Author

admin

Browsing

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

Copper Quest Exploration Inc. (CSE: CQX,OTC:IMIMF; FRA: 3MX) (‘Copper Quest’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that, further to its news releases of November 14, 2025 and December 10, 2025, it has completed its acquisition of the past producing Alpine Gold Property (the ‘Property’), located in the West Kootenay region of British Columbia (the ‘Acquisition’).

We are excited to offer our shareholders the opportunity to leverage a pure gold play in what has been a primarily copper-focused company. Having now successfully acquired this exceptional property with an existing historical gold resource, excellent expansion potential, and a seasoned technical team, including Alan Matovich, Ted Murano, and John Mirko, we look forward to updating our shareholders on our endeavor towards growing this current historical resource, and the possibility of seeing near-term cash flow from existing stockpiles,’ commented Brian Thurston, CEO of Copper Quest. ‘The Alpine Gold Property presents a tremendous opportunity to create near-term value for our shareholders through exposure to an all-time high gold market while we also continue to advance our multiple copper properties. Our recent financing of approximately two million dollars ensures that our shareholders will benefit from more than one exploration opportunity.’

Highlights of the Alpine Gold Property

  • 2018 National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43-101’) Historical Inferred Resource of 268,000 tonnes estimated using a cut-off grade of 5.0 g/t Au and an average grade of 16.52 g/t Au that represents an inferred resource of 142,000 oz of gold (McCuaig & Giroux, 2018).
  • Substantial opportunity to grow the maiden Alpine resource to the east-west and to depth with only about 300m of the roughly 2km long vein system explored to date by underground mine workings and drilling.
  • Estimated 24,000 tonnes Run-of-Mine mineralized stockpile on surface presenting a possible near-term cash flow opportunity.
  • 1,650 metres of clean and dry underground workings accessing sampled and mineable zones.
  • At least four additional relatively unexplored vein systems on the Property (Black Prince, Cold Blow, Gold Crown, and past-producing King Solomon), all hosting historic high-grade gold values.
  • Road accessible 4,611.49-hectare Property including 15 Crown Grants (one with surface rights) and 19 staked mineral claims with all-season operation potential (Figure 1).
  • Additions of Mr. Allan Matovich to the Board of Directors of the Company (the ‘Board‘), and Mr. Ted Muraro and Mr. John Mirko as Technical Advisors on closing. They have a combined mining and exploration experience of 150+ years in the industry.

The 4,611.49-hectare Property is approximately 20 kilometres northeast of the City of Nelson (Figure 1) and hosts a former operating underground mine with a recorded production of approximately 16,810 tonnes of mineralized vein material (Table 1). This material contained 356,360 grams of gold, 222,054 grams of silver, 49,329 kilograms of lead, and 17,167 kilograms of zinc. The other four significant vein systems on the Property will also be explored including the Black Prince and Cold Blow quartz veins approximately 3km to the northeast of the Alpine mine, the Gold Crown vein system 600m southeast, and the past-producing King Solomon vein workings 1.8km to the south. Further information about the Alpine Gold property will be forthcoming in the upcoming weeks.

Location Claim Map

Figure 1: Location Claim Map

Appointment of Mr. Allan Matovich as Director

Copper Quest is also pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Allan Matovich to the Board. Mr. Matovich has 60+ years of mining and exploration experience in Canada and the United States. He first started with Cominco in Trail, BC, working in the smelter operation. Mr. Matovich then started Matovich Mining Industries, which supplied considerable tonnages of siliceous flux materials, lead and zinc concentrates to Cominco for over 20 years. He then opened a mining operation in 1997 in Northern British Columbia to supply barite for drilling fluids in the oil and gas industry. This mining operation is still in production today. Mr. Matovich also opened a barite operation in Washington State that is going into production. He also worked with Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and Newmont and was very successful. In 2000, Mr. Matovich purchased the Alpine Gold Property and has spent a considerable amount of time proving up the project.

Mr. Matovich commented,I am very pleased to bring the Alpine Gold Property to Copper Quest and join as a director. The Company has a fantastic portfolio of advancing critical mineral projects and the Alpine Gold Project gives a potential near-term cash flow opportunity along with upside to grow the current resource with drilling. I look forward to working with the Copper Quest team to create value for all stakeholders.’

