Author

admin

Browsing

Blackrock Silver Corp. (TSXV: BRC,OTC:BKRRF) (OTCQX: BKRRF) (FSE: AHZ0) (‘Blackrock’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the completion of its non-brokered private placement (the ‘Offering’) previously announced on December 24, 2025. 2176423 Ontario Ltd., a company beneficially owned by Eric Sprott, purchased an aggregate of C$6,999,960 of the Offering. The Offering consisted of a total of 13,636,300 units of the Company (the ‘Units’) at a price of C$1.10 per Unit for gross proceeds of C$14,999,930. Each Unit consisted of one common share of the Company (each, a ‘Common Share’) and one-half of one Common Share purchase warrant (each whole warrant, a ‘Warrant’). Each Warrant entitles the holder thereof to acquire one Common Share at an exercise price of C$1.50 per Common Share until January 8, 2028.

Andrew Pollard, Blackrock’s President and Chief Executive Officer, commented: ‘Supported by Eric Sprott and a new cornerstone investor, this $15 million financing meaningfully strengthens our balance sheet as we advance Tonopah West toward development. As an emerging American silver developer, we are accelerating permitting and de-risking initiatives in 2026 to support the advancement of a secure, high-quality domestic source of silver for the U.S. market.’

The net proceeds of the Offering are intended to be used by the Company to fund exploration, permitting and pre-development activities on the Company’s Tonopah West project and for general working capital.

In connection with the closing of the Offering, the Company paid Research Capital Corporation (the ‘Finder‘) finder’s fees in cash totalling C$689,997 and issued to the Finder a total of 627,270 non-transferable finder’s warrants (‘Finder’s Warrants‘) in connection with the Units placed by the Finder. Each Finder’s Warrant entitles the holder thereof to acquire one Common Share at an exercise price of C$1.50 until January 8, 2028.

The participation of Eric Sprott in the Offering constituted a ‘related party transaction’, within the meaning of TSX Venture Exchange Policy 5.9 and Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (‘MI 61-101‘). The Company has relied on the exemptions from the formal valuation and minority shareholder approval requirements of MI 61-101 contained in sections 5.5(a) and 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101 in respect of the related party participation in the Offering as neither the fair market value (as determined under MI 61-101) of the subject matter of, nor the fair market value of the consideration for, the transaction, insofar as it involved the interested parties, exceeded 25% of the Company’s market capitalization (as determined under MI 61-101).

The Common Shares, Warrants and Finder’s Warrants issued in connection with the Private Placement and the Common Shares issuable upon exercise of the Warrants and Finder’s Warrants are subject to a hold period expiring on May 9, 2026.

The securities offered have not been, and will not be, registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act‘) or any U.S. state securities laws, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, United States persons absent registration or any applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable U.S. state securities laws. This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities in the United States, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

About Blackrock Silver Corp.

Backed by gold and silver ounces in the ground, Blackrock is a junior precious metal focused exploration and development company driven to add shareholder value. Anchored by a seasoned Board of Directors, the Company is focused on its 100% controlled Nevada portfolio of properties consisting of low-sulphidation, epithermal gold and silver mineralization located along the established Northern Nevada Rift in north-central Nevada and the Walker Lane trend in western Nevada.

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 net proceeds from the Offering and the intended use of proceeds therefrom; the advancement of the Tonopah West project towards development, including the acceleration of permitting and de-risking initiatives at the Tonopah West project; and the intention for the Tonopah West project to function as a future secure, high-quality domestic source of silver for the U.S. market.

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, Contact:

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

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/279847

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

International Lithium Corp. (TSXV: ILC,OTC:ILHMF) (OTCQB: ILHMF) (FSE: IAH) (‘ILC’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to note the upturn in lithium prices from their low in June 2025, and wishes to give guidance and clarification to the wider investor community for what this means for ILC’s Raleigh Lake project. The financial projections and assumptions in this release are already in the public domain as they were included in the Company’s previously published disclosures.

Since June 30, 2025, the price of Lithium Carbonate, the main lithium benchmark, has risen from USD 8,535 per tonne to USD 19,747 on January 8, 2026, a rise of 131%, while the price of Spodumene Concentrate containing 6% Lithium Oxide (‘SC6’) in the same period has risen from USD 630 to USD1,800 per tonne, a rise of 185%. The source for these prices is @LithiumPriceBot on X. The rise in SC6 has well outperformed even silver since June 2025. Obviously the low in June 2025 followed a very difficult previous 2 ½ years for lithium prices. At the present exchange rate of USD=CAD 1.3880, that means a SC6 price measured in CAD$ of CAD$2,498.40 per tonne.

When ILC published the technical report for its Preliminary Economic Assessment (‘PEA’) for Raleigh Lake on January 18, 2024*, ILC’s board and management had the foresight to request and publish some sensitivity analysis of the results, as any NPV or IRR calculation is critically dependent on the commodity sale price assumption. The relevant table in the Technical Report (Lithium only) is Table 22-6 shown below, and the sensitivity to the SC6 price assumption at the time of the Technical Report on Raleigh Lake was as per that table.

Interpolating this table linearly between the two numbers modelled in the PEA for the Spodumene SC6 price of CAD$ 2,100 per tonne and CAD$ 2,500 per tonne would mean that using as an input the spot price on January 8, 2026, of CAD$ 2,498.40 per tonne the Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return for the lithium only at the Raleigh Lake project calculated in the same way as in the table below and subject to the same disclaimers would give the following numbers using a discount rate of 8% p.a.:

Raleigh Lake Project, lithium only
Pre-tax Post-tax 
NPV (CAD$) 223.1 million NPV (CAD$) 215.1 million 
IRR % p.a. 33.1% IRR % p.a. 32.7% 

 

We believe that these are helpful numbers to publish now to put the lithium price recovery into context as far as ILC’s Raleigh Lake project is concerned. We would stress that the medium term price assumption for a commodity sale price is generally not the same as the current spot price. We have not considered or consulted with the consultants who wrote the report on what the appropriate medium term price might be as at today. We would also stress that prices can go down as well as up, and that costs may have varied since the PEA was completed in January 2024. It should be noted that the Maiden Resource Estimate at Raleigh Lake in April 2023 also quantified a rubidium resource there. The PEA was for lithium only, and did not include sales of rubidium or cesium or other minerals.

