
  • 8.4m @ 6.3g/t Au from 175.6m (H-374).

At Gwillim, permits are underway for drilling to commence in the coming quarter. Drilling at Gwillim will be co-funded by 50% JV partner Alamos Gold, which has a market capitalisation of ~C$25B. Gwillim is just 12km from the Chibougamau processing facility and has high potential for defining new resources. Initial drilling will focus on following up high-grade historic intersections4 such as:

  • 7.6m @ 38.1g/t Au from 314.9m (87-KOD-18);
  • 15.2m @ 9.4g/t Au from 155.1m (87-KOD-1); and
  • 16.4m @ 8.3g/t Au from 168.3m (87-KOD-10).

The Chibougamau area has well-established infrastructure, giving the Project a significant headstart as a copper-gold development opportunity. This infrastructure includes a 900,000tpa processing facility, local mining town, sealed highway, airport, regional rail infrastructure and 25kV hydro power to the processing site. Significantly, the Chibougamau processing facility is the only processing facility within a 250km radius.

Figure 1_Project Location Map

Figure 1: Exploration progressing across mutiple fronts with a focus on both resource extensions and discovery

Figure 2_Joe Mann IP Survey

Figure 2: Joe Mann IP survey covering key structures from IAMGOLD’s major deposits Nelligan and Phillibert3

This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of Directors of Cygnus.

David Southam
Executive Chair
T: +61 8 6118 1627
E: info@cygnusmetals.com 		Nicholas Kwong
President & CEO
T: +1 647 921 0501
E: info@cygnusmetals.com 		Media:
Paul Armstrong
Read Corporate
T: +61 8 9388 1474


About Cygnus Metals

Cygnus Metals Limited (ASX: CY5, TSXV: CYG,OTC:CYGGF, OTCQB: CYGGF) is a diversified critical minerals exploration and development company with projects in Quebec, Canada and Western Australia. The Company is dedicated to advancing its Chibougamau Copper-Gold Project in Quebec with an aggressive exploration program to drive resource growth and develop a hub-and-spoke operation model with its centralised processing facility. In addition, Cygnus has quality lithium assets with significant exploration upside in the world-class James Bay district in Quebec, and REE and base metal projects in Western Australia. The Cygnus team has a proven track record of turning exploration success into production enterprises and creating shareholder value.

Forward Looking Statements

This release may contain certain forward-looking statements and projections regarding estimates, resources and reserves; planned production and operating costs profiles; planned capital requirements; and planned strategies and corporate objectives. Such forward looking statements/projections are estimates for discussion purposes only and should not be relied upon. They are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond Cygnus’ control. Cygnus makes no representations and provides no warranties concerning the accuracy of the projections and disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements/projections based on new information, future events or otherwise except to the extent required by applicable laws. While the information contained in this release has been prepared in good faith, neither Cygnus or any of its directors, officers, agents, employees or advisors give any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information, opinions and conclusions contained in this release. Accordingly, to the maximum extent permitted by law, none of Cygnus, its directors, employees or agents, advisers, nor any other person accepts any liability whether direct or indirect, express or limited, contractual, tortuous, statutory or otherwise, in respect of the accuracy or completeness of the information or for any of the opinions contained in this release or for any errors, omissions or misstatements or for any loss, howsoever arising, from the use of this release.

End Notes

  1. Refer to Cygnus’ ASX announcements dated 30 October 2025 and 8 December 2025.
  2. Refer to Cygnus’ ASX announcement dated 17 September 2025 and subsequent technical report dated 31 October 2025 titled ‘NI 43-101 Technical Report Chibougamau Hub and Spoke Complex, Québec, Canada’ prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43-101’) and the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Code (2012 Edition).
  3. Refer to IAMGOLD’s news release dated 17 February 2026.
  4. Refer to Cygnus’ ASX announcement dated 20 January 2026.
  5. Refer to Cygnus’ ASX announcement dated 8 May 2025.

Qualified Persons and Compliance Statements

The scientific and technical information in this announcement has been reviewed and approved by Mr Louis Beaupre, the Quebec Exploration Manager of Cygnus, a ‘qualified person’ as defined in National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

The information in this release that relates to the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Chibougamau Project reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) and NI 43-101 was released by Cygnus in an announcement titled ‘Major Resource Update’ released to the ASX on 17 September 2025 and subsequent technical report dated 31 October 2025 titled ‘NI 43-101 Technical Report Chibougamau Hub and Spoke Complex, Québec, Canada’ prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43-101’) and the JORC Code (2012 Edition). Details of the Mineral Resource Estimate are included in Appendix A.

The information in this announcement that relates to previously reported Exploration Results at the Company’s projects has been previously released by Cygnus in ASX Announcements as noted in the End Notes.

Individual grades for the metals included in the metal equivalents calculations for the Mineral Resource Estimate, as well as the price assumptions, metallurgical recoveries and metal equivalent calculations themselves, are in Appendix A of this release. Individual grades for the metals included in the metal equivalents calculation for the exploration results are in the original market announcements. Metal equivalents for exploration results have been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,350/oz and silver price of US$25/oz, with copper equivalents calculated based on the formula CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.77258)+(Ag(g/t) x 0.00822). Metallurgical recovery factors have been applied to the copper equivalents calculations for the exploration results, with copper metallurgical recovery assumed at 95% and gold metallurgical recovery assumed at 85% based upon historical production at the Chibougamau Processing Facility, and the metallurgical results contained in Cygnus’ announcement dated 28 January 2025. It is the Company’s view that all elements in the copper and gold equivalent calculations have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold.