Table 1 – Production History – Minfile (082FNW127) for Alpine Mine for gold (Au) and silver (Ag)

YEAR Tonnes Tonnes Au Grams Ag Grams Est Grade Est Grade
Mined Milled Recovered Recovered Au (g/t) Ag (g/t)
1988 200 90 198 591 2.20 6.57
*1948 16,889 11,384 25.32 17.07
*1947 2,768 1,866 15.38 10.37
*1946 11,042 5,785 18.59 9.74
*1942 56,079 34,182 824.69 502.68
1941 11,517 11,517 219,350 130,011 18.26 11.29
1940 3,992 3,992 57,852 35,333 14.49 8.85
1939 3 0 62 62    
1938 35 0 1,120 902    
1915 4 0   1,938    

*ore milled not reported

Appointment of Mr. Ted Muraro as Technical Advisor to the Board

Mr. Theodore (Ted) W. Muraro has been appointed as Technical Advisor to the Board. Mr. Muraro has accumulated over six decades of experience in mineral exploration, including 35 years with Cominco where he advanced to serve as the company’s Chief Geologist and Internal Consulting Geologist. Early in his career, Mr. Muraro gained underground experience at Keno Hill, HB Mine, Sullivan, and Western Mines.

His tenure at Cominco was marked by direct involvement in the discovery and subsequent successful development of the Westmin Mine at Buttle Lake, the Polaris Mine on Little Cornwallis Island in the high Arctic and Snip Mine on the Iskut River. Following his service at Cominco, Mr. Muraro assumed the role of Vice President, Exploration at Romanex and International Barytex Resources, contributing his expertise to international gold projects.

Mr. Muraro, who was awarded the Spud Huestis award in 2021 for his outstanding contributions to the industry and excellence in exploration, worked as an independent consultant (T.W. Muraro Consulting 1993-2016) on base metal and gold exploration projects around the world until his retirement in 2016. In these later years, he served on several boards as Director and/or Advisor, most recently with Imperial Metals. Mr. Muraro’s working relationship with Al Matovich started in the Rossland Mining Camp and shifted to the Alpine Property in the late 80s.

Appointment of Mr. John Mirko as Technical Advisor to the Board

Mr. John Mirko has been appointed as Technical Advisor to the Board. Mr. Mirko has over 40 years’ experience in the mining industry, including as past President and Founder of Canam Alpine Ventures Ltd. (recently sold to Vizsla Resources Ltd., a TSX Venture Exchange listed company), and currently as President and Founder of Canam Mining Corp. and Rokmaster Resources Corporation.

From 1986 to 2010 Mr. Mirko founded and served as CEO, President, and Director of four public mineral exploration companies and founded and served as Director of three other companies. He has been self-employed in the sector since 1972 as a prospector, contractor, and consultant involved in the exploration, development, and mine construction of various projects in 12 counties, and commercial production of mineral concentrates and metal products from five of the projects.

In 2008, he was a recipient of the ‘E. A. Scholtz Medal for Excellence in Mine Development’ from the Association for Mineral Exploration of British Columbia, and in 2009, the Mining Association of British Columbia’s ‘Mining and Sustainability Award’ for the MAX Mine. He is currently a member in good standing of the Society of Economic Geologists, Inc., the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and AME BC.

Transaction Details

The Company has purchased of all the minerals claims and crown grants that comprise the Property from 0847114 B.C. Ltd. (‘Privco‘), a private company. As consideration for the Property, Copper Quest has issued an aggregate of 14,177,517 common shares in its capital (the ‘Shares‘) at a deemed price of $0.135 per Share for deemed consideration of $1,913,964.80 to Privco.

The Shares are subject to a statutory hold period expiring April 19, 2026, being the date that is four months and one day from the date of issuance in accordance with applicable Canadian securities legislation. In addition, the Shares are subject to further trading restrictions as the Shares will be released in stages over the next 24 months, such that (i) 2,362,920 Shares will be released April 19, 2026; (ii) 2,362,919 Shares will be released August 19, 2026; (iii) 2,362,920 Shares will be released December 19, 2026; (iv) 2,362,920 Shares will be released April 19, 2027; (v) 2,362,920 Shares will be released August 19, 2027; and (vi) the final 2,362,920 Shares will be released December 19, 2027.

Copper Quest will also reimburse Privco a total of $225,000 towards 2025 expenditures incurred on exploring the Property and has granted a 2% net smelter returns royalty (the ‘Royalty‘) to Privco on all minerals mined, produced, or otherwise recovered from the Property. The Company retains the right to purchase half of the Royalty in consideration of $1,000,000 paid to Privco at any time.

Subject to the approval of the Canadian Securities Exchange, a finder’s fee of 587,212 common shares of the Company (the ‘Finder’s Shares‘) is applicable in connection with the acquisition of the Property. The Finder’s Shares will be subject to a statutory hold period of four months in accordance with applicable Canadian securities legislation. It is anticipated that the Finder’s Shares will be issued on or about December 31, 2025.