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/3232/279868_e870c4d4547e4951_003.jpg

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/3232/279868_e870c4d4547e4951_003full.jpg

Separately, we can report that ILC has filed for the appropriate permissions to turn various mining claims at Raleigh Lake into a mining lease, and this process is now well underway. We are in the process of planning the work we wish to carry out this year at Raleigh Lake given the improvement in the economics. This includes attempting to complete a PEA for the rubidium there, despite the challenges of robust pricing assumptions for rubidium chemicals.

*A copy of The Report, ‘The Raleigh Lake Project, NI43-101 Technical Report – PEA’ is on the Company’s website and was filed on SEDAR on January 18, 2024.

Babak Vakili Azar, P.Geo, is a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101 and has verified the disclosed technical information and has reviewed and approved the contents of this news release.

About International Lithium Corp.

International Lithium Corp. has exploration activities in Ontario, Canada, with intentions to expand into Southern Africa. It has projects at various stages, ranging from Definitive Feasibility Study at Rubicon in Namibia (note that ILC currently has an option only and is treating this as historic information at this point and not a current resource for ILC) to Preliminary Economic Assessment at Raleigh Lake to Pre-Drilling at Wolf Ridge. The primary target metals in Canada are lithium, rubidium and copper. There are three projects (two in Ontario and one in Ireland) in which ILC has sold its share, but where the Company stands to receive future payments from either a resource milestone being achieved or from a Net Smelter Royalty. In Namibia the Karibib project contains lithium, rubidium and cesium.

While the world’s politicians remain divided on the future of the energy market’s historic dependence on oil and gas and on ‘Net Zero’, there is in any scenario an ever-increasing and significant demand for electricity driven by AI and data centres, and by a likely unstoppable momentum towards electric vehicles and grid-scale electricity storage. All of these contribute to rising demand for lithium, copper, and other metals. Rubidium is also a critical metal, strategic for high-precision clocks, space technology, and improving the performance of certain types of solar panels. ILC has seen the politically driven, increasingly urgent push by the USA, Canada, the EU, and other major economies to safeguard their supplies of critical metals and to become more self-sufficient. The Company’s Canadian and Southern African projects, which contain lithium, rubidium, cesium and copper, are strategic in this regard.

The Company’s key mission for the next decade is to generate revenue for its shareholders from lithium and other critical minerals while also contributing to the creation of a greener, cleaner planet and less polluted cities.

This includes optimizing the value of ILC’s existing projects in Canada as well as finding, exploring and developing projects that have the potential to become world-class deposits. The Company announced that it regards Southern Africa as a key strategic target market and, in addition to Namibia, it has applied for and hopes to receive EPOs in Zimbabwe. The board hopes to make further announcements on the portfolio developments over the next few weeks and months.

The Company’s interests in various projects now consist of the following, and in addition, the Company continues to seek other opportunities:

Name Metal Location Stage Area in Hectares Current Ownership Percentage Future Ownership % if options exercised and/or residual interest Operator or JV Partner
Raleigh Lake Lithium
Rubidium
Ontario Dec 2023 : PEA for Li completed Apr 2023 Maiden Resource Estimates for Li and Rb 32,900 100% 100% ILC
Rubicon + Helikon + Exclusive Prospecting Licence Lithium
Rubidium
Cesium
Karibib, Namibia 2021 : Feasibility Study completed for Li, Rb and Cs under JORC 29,500 0 % 80% Lepidico; ILC if option exercised
Firesteel Copper, Cobalt Ontario Initial Drilling 6,600 90% 90% ILC
Wolf Ridge Lithium Ontario Pre-Drilling 5,700 0% 100% ILC
Mavis Lake Lithium Ontario May 2023
Maiden Resource Estimate
2,600 0% 0%
(carries an extra earn-in payment of AUD$ 0.75 million if resource targets met)
Critical Resources Limited 
Avalonia Lithium Ireland Drilling 29,200 0% 0%
2.0% Net Smelter Royalty
GFL Intl Co Ltd. (owned by Ganfeng Lithium Group Co. Ltd)
Forgan/
Lucky Lakes
Lithium Ontario Drilling < 500 0% 0%
1.5% Net Smelter Royalty
Power Minerals Limited 

 

The Company’s primary strategic focus at this point is on the Raleigh Lake Project, comprising lithium and rubidium, and the Firesteel copper project in Canada, as well as obtaining EPOs and mineral claims in Zimbabwe. The Karibib projects in Namibia, including further development of the EPL there, will be a high priority if ILC decides to remain involved.

The Raleigh Lake Project now encompasses 32,900 hectares (329 square kilometres) of mineral claims in Ontario and represents ILC’s most significant project in Canada. To date, drilling has occurred on less than 1,000 hectares of the Company’s claims. A Preliminary Economic Assessment was published for ILC’s lithium at Raleigh Lake in December 2023, with a detailed economic analysis of ILC’s separate rubidium resource still pending. Raleigh Lake is 100% owned by ILC, free from any encumbrances and royalties. The Raleigh Lake Project boasts excellent access to roads, rail, and utilities.

A continuing goal has been to remain a well-funded, strategically run company that turns ILC’s aspirations into reality. Following the disposal of the Mariana project in Argentina in 2021, the Mavis Lake project in Canada in 2022, and the Avalonia project in 2025, ILC has continued to generate sufficient cash inflows to advance its exploration projects.

With increasing demand for high-tech rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles, energy storage, and portable electronics, lithium has been dubbed ‘the new oil’. It is a key part of a green, sustainable economy. By positioning itself on projects with significant resource potential and solid strategic partners, ILC aims to become a preferred lithium and critical minerals resource developer for investors and to continue building value for its shareholders throughout the 2020s, the decade of battery metals.