Cygnus is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information in these announcements, and in the case of estimates of Mineral Resources, that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons’ findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcements.

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

APPENDIX A – Mineral Resource Estimate for the Chibougamau Project as at 17 September 2025

Cu
Project		 Classification COG
CuEq		 Tonnage Average Grade Contained Metal
Cu Au Ag CuEq AuEq Cu Au Ag CuEq AuEq
% Mt % g/t g/t % g/t kt koz koz kt koz
Corner Bay Indicated 1.2 4.9 2.5 0.3 8.4 2.8 4.1 124 43 1,316 137 638
Inferred 5.4 2.7 0.2 8.9 3.0 4.3 146 41 1,543 159 744
Devlin Measured 1.5 0.1 2.7 0.3 0.5 2.9 4.7 4 1 2 4 19
Indicated 0.6 2.0 0.2 0.2 2.1 3.4 13 4 5 13 69
M&I 0.8 2.1 0.2 0.3 2.3 3.6 16 5 7 17 88
Inferred 0.3 2.0 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.4 7 2 3 7 36
Joe Mann Inferred 2.0 0.7 0.2 6.0 – 4.6 6.3 2 143 – 34 151
Cedar Bay Indicated 1.8 0.3 1.6 6.0 9.9 6.4 8.1 4 50 82 16 67
Inferred 0.8 2.0 5.1 11.8 6.1 7.8 17 134 309 50 205
Golden Eye Indicated 0.5 1.0 4.3 9.9 4.4 5.6 5 69 161 22 91
Inferred 1.2 0.9 3.4 7.9 3.6 4.6 11 134 313 45 182
Project Classification Tonnage Average Grade Contained Metal
Cu Au Ag CuEq AuEq Cu Au Ag CuEq AuEq
Mt % g/t g/t % g/t kt koz koz kt koz
Hub and Spoke Measured 0.1 2.7 0.3 0.5 2.9 4.7 4 1 2 4 19
Indicated 6.3 2.3 0.8 7.8 3.0 4.3 146 166 1,563 189 865
M&I 6.4 2.3 0.8 7.6 3.0 4.3 149 167 1,565 193 884
Inferred 8.5 2.1 1.7 7.9 3.5 4.8 182 454 2,168 295 1,318


Notes:

  1. Cygnus’ Mineral Resource Estimate for the Chibougamau Copper-Gold project, incorporating the Corner Bay, Devlin, Joe Mann, Cedar Bay, and Golden Eye deposits, is reported in accordance with the JORC Code and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (‘CIM’) (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.
  2. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term copper price of US$9,370/t, gold price of US$2,400/oz, and silver price of US$30/oz, and a US$/C$ exchange rate of 1:1.35.
  3. Mineral Resources are estimated at a CuEq cut-off grade of 1.2% for Corner Bay and 1.5% CuEq for Devlin. A cut-off grade of 1.8 g/t AuEq was used for Cedar Bay and Golden Eye; and 2.0 g/t AuEq for Joe Mann.
  4. Corner Bay bulk density varies from 2.85 tonnes per cubic metre (t/m3) to 3.02t/m3 for the estimation domains and 2.0 t/m3 for the overburden. At Devlin, bulk density varies from 2.85 t/m3 to 2.90 t/m3. Cedar Bay, Golden Eye, and Joe Mann use a bulk density of 2.90 t/m³ for the estimation domains.
  5. Assumed metallurgical recoveries are as follows: Corner Bay copper is 93%, gold is 78%, and silver is 80%; Devlin copper is 96%, gold is 73%, and silver is 80%; Joe Mann copper is 95%, gold is 84%, and silver is 80%; and Cedar Bay and Golden Eye copper is 91%, gold is 87%, and silver is 80%. 
  6. Assumptions for CuEq and AuEq calculations (set out below) are as follows: Individual metal grades are set out in the table. Commodity prices used: copper price of US$9,370/t, gold price of US$2,400/oz and silver price of US$30/oz. Assumed metallurgical recovery factors: set out above. It is the Company’s view that all elements in the metal equivalent calculations have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold.
  7. CuEq Calculations are as follows: (A) Corner Bay = grade Cu (%) + 0.68919 * grade Au (g/t) + 0.00884 * grade Ag (g/t) ; (B) Devlin = grade Cu (%) + 0.62517 * grade Au (g/t) + 0.00862 * grade Ag (g/t); (C) Joe Mann = grade Cu (%) + 0.72774* grade Au (g/t); and (D) Golden Eye and Cedar Bay = grade Cu (%) + 0.78730* grade Au (g/t) + 0.00905 * grade Ag (g/t).
  8. AuEq Calculations are as follows: (A) Corner Bay = grade Au (g/t) + 1.45097* grade Cu(%)+0.01282* grade Ag (g/t); (B) Devlin = grade Au (g/t) + 1.59957* grade Cu(%)+0.01379* grade Ag (g/t); (C) Joe Mann = grade Au (g/t) + 1.37411* grade Cu (%); and (D) Cedar Bay and Golden Eye = grade Au (g/t) + 1.27016 * grade Cu (%) + 0.01149 * grade Ag (g/t).
  9. Wireframes were built using an approximate minimum thickness of 2 m at Corner Bay, 1.8 m at Devlin, 1.2 m at Joe Mann, and 1.5 m at Cedar Bay and Golden Eye.
  10. Mineral Resources are constrained by underground reporting shapes.
  11. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
  12. Totals may vary due to rounding.

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/9f3d9271-0c1d-4946-b6b7-907187bb4f3a

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/bf51280f-9701-4436-8255-c21949f90dfe

Primary Logo

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More