Debt Settlement Transactions

The Company also wishes to announce it intends to issue 218,620 common shares of the Company (the ‘Debt Settlement Shares‘) at a deemed value of $0.15 per Debt Settlement Share in order to satisfy an aggregate of $32,793 in outstanding debt for services previously provided to the Company.

The Debt Settlement Shares will be subject to a statutory hold period of four months in accordance with applicable Canadian securities legislation. It is anticipated that the Finder’s Shares will be issued on or about December 31, 2025. The issuance of the Debt Settlement Shares is subject to the receipt of all required approvals, including the approval of the Canadian Securities Exchange.

The securities described herein have not been, and will not be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act‘), or any state securities laws, and may not be offered or sold within the United States except in compliance with the registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or pursuant to available exemptions therefrom. This release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities in the United States.

Qualified Person

Brian Thurston, P.Geo., the Company’s CEO and a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101 has reviewed and approved the technical information in this news release.

ABOUT Copper Quest Exploration Inc.

Copper Quest (CSE: CQX,OTC:IMIMF; FRA: 3MX) is committed to building shareholder value through acquisitions, discovery-driven exploration, disciplined execution, and responsible development of its North American Critical Mineral portfolio of assets. Please visit our website at www.copper.quest.

The Company’s land package currently comprises six projects that span over 40,000+ hectares in great mining jurisdictions as well as the Kitimat Cu-Au Project pending acquisition.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the Stars Property, a porphyry copper-molybdenum discovery, covering 9,693 hectares in central British Columbia’s Bulkley Porphyry Belt. Contiguous to the Stars Property, Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the 5,389-hectare Stellar Property. CQX also has an earn-in option up to 80% and joint-venture agreement on the 4,700-hectare porphyry copper-molybdenum Rip Project, also in the Bulkley Porphyry Belt.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the Nekash Copper-Gold Project, a porphyry exploration opportunity located in Lemhi County, Idaho, along the prolific Idaho-Montana porphyry copper belt that hosts world-class systems such as Butte and CUMO. The project is fully road-accessible via maintained U.S. highways and forest service roads and currently consists of 70 unpatented federal lode claims covering 585 hectares.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the Thane Project located in the Quesnel Terrane of Northern BC which spans over 20,658 ha with 10 high-priority targets identified demonstrating significant copper and precious metal mineralization potential.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the past-producing Alpine Gold Mine located approximately 20 kilometers northeast of the City of Nelson spanning 4,611.49 hectares. Apart from the Alpine Mine the property hosts 4 significant vein systems including the Black Prince and the Cold Blow quartz veins, the Gold Crown vein system, and the past-producing King Solomon vein workings.

Copper Quest’s leadership and advisory teams are senior mining industry executives who have a wealth of technical and capital markets experience and a strong track record of discovering, financing, developing, and operating mining projects on a global scale. Copper Quest is committed to sustainable and responsible business activities in line with industry best practices, supportive of all stakeholders, including the local communities in which it operates. The Company’s common shares are principally listed on the Canadian Stock Exchange under the symbol ‘CQX’.

On behalf of the Board of Copper Quest Exploration Inc.

Brian Thurston, P.Geo.
Chief Executive Officer and Director
Tel: 778-949-1829

For further information contact:

Investor Relations
info@copper.quest

Forward Looking Information

This news release contains certain ‘forward-looking information’ and ‘forward-looking statements’ (collectively, ‘forward-looking statements‘) within the meaning of applicable securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact included herein, including without limitation, statements regarding the merits and benefits of the acquisition of the Alpine Gold Property, and the issuance of the Finder’s Shares and Debt Settlement Shares, including the anticipated issuance date thereof, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are frequently, but not always, identified by words such as ‘expects’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘potential’, ‘possible’, and similar expressions, or statements that events, conditions, or results ‘will’, ‘may’, ‘could’, or ‘should’ occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements reflect the beliefs, opinions and projections on the date the statements are made and are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates based on or related to many of these factors. Such factors include, without limitation, the ability of the Company to obtain the necessary approvals with respect to the issuance of the Finder’s Shares and Debt Settlement Shares, risks associated with possible accidents and other risks associated with mineral exploration operations, the risk that the Company will encounter unanticipated geological factors, risks associated with the interpretation of exploration results, the possibility that the Company may not be able to secure permitting and other governmental clearances necessary to carry out the Company’s exploration plans, the risk that the Company will not be able to raise sufficient funds to carry out its business plans, and the risk of political uncertainties and regulatory or legal changes that might interfere with the Company’s business and prospects. Readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements and information contained in this news release concerning these items. The Company does not assume any obligation to update the forward-looking statements of beliefs, opinions, projections, or other factors, should they change, except as required by applicable securities laws.