On behalf of the Company,

John Wisbey
Chairman and CEO
www.internationallithium.ca

For further information concerning this news release, please contact info@internationallithium.ca or ILC@yellowjerseypr.com.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

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

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Except for statements of historical fact, this news release or other releases contain certain ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of applicable securities law. Forward-looking information or forward-looking statements in this or other news releases may include: the timing of completion of any offering and the amount to be raised, the likelihood or otherwise of the Company exercising its option on Lepidico Mauritius, the outcome of arbitration involving Lepidico Namibia, the effect of results of anticipated production rates, the timing and/or anticipated results of drilling on the Karibib or Raleigh Lake or Firesteel or Wolf Ridge projects, expected commodity prices, the expectation of resource estimates, preliminary economic assessments, feasibility studies, lithium or rubidium or cesium or copper recoveries, modeling of capital and operating costs, results of studies utilizing various technologies at the company’s projects, the Company’s budgeted expenditures, government permits or approval for licences and licence renewals, future plans for expansion in Southern Africa and planned exploration work on its projects, increased value of shareholder investments in the Company, the potential from the Company’s third party earn-out or royalty arrangements, the future demand for lithium, rubidium, cesium and copper, and assumptions about ethical behaviour by our joint venture partners or shareholders in our projects or third party operators of projects or royalty partners. Such forward-looking information is based on assumptions and subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those discussed in the sections entitled ‘Risks’ and ‘Forward-Looking Statements’ in the interim and annual Management’s Discussion and Analysis which are available at www.sedarplus.ca. While management believes that the assumptions made are reasonable, there can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate. Should one or more of the risks, uncertainties or other factors materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in forward-looking information. Forward-looking information herein, and all subsequent written and oral forward-looking information are based on expectations, estimates and opinions of management on the dates they are made that, while considered reasonable by the Company as of the time of such statements, are subject to significant business, economic, legislative, and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. These estimates and assumptions may prove to be incorrect and are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. Except as required by law, the Company assumes no obligation to update forward-looking information should circumstances or management’s estimates or opinions change.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/279868

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

President Donald Trump announced in an early Friday morning Truth Social post that he has ‘cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks’ against Venezuela in light of the ‘cooperation’ between the foreign nation and the U.S.

‘Venezuela is releasing large numbers of political prisoners as a sign of ‘Seeking Peace.’ This is a very important and smart gesture. The U.S.A. and Venezuela are working well together, especially as it pertains to rebuilding, in a much bigger, better, and more modern form, their oil and gas infrastructure. Because of this cooperation, I have cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks, which looks like it will not be needed, however, all ships will stay in place for safety and security purposes,’ Trump said in the post.

He noted that he will meet with ‘BIG OIL’ figures at the White House on Friday.

‘At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he declared in the post.

The president’s comments come after he unilaterally ordered an attack against Venezuela last week in which U.S. forces successfully captured Nicolás Maduro.

Trump noted in a Wednesay Truth Social post, ‘I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal. These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities.’

‘In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner – A wise choice, and a very good thing for the people of Venezuela, and the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he added.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

For much of the last half-century, California benefited from a powerful first-mover advantage. Dense networks of talent, capital, and research institutions allowed the state to absorb policy mistakes that would have crippled competitors. High spending and taxes, restrictive housing rules, and regulatory complexity were treated as nuisances rather than binding constraints, because growth could outstrip their costs.

That margin of error has narrowed dramatically.

What California is now experiencing is not a cyclical tech downturn or a post-pandemic anomaly. It is a measurable, policy-driven decline in relative competitiveness. The most important evidence is not that tech employment has fallen in absolute terms, but that California’s share of national tech employment has been shrinking, while other states gain ground.

Markets are responding to incentives exactly as economic theory predicts.

Employment Share, Not Headlines, Tells the Story

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics data, California’s technology employment growth has underperformed national trends for several years, including during periods when tech hiring stabilized or rebounded elsewhere, and recently has been declining. California’s share of US tech jobs is falling from roughly 19 percent pre-2020 to closer to 16 percent in recent years, a nontrivial shift for an industry this large.

This is a classic example of relative decline. California still employs more tech workers than any other state, but it is no longer where the marginal job is being created.

Commercial real estate data corroborate the employment figures. Office vacancy rates across Silicon Valley remain elevated well beyond what remote work alone would explain. Bay Area office markets have not recovered in the way peer regions have. Persistent vacancies signal not just a shift to hybrid work, but geographic reallocation of firms and labor.

Migration as a Labor Market Signal

Labor mobility reinforces the same conclusion. US Census state-to-state migration data show continued net domestic outmigration from California, particularly among working-age adults. While international immigration partially offsets population losses, domestic migration is more relevant for employer location decisions, especially in high-skill sectors.

Economic theory predicts that firms follow labor when relocation costs are low and regulatory frictions are high. California now faces both: high regulatory frictions at home and increasingly credible substitutes elsewhere.

Founding Versus Scaling: A Crucial Distinction

California still dominates early-stage venture capital totals, as shown in venture investment data. This is often cited as evidence that concerns about the state’s competitiveness are overstated. That interpretation conflates firm formation with firm expansion.

Founding activity reflects legacy advantages such as universities, networks, and capital concentration. Scaling decisions reflect marginal costs. Increasingly, firms are choosing to incorporate or raise seed funding in California while expanding headcount in lower-cost, lower-regulation states.

From an economic standpoint, this is predictable. Scaling in California exposes firms to the nation’s highest marginal income tax rates, comparatively punitive capital gains taxation, rigid labor mandates, slow permitting processes, and volatile regulatory expectations. These costs rise nonlinearly as firms grow.

AI Regulation as a Binding Constraint

Artificial intelligence policy may become the clearest illustration of California’s regulatory overreach.

A recent CalMatters analysis documents how California lawmakers have pursued some of the most expansive state-level AI regulations in the country. These proposals extend liability, mandate preemptive risk assessments, and impose compliance obligations before alleged harms are empirically demonstrated or even defined.