The Canadian Securities Exchange has not reviewed, approved or disapproved the contents of this press release, and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/818db0aa-2347-40b4-82aa-6b1e2169da3e

Primary Logo

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

(TheNewswire)

Charbone Hydrogen Corporation

 

Brossard, Quebec, le 22 décembre 2025 TheNewswire – CORPORATION Charbone (TSXV: CH,OTC:CHHYF; OTCQB: CHHYF; FSE: K47) (« Charbone » ou la « Société »), un producteur et distributeur nord-américain spécialisé dans l’hydrogène propre Ultra Haute Pureté (« UHP ») et les gaz industriels stratégiques, est heureuse d’annoncer la livraison réussie du premier chargement d’hydrogène propre UHP à un distributeur indépendant basé en Ontario, marquant le début officiel de la génération de revenus pour sa division de production.

Première livraison d’hydrogène propre UHP vers un client distributeur indépendant en Ontario

Dans le cadre du démarrage commercial, Charbone annonce son tout premier chargement d’hydrogène propre UHP produit à Sorel-Tracy, pour son partenaire distributeur indépendant situé en Ontario. Cette première expédition confirme la capacité de la Société à approvisionner efficacement des marchés hors Québec dès la mise en service initiale.

Ce contrat marque le début d’une nouvelle phase de croissance commerciale pour Charbone, qui prévoit élargir progressivement son réseau de distribution et renforcer sa présence dans les principaux corridors industriels de l’Est du Canada et du Midwest américain. Compte tenu de l’accès limité à un approvisionnement constant et fiable en hydrogène propre UHP sur le marché nord-américain et de la forte demande pour ses produits, Charbone ne divulgue pas les volumes de ses commandes ni les prix afin de préserver sa position concurrentielle. Les revenus issus des activités de production, de distribution et de conseil de Charbone sont présentés trimestriellement sur une base consolidée.

« Nous sommes extrêmement fiers de livrer dès aujourd’hui un hydrogène propre UHP produit localement à nos premiers clients, » a déclaré Dave B. Gagnon, PDG de Charbone. « Il s’agit d’un autre jalon majeur pour Charbone, mais également pour l’industrie de l’hydrogène propre UHP en Amérique du Nord. »

Pour plus d’informations sur la vision de Charbone, la configuration modulaire de ses usines et ses perspectives économiques, veuillez consulter le site web de la société pour accéder aux documents destinés aux investisseurs, notamment la présentation et la fiche d’information. Si vous ne l’avez pas encore fait, nous vous invitons également à visionner le webinaire destiné aux investisseurs, enregistré le 16 décembre 2025, en cliquant sur le lien suivant : https://info.rbmilestone.com/Charbone-webinar-dec-2025.

 

À propos de CORPORATION Charbone

Charbone est un développeur et producteur d’hydrogène propre Ultra Haute Pureté (UHP) doté d’une plateforme de distribution de gaz industriels en pleine expansion. Grâce à une approche modulaire, Charbone se concentre sur le développement d’un réseau d’usines de production d’hydrogène propre en Amérique du Nord et sur certains marchés à l’étranger, en commençant par son projet phare de Sorel-Tracy au Québec. Le modèle intégré de l’entreprise réduit les risques, améliore l’évolutivité et permet de diversifier ses sources de revenus grâce à des partenariats dans le domaine de l’hélium et d’autres gaz de spécialités. Charbone s’engage à soutenir la transition mondiale vers une économie bas carbone en fournissant des solutions d’hydrogène propre et de gaz de spécialités accessibles et décentralisées, tout en soutenant les clients industriels mal desservis en gaz et en accélérant la transition vers une énergie propre locale. Charbone est coté sur la bourse de croissance TSX (TSXV: CH,OTC:CHHYF); sur les marchés OTC (OTCQB: CHHYF); et à la Bourse de Francfort (FSE: K47). Pour plus d’informations, veuillez visiter www.Charbone.com.