From an economic perspective, this approach treats innovation as a presumptive externality rather than a productivity-enhancing input.

AI is widely understood as a general-purpose technology. Research shows that such technologies generate broad, economy-wide productivity gains, not sector-specific benefits. Overregulating AI therefore depresses expected returns not only in software, but across healthcare, logistics, manufacturing, finance, and education.

California’s AI regulatory framework has drawn federal scrutiny, which is instructive. As noted in CalMatters, state-level AI mandates were referenced in Trump’s recent presidential executive order, citing concerns over fragmented and inconsistent state regulation. Regardless of political framing, the economic concern is straightforward: regulatory fragmentation raises fixed costs and discourages upscaling.

Regulation, Market Structure, and Incumbency

California’s regulatory posture also has implications for market structure. Extensive empirical literature shows that high fixed compliance costs reduce entry and increase concentration. The OECD’s work on regulation and competition consistently finds that heavier regulatory burdens favor large incumbents at the expense of startups and challengers.

This dynamic undermines the very competition that drives innovation. Europe’s experience with digital (over)regulation offers a cautionary parallel, acknowledged even in European Commission competitiveness reports. California risks reproducing that outcome domestically, exporting innovation to other states rather than other continents.

Costs Complete the Incentive Structure

AI regulation is best understood as the marginal constraint layered atop an already expensive environment. California has the highest top marginal income tax rate in the United States, and taxes capital gains as income. Housing scarcity, documented extensively by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center, raises labor costs without increasing real purchasing power. Energy prices remain among the nation’s highest, as shown by EIA electricity price data.

In combination, these policies alter the expected return on investment at the margin. States like Texas and Florida offer credible alternatives: no personal income tax, faster permitting, lower housing costs, and a lighter regulatory touch. 

Firms do not need ideological motivation to relocate. The incentive structure does the work.

Opportunity Costs and Distributional Effects

The economic cost of tech job relocation extends beyond headline employment figures. When tech employment relocates, these spillovers disappear as well. The distributional consequences are regressive. High-skill workers are mobile. Lower-income workers tied to local economies are much less so. Policies that suppress growth (even under the banner of equity) often hurt the poor most.

A Predictable Outcome

Unless California changes course, the trajectory is clear. AI firms will incorporate elsewhere. Venture capital will follow labor. Scaling will increasingly occur in states that treat innovation as an asset rather than a liability.

California will remain an important source of ideas. It will be a diminishing source of jobs. Markets are not ideological. They respond to incentives. On that front, the verdict is already in.

Recently on Facebook, I shared my Café Hayek post titled “Lower-Priced Goods are a Blessing, Not a Curse.” I prefaced this share with this remark: “Protectionism is the theory that 10+2=6, and 10-2=16. And protectionists proudly and tirelessly defend this theory, happy to dismiss as ‘elitists,’ ‘experts,’ or ‘globalists’ those of us who point out that 10+2=12, and that 10-2=8.”

Of course, my description of protectionism isn’t literally true. And yet it does truly capture protectionism’s essence, which is the bizarre belief that a greater abundance of goods and services made available from sources outside of a nation’s boundaries reduces the supplies of goods and services available to the people of that nation, while policies that diminish the abundance of goods and services made available from sources outside of a nation’s boundaries increase the supplies of goods and services available to the people of that nation.

Putting aside the national-security exception to the case for free trade, such an arithmetical impossibility is indeed what 90 percent of protectionism is revealed to be, when stripped of the vague and misleading language typically deployed to mask its essence. Tariffs and other protectionist interventions are sold as means of creating more and higher-paying jobs (which would, in turn, reverse the allegedly rising “cost of thriving”), of paving paths for the development of “the industries of the future,” of raising impressive amounts of tax revenue from foreigners, of making the economy more ‘competitive,’ and generally of strengthening the domestic economy, improving the living standards of ordinary citizens.

Because voters overwhelmingly like policies that promise them greater access to goods and services, protectionists understandably trumpet the alleged ability of protectionism to deliver on this economic front.

But what about the remaining 10 percent of the attempted justifications of protectionism (again, putting aside considerations of national security)? These justifications pretend to be non-materialistic and, therefore, presumably are ‘higher’ and more weighty than are ‘merely economic’ concerns. Such is the stance, for example, of Mr. Kang Chen, who offered this comment in response to my Facebook post: “No. Protectionism is the theory that there are things that matter besides the prices of goods and services.”

An easy response to a comment such as Mr. Chen’s – a response that’s accurate and appropriate despite its easiness – is to point out that the great majority of the pleas for protectionism promise improved material well-being. More jobs. Higher wages. Rising standards of living. A larger share of our tax revenues paid by foreigners. Protectionists such as Mr. Chen would be taken more seriously if the likes of Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren campaigned for higher tariffs by explicitly announcing that “tariffs will significantly raise, now and into the future, the prices of the goods and services that you and all American households regularly purchase. Most of you, therefore, will see your real wages fall and your material standard of living worsen. But don’t worry! Your lower standard of living will be more than offset by non-material benefits.”

Protectionist politicians never say such a thing. On rare occasions, protectionists triumphantly declare that higher tariffs might reduce people’s access to cartoonishly frivolous luxuries such as “plastic baubles and trinkets,” or, as President Trump said last year, “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of thirty.” (Such declarations are meant to convince voters that the economic costs of protectionism are trivial compared to its economic benefits.) But never do protectionist politicians campaign on a platform of arranging for people to be economically poorer as a price to be paid for non-economic benefits.

No more need be said to dismiss Mr. Chen’s suggestion that protectionism, in practice, is about the sacrifice of economic well-being for higher non-economic ends. But more can – and should – be said.

What people such as Mr. Chen and others believe themselves to be doing when they insist that protectionism is about more than “the prices of goods and services” is distinguishing themselves from free traders, who are assumed to be concerned only with narrow material ends. Mr. Chen and Co. fancy themselves as standing in gallant opposition to the horde of mindlessly materialistic free-traders in order to promote ends such as job security, the family, and the character of towns and regions.

But Mr. Chen and Co. deeply misunderstand the case for free trade. It is not a case for the elevation of shallow materialism over profoundly important non-economic ends.

First, very many (most?) free traders — including myself — support free trade ultimately because it’s consistent with individual liberty, while protectionism is an offense against individual liberty. Even if free trade somehow resulted in a reduced material standard of living, I and many other free traders would still champion it because of its non-economic virtue of being consistent with freedom. It’s fair for Mr. Chen and other protectionists not to esteem individual liberty as highly as do we free traders. It’s unfair, however, and mistaken for protectionists to accuse us free traders of valuing nothing higher than material enrichment.

Second, all motives for economic action ultimately are non-monetary (that is, they’re not about accumulating money for the sake of accumulating money). Some of these motives are material in a narrow sense and, hence, might be called “materialistic”: everyone must eat and be housed and clothed. And some of these materialistic motives are indeed crass and shallow and even contemptible: Joe uses some of his monetary earnings to get drunk on Friday nights while Janet regularly feeds some of her monetary earnings into slot machines. But other of these motives are not materialistic in any narrow sense: Jane spends much of her monetary earnings on piano lessons for her grandchildren while Jerry donates a portion of his monetary earnings to a community children’s theater and uses another portion to improve his and his wife’s learning by subscribing to The Rest Is History podcast. Because free trade increases the opportunities to do all of these things, it’s erroneous to suggest that the case for free trade is a case only for narrow material or sensual gratification.

Third, nearly all of the alleged non-materialistic benefits of protectionism are, in fact, materialistic benefits.

Consider, for example, job security. Job security is valued largely because a secure job is a secure stream of income. If job security really were a non-economic goal that trumps ‘mere’ material well-being, workers who have this goal could greatly increase the security of their jobs by offering to take a significant cut in their monetary wages. Yet, tellingly, such wage-cut offers seldom occur. The case for using protectionism to increase the job security of workers in protected industries is the case for having fellow citizens other than the protected workers pay the economic cost of making the protected jobs more secure.

It’s admirable to have non-economic goals. But it’s detestable to force other people to subsidize the achievement of these goals, and hypocritical to accuse those of us who object to such subsidization of being excessively materialistic. If any group in this situation is excessively materialistic, it’s the protected workers and the protectionists who apologize for them. These protectionists never pause to ponder what non-economic goals a policy of protectionism prevents the bulk of their fellow citizens from pursuing. As a result of having to pay prices driven higher by tariffs, how much leisure does a working mom lose? How much does a family’s education budget shrink? How much health care must another family forego? By how many years does dad postpone retirement?

If protectionists are in search of people who are mindlessly and narrowly materialistic – of people who are blind to the non-economic goals that most individuals have – protectionists should look in the mirror.

(TheNewswire)

Prismo Metals Inc.

Vancouver, British Columbia TheNewswire – January 9th, 2025 Prismo Metals Inc. (‘Prismo’ or the ‘Company’) (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) (OTCQB: PMOMF) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement with Infinitum Copper Corp. (TSXV: INFI) (‘Infinitum’) whereby Prismo will increase its interest in the Hot Breccia copper project, located in the heart of Arizona’s prolific copper belt, from 75% to 95%. In addition, Prismo has obtained an irrevocable option to acquire Infinitum’s remaining 5% interest, providing a clear path to 100% interest in the project.

Alain Lambert, CEO of Prismo commented: ‘The absence of a clear mechanism to secure full ownership at Hot Breccia had previously limited our ability to fund drilling and pursue potential third-party partnerships. The transaction announced today totally removes that constraint and materially improves the strategic flexibility of the project.’

He added: ‘Prismo remains firmly committed to advancing Hot Breccia. The recent extension of certain milestone obligations under the option agreement with Walnut Mines LLC (the ‘Option Agreement‘), the owner of the Hot Breccia claims, together with the deal announced today, provides the Company with additional flexibility as we evaluate a range of strategic alternatives. Each of these pathways is intended to position Prismo to commence drilling on what we consider to be one of the most compelling copper exploration opportunities in Arizona and the broader United States.

Dr. Linus Keating, manager of Walnut Mines LLC, enthusiastically commented: ‘Walnut Mines is solidly in favor of any action that moves Hot Breccia closer to a serious drill program. We are hopeful that this transaction will accomplish that goal in 2026. In our opinion, this property remains one of the best copper exploration opportunities in North America.’

Under the terms of the transaction, Prismo will pay Infinitum CA $185,000 to acquire a 20% additional interest in the Hot Breccia project and assume all of Infinitum’s remaining obligations under the Option Agreement to issue shares to Walnut, which is currently evaluated at approximately CA $54,000 through the issuance of Prismo common shares at a deemed issue price of $0.11 per share, subject to adjustments at closing. Prismo has also agreed to pay 5% of any consideration received in connection with a transaction in which Prismo assigns its interest in Hot Breccia to a third-party. The cash payment will be funded through a third party as an advance to the Company and will not utilize its working capital which is earmarked for the advancement of the Silver King project. Closing of the transaction is expected to take place on or around January 16th.

Prismos Hot Breccia project lies at the heart of the Arizona Copper Belt, which hosts several globally significant porphyry copper deposits.  Examples of these significant deposits are Freeport McMoRan’s Miami-Inspiration mining complex, BHP’s San Manuel mine, Rio Tinto and BHP’s Resolution deposit and others (see Figure 1).  

Figure 1. Location of the Hot Breccia Project in the Arizona Copper Belt.

Historical drilling carried out in the mid to late 1970s by a Rio Tinto subsidiary intersected high-grade copper mineralization at depths ranging from 640 to 830 meters below surface. Several holes targeted an area with a coincident magnetic high, believed to be caused by magnetite skarn that was cut in the drill holes and that occurs in xenoliths in cross cutting dikes exposed at the surface. Prismo believes those intercepts may represent the periphery of the upper portion of a large mineralized system.  

Support for the Companys mineralization model at the project comes from several sources, including the results of historical drilling, geophysical surveys, distribution of dikes with xenoliths of Cu-bearing skarn, the 2023 ZTEM survey as well as the results of an AI study. The anomalous target area identified in Prismos modelling measures 1,100 meters by 1,150 meters.  

Dr. Craig Gibson, Chief Exploration Officer of Prismo stated: The copper exploration target at Hot Breccia has geophysical, geochemical and geological features characteristic of many porphyry copper deposits. The project area has a regional setting similar to BHP-Rio Tinto’s Resolution copper deposit located 40 kilometers to the northwest of Hot Breccia and which is considered to be one of the greatest copper discoveries in the history of North American mining.‘  He added: The drill program is intended to drill through the entire prospective Paleozoic carbonate stratigraphy into the postulated porphyry body/breccia zone. The exploration team will take advantage of geological information provided by each hole during drilling to refine targeting of subsequent holes.

Historical drill holes cut high grade skarn mineralization including 23 meters with 0.54% Cu at 640 meters depth (hole OC-1), 18 m with 1.4% Cu and 4.65% Zn at 830 meters depth (hole OCC-7), and 7.6 m with 1.73% Cu and 0.11% Zn at 703 meters and 4.6 meters with 1.4% Cu and 0.88% Zn at 716 meters (OCC-8).  Mineralization occurs within a several hundred-meter-thick altered zone hosted in favorable Paleozoic carbonate rocks that underly a sequence of Cretaceous andesitic volcanic rocks.  These carbonates are the same rocks that host the high-grade copper mineralization at Freeports nearby Christmas mine.  The historical drilling intersected a blind mineralized intrusion associated with the skarn mineralization, providing an immediate drill target that is believed to be the source of the mineralization at Hot Breccia (Figure 2). Several magnetic highs in the region surrounding the proposed intrusion may also indicated buried skarn mineralization and provide additional exploration targets.


Click Image To View Full Size

 

Figure 2. Schematic cross section at Hot Breccia showing updated interpretation after Barrett (1974).

Notes:

  1. (1)Barrett, Larry Frank (1972): Igneous Intrusions and Associated Mineralization in the Saddle Mountain Mining District Pinal County, Arizona. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Utah. 

  2. (2)Barrett, Larry Frank (1974): Diamond drill hole OC-1, O’Carroll Canyon, Pinal County, Arizona, unpublished internal report, Bear Creek Mining. 

About Hot Breccia

The Hot Breccia property consists of 1,420 hectares in 227 contiguous mining claims located in the world class Arizona Copper Belt between several very well understood world-class copper mines including Morenci, Ray and Resolution (Figure 1). Hot Breccia shows many features in common with these neighboring systems, most prominently a swarm of porphyry dikes and series of breccia pipes containing numerous fragments of well copper-mineralized rocks mixed with fragments of volcanic and sedimentary derived from considerable depth. Prismo performed a ZTEM survey last year that identified a very large conductive anomaly directly beneath the breccia outcrops.  

Sampling at the project has shown the presence of copper mineralization associated with dacite dikes that transported fragments of strongly mineralized carbonate rocks to the surface from depths believed to be 400-1,000 meters. Drilling deep holes is necessary to tap into the source of these mineralized fragments found at surface.

Assay results from historical drill holes are unverified as the core has been destroyed, but information has been gathered from memos, photos and drill logs that contain some, but not all, of the assay results and descriptions.  Technical information from adjacent or nearby properties does not mean nor does it imply that Prismo will obtain similar results from its own properties.

Data on previous drilling and geophysics is historical in nature and has not been verified, is not compliant with NI 43-101 standards and should not be relied upon; the Company is using the information only as a guide to aid in exploration planning.

Qualified Person

Dr. Craig Gibson, PhD., CPG., a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-01 and Chief Exploration Officer and a director of the Company, has reviewed and approved the technical disclosure in this news release.

About Prismo Metals Inc.

Prismo (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) is a mining exploration company focused on advancing its Hot Breccia copper project in Arizona and its Palos Verdes silver project in Mexico.

Please follow @PrismoMetals on , , , Instagram, and

Prismo Metals Inc.

1100 – 1111 Melville St., Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 3V6  Phone: (416) 361-0737

Contact:

Alain Lambert, Chief Executive Officer alain.lambert@prismometals.com

Gordon Aldcorn, President gordon.aldcorn@prismometals.com

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This release includes certain statements and information that may constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect the expectations or beliefs of management of the Company regarding future events. Generally, forward-looking statements and information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as intends‘ or anticipates, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results may’, could‘, should‘, would‘ or occur. This information and these statements, referred to herein as ‘forwardlooking statements’, are not historical facts, are made as of the date of this news release and include without limitation, statements regarding discussions of future plans, estimates and forecasts and statements as to management’s expectations and intentions with respect to, among other things: the timing, costs and anticipated results of drilling at Hot Breccia; the ability of Prismo to fund drilling and pursue potential third-party partnerships; the Company’s strategic flexibility with respect to the Hot Breccia project going forward; the number of shares issuable by Prismo to Walnut pursuant to the transaction described in this news release; and the Company’s expectations regarding mineralization and other qualities of the Hot Breccia project.

These forwardlooking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties, and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things: delays in obtaining or failure to obtain appropriate funding to finance the exploration program at Hot Breccia; the risk that the Company will not enter into a third-party partnership with respect to the Hot Breccia project; the risk that mineralization will not be as anticipated at the project; the risk that the Company will not be able to take advantage of geological information to refine drill targeting; metal prices; market uncertainty; and other risks and uncertainties application to exploration activities and the Company’s business as set forth in the Company’s disclosure documents available for viewing under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, the Company has applied several material assumptions, including without limitation, that: the ability to raise capital to fund the drilling campaign at Hot Breccia and the timing of such drilling campaign; the ability of the Company to enter into a third-party partnership on the project; that the project will have the anticipated mineralization and other qualities; and the  Company will be able to take advantage of geological information to refine drill targeting.

Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such 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 and forward-looking information. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, forward-looking information or financial out-look that are incorporated by reference herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. We seek safe harbor.

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Hannity,’ Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

‘Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,’ Trump said.

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated ‘doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country’ to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had ‘nothing to do with my decision’ about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Yvonne Blaszczyk, president and CEO of BMG Group, sees the gold price hitting US$5,000 per ounce in Q1 on the back of a complex geopolitical landscape.

‘In terms of the geopolitical configuration of the world, we are witnessing history right now,’ she said.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The global lithium market enters 2026 after a punishing 2025 marked by oversupply, weaker-than-expected EV demand and sustained price pressure, although things began turning around for lithium stocks in Q4.

Lithium carbonate prices in North Asia fell to four-year lows early in the year, triggering production cuts and project delays, before rebounding sharply in the second half. By late December, prices had jumped 56 percent from their January levels, signaling the start of a potential market rebalancing.

Analysts point to tightening inventories and high-cost supply under strain as early signs of a recovery, while long-term demand from electrification, energy storage and the energy transition remains intact.

Battery energy storage systems are emerging as a major growth driver, expected to account for roughly a quarter of global battery demand in 2025. In the US, storage could make up 35 to 40 percent of battery demand in the coming years, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence’s Iola Hughes.

“LFP is the story right now,” Hughes said, highlighting falling costs and technological innovation as key enablers for large-scale deployment. Global storage remains concentrated in China and the US, but new markets like Saudi Arabia are scaling rapidly.

As storage expands in scale, geography and strategic importance, it is set to become a central pillar of lithium demand heading into 2026.

1. Lithium Argentina (NYSE:LAR)

Year-to-date gain: 106.39 percent
Market cap: US$891.03 million
Share price: US$5.49

Lithium Argentina produces lithium carbonate from its Caucharí-Olaroz brine project in Argentina, developed with Ganfeng Lithium (OTC Pink:GNENF,HKEX:1772). The company was spun out from Lithium Americas in October 2023 and changed its name from Lithium Americas (Argentina) in January 2025.

In mid-April, Lithium Argentina executed a letter of intent with Ganfeng Lithium to jointly advance development across the Pozuelos-Pastos Grandes basins.

In August, Lithium Argentina agreed to form a new joint venture with Ganfeng Lithium that will combine the companies’ projects in the Pozuelos and Pastos Grandes basins of Salta, Argentina.

The joint venture will bring together Ganfeng’s wholly owned Pozuelos-Pastos Grandes (PPG) project and Lithium America’s Pastos Grandes and Sal de la Puna projects, in which Ganfeng currently holds a 15 percent and 35 percent stake respectively.

Once completed, Ganfeng will hold a 67 percent stake in the consolidated PPG project, and Lithium Argentina will hold a 33 percent interest.

In Q4, Lithium Argentina released a positive scoping study for the PPG project, confirming its scale and strong economics. The consolidated project hosts a measured and indicated resource of 15.1 million metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) and is designed for staged production of up to 150,000 metric tons per year over a 30 year mine life.

In the same announcement, the company confirmed receipt of an environmental approval for Stage 1 from the Secretariat of Mining and Energy of the Province of Salta.

Lithium Argentina released its Q3 results in November, noting approximately 8,300 metric tons of lithium carbonate production at its Caucharí-Olaroz operation during the quarter, with 24,000 metric tons produced between January and September.

Company shares rose to a year-to-date high of US$5.58 on December 31, in line with rising lithium carbonate prices.

2. Sociedad Química y Minera (NYSE:SQM)

Year-to-date gain: 87.39 percent
Market cap: US$19.66 billion
Share price: US$68.98

SQM is a major global lithium producer, with operations centered in Chile’s Salar de Atacama. The company extracts lithium from brine and produces lithium carbonate and hydroxide for use in batteries.

SQM is expanding production and holds interests in projects in Australia and China, including a 50/50 joint venture for the Mt Holland lithium operation in Western Australia. In July, the company produced its first battery-grade lithium hydroxide production at its Kwinana refinery in the state.

In late April, Chile’s competition watchdog approved the partnership agreement between SQM and state-owned copper giant Codelco aimed at boosting output at the Atacama salt flat. The deal, first announced in 2024, reached another milestone when it secured approval for an additional lithium quota from Chile’s nuclear energy regulator CChEN.

SQM ended the year finalizing the agreement. The partnership was formalized through SQM’s subsidiary SQM Salar absorbing Codelco’s Minera Tarar and being renamed Nova Andino Litio.

SQM reported a net income of US$404.4 million for the first nine months of 2025, rebounding from a US$524.5 million loss in the same period of 2024. Revenue totaled US$3.25 billion, down 5.9 percent year-over-year, while gross profit reached US$904.1 million.

The company’s third-quarter performance highlighted the turnaround, as SQM achieved record lithium sales volumes. It reported net income of US$178.4 million, up 36 percent from Q3 2024, and revenue of US$1.17 billion, up 8.9 percent. Gross profit for the quarter climbed 23 percent to US$345.8 million.

SQM attributed the rebound to higher realized lithium prices and improved operational efficiency, signaling a strong recovery trajectory for the remainder of 2025.

Shares of SQM reached a year-to-date high of US$71.63 on December 26.

3. Albemarle (NYSE:ALB)

Year-to-date gain: 64.29 percent
Market cap: US$16.71 billion
Share price: US$142.01

North Carolina-based Albemarle is dividing into two primary business units, one of which — the Albemarle Energy Storage unit — is focused wholly on the lithium-ion battery and energy transition markets. It includes the firm’s lithium carbonate, hydroxide and metal production.

Albemarle has a broad portfolio of lithium mines and facilities, with extraction in Chile, Australia and the US. Looking first at Chile, Albemarle produces lithium carbonate at its La Negra lithium conversion plants, which process brine from the Salar de Atacama, the country’s largest salt flat. Albemarle is aiming to implement direct lithium extraction technology at the salt flat to reduce water usage.

Albemarle’s Australian assets Wodgina hard-rock lithium mine in Western Australia, which is owned and operated by the 50/50 MARBL joint venture with Mineral Resources (ASX:MIN,OTC Pink:MALRF). Albemarle wholly owns the on-site Kemerton lithium hydroxide facility. The company’s other Australian joint venture is the Greenbushes hard-rock mine, in which it holds a 49 percent interest.

In late October, Albemarle signed an agreement to sell its 51 percent stake in its refining catalyst business, Ketjen, leaving it with 49 percent ownership, part of a broader portfolio reshaping that also includes the sale of Ketjen’s 50 percent stake in the Eurecat joint venture to partner Axens.

The combined deals are expected to generate approximately US$660 million in pre-tax cash proceeds and strengthen Albemarle’s financial flexibility. Both transactions are anticipated to close in the first half of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals.

In November, Albemarle reported third‑quarter results that reflected improved operations amid continued lithium market headwinds. The company logged net sales of roughly US$1.31 billion, a slight year‑over‑year decline driven by lower energy storage pricing.

Albemarle generated US$356 million in quarterly cash from operations, noting the company remained on track to reduce full‑year capital expenditures to around US$600 million while targeting positive free cash flow of US$300 million to US$400 million in 2025.

Shares of Albemarle marked a year-to-date high of US$150.01 on December 26, amid strengthening lithium prices.

4. Lithium Americas (NYSE:LAC)

Year-to-date gain: 47 percent
Market cap: US$1.24 billion
Share price: US$4.41

US-focused Lithium Americas is developing its flagship Thacker lithium Pass project located in Humboldt County in northern Nevada. The project is a joint venture between Lithium Americas at 62 percent and General Motors (NYSE:GM) at 38 percent.

According to the company, Thacker Pass holds the “largest measured lithium reserve and resource in the world.”

In March, Lithium Americas secured a US$250 million investment from Orion Resource Partners to advance Phase 1 construction of the project, which is expected to fully cover development costs through the construction phase. On April 1, the joint venture partners made a final investment decision for the project, with completion targeted for late 2027.

Shares of Lithium Americas surged in late September, rising from US$3.07 to US$7.37 in three days. Its share price reached a 2025 high of US$10.05 on October 13.

Lithium Americas’ share price rose on news of renegotiation talks over its US$2.26 billion Department of Energy loan tied to the Thacker Pass project. According to media reports, the Trump administration was seeking up to a 10 percent equity stake as part of amendments to the loan’s repayment structure.

In response, Lithium Americas offered no-cost warrants for 5 to 10 percent of its shares and agreed to cover related administrative costs, while requesting changes to the amortization schedule without altering the loan’s term or interest.

An agreement was reached on October 1 and Lithium Americas received the first US$435 million installment of the loan on October 20.

The company ended the year by announcing it was being added to the S&P/TSX Composite Index (INDEXTSI:OSPTX).

5. Sigma Lithium (NASDAQ:SGML)

Year-to-date gain: 20.23 percent
Market cap: US$1.5 billion
Share price: US$13.49

Sigma Lithium is a Brazil-focused lithium producer supplying chemical-grade lithium concentrate to the global battery market. The company operates the Grota do Cirilo project in Minas Gerais, one of the world’s largest hard-rock lithium operations.

Sigma’s Greentech industrial lithium plant currently produces about 270,000 metric tons per year of lithium concentrate, equivalent to roughly 38,000 to 40,000 metric tons of LCE. The company is building a second processing plant that is expected to lift total capacity to approximately 520,000 metric tons of concentrate annually.

In September, Sigma Lithium’s flagship Grota do Cirilo operation in Brazil faced both regulatory scrutiny and operational disruption.

That month, Brazilian prosecutors requested a pause in operations after a technical review flagged shortcomings in the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment, citing potential water-management risks to the Piauí stream from planned open pits, a key water source for nearby communities, particularly during droughts.

While it denied issues with its EIA, Sigma paused mining to upgrade equipment and improve efficiency. The company phased down operations in September and shut the mine throughout October, leading to a sharp drop in output.

In mid-November, Sigma reported a strong Q3 2025, with net revenue rising 69 percent quarter-over-quarter and 36 percent year-over-year. The company generated US$24 million from final price settlements on sales completed by the end of Q3, with a further US$4 million in cash expected from additional settlements.

Sigma also expects to receive approximately US$33 million from the sale of 950,000 metric tons of lithium-bearing material that can be reprocessed by its customers, providing an additional near-term cash inflow.

Operationally, it said mining activities would restart by the end of November, with full ramp-up targeted for the first quarter of 2026. Because the company took over mining operations from its equipment contractor earlier in 2025, the restart is supported by upgraded equipment leased directly from manufacturers and operated in-house.

Sigma Lithium shares rose to a year-to-date high of US$14.50 on December 26.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, currently hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Commodities giants Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) and Glencore (LSE:GLEN,OTCPL:GLCNF) said on Thursday (January 8) that they have restarted talks about a potential business combination.

The two major miners spoke previously back in 2024, but failed to reach an agreement.

This time around, they say their preliminary discussions are centered around a combination of some or all of their businesses; this could include the acquisition of Glencore by Rio Tinto.

The news was first reported by the Financial Times, with both companies confirming the story via press release shortly thereafter. According to the news outlet, the combination of Rio Tinto and Glencore would create a massive mining company with an enterprise value north of US$260 billion.

The two firms have said there’s no guarantee that any transaction will go through.

However, it’s worth noting that Rio Tinto has changed leadership since the 2024 talks ended, with Simon Trott now at the helm. For its part, Glencore has reorganized its coal assets.

The Financial Times also notes that Glencore CEO Gary Nagle spoke last month about the importance of size in the mining industry, saying that bigger companies have various advantages.

“It makes sense to create bigger companies,” the executive explained to reporters. “Not just for the sake of size, but also to create material synergies, to create relevance, to attract talent, to attract capital.”

Regulations require Rio Tinto to announce its intentions either way by February 5 of this year.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com