 

Énoncés prospectifs

Le présent communiqué de presse contient des énoncés qui constituent de « l’information prospective » au sens des lois canadiennes sur les valeurs mobilières (« déclarations prospectives »). Ces déclarations prospectives sont souvent identifiées par des mots tels que « a l’intention », « anticipe », « s’attend à », « croit », « planifie », « probable », ou des mots similaires. Les déclarations prospectives reflètent les attentes, estimations ou projections respectives de la direction de Charbone concernant les résultats ou événements futurs, sur la base des opinions, hypothèses et estimations considérées comme raisonnables par la direction à la date à laquelle les déclarations sont faites. Bien que Charbone estime que les attentes exprimées dans les déclarations prospectives sont raisonnables, les déclarations prospectives comportent des risques et des incertitudes, et il ne faut pas se fier indûment aux déclarations prospectives, car des facteurs inconnus ou imprévisibles pourraient faire en sorte que les résultats réels soient sensiblement différents de ceux exprimés dans les déclarations prospectives. Des risques et des incertitudes liés aux activités de Charbone peuvent avoir une incidence sur les déclarations prospectives. Ces risques, incertitudes et hypothèses comprennent, sans s’y limiter, ceux décrits à la rubrique « Facteurs de risque » dans le rapport de gestion de la Société pour la période terminée le 30 septembre 2025, qui peut être consultée sur SEDAR+ à l’adresse www.sedarplus.ca; ils pourraient faire en sorte que les événements ou les résultats réels diffèrent sensiblement de ceux prévus dans les déclarations prospectives.

Sauf si les lois sur les valeurs mobilières applicables l’exigent, Charbone ne s’engage pas à mettre à jour ni à réviser les déclarations prospectives.

Ni la Bourse de croissance TSX ni son fournisseur de services de réglementation (tel que ce terme est défini dans les politiques de la Bourse de croissance TSX) n’acceptent de responsabilité quant à la pertinence ou à l’exactitude du présent communiqué.

Pour contacter Corporation Charbone :

 

Téléphone bureau: +1 450 678 7171

   

Courriel:  ir@Charbone.com

Benoit Veilleux

Chef de la direction financière et secrétaire corporatif

   

 

Copyright (c) 2025 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

– 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, is pleased to announce the successful delivery of the first load of clean UHP hydrogen to an independent distributor based in Ontario, marking the official start of revenue generation for its production division.

First delivery of clean UHP hydrogen to an independent distributor customer in Ontario

As part of its commercial launch, Charbone announces its very first delivery of clean UHP hydrogen produced in Sorel-Tracy, for its independent distribution partner located in Ontario. This initial shipment confirms the Company’s ability to efficiently supply markets outside Quebec from the outset.

This contract marks the beginning of a new phase of commercial growth for Charbone, which plans to gradually expand its distribution network and strengthen its presence in the main industrial corridors of Eastern Canada and the American Midwest. Given limited access to consistent and reliable clean UHP hydrogen supply in the North American market and strong demand for the Company’s product, Charbone does not disclose purchase order volumes or pricing in order to preserve its competitive position. Revenues from Charbone’s production, distribution, and advisory businesses are reported quarterly on a consolidated basis.

We are extremely proud to begin delivering locally produced clean UHP hydrogen to our first customer today,’ said Dave Gagnon, Charbone’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. ‘This is another major milestone for Charbone, and also for the clean UHP hydrogen industry in North America.

For more information on Charbone’s vision, modular plant configuration, and economic outlook, please visit the Company’s website for updated investor materials including presentation and fact sheet. Also, if you haven’t done so already, please watch the Company’s investor webinar recorded on December 16, 2025 by visiting the following link: https://info.rbmilestone.com/charbone-webinar-dec-2025.

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.

Cision View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/charbone-delivers-its-first-load-of-clean-uhp-hydrogen-in-ontario-302647421.html

SOURCE Charbone CORPORATION

News Provided by PR Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

International Lithium Corp. (TSXV: ILC,OTC:ILHMF) (OTCQB: ILHMF) (FSE: IAH) (the ‘Company’ or ‘ILC’) will hold its 2025 Annual General Meeting today, December 22, at 9.30 a.m. Pacific Time. At that meeting, John Wisbey, Chairman and CEO, will make the following statement:

‘Good morning, and welcome to the 2025 Annual General Meeting of International Lithium Corp. (‘ILC’ or the ‘Company’). I would like to share a few comments on the year-to-date and the outlook ahead before proceeding with formalities.

‘In summary, 2025 has been a successful year for ILC, improved further by a major turnround in the lithium market from June onwards. The Company completed the sale of its Avalonia property in Ireland, and made a major advance in Southern Africa through obtaining an option to acquire an 80% interest in the company owning the important Karibib project in Namibia. It is important to note that ILC has become much more than a lithium company, and the expansion into other critical minerals will be especially notable if ILC exercises its option in Namibia. As well as lithium, the Karibib project contains the largest declared rubidium resource in Africa, and also enough cesium that, when refined, would meet a year of global demand. Rubidium and cesium are both valuable critical metals with multiple commercial uses.

‘The year for the lithium market has been one of two halves. In H1 2025, the lithium price, and that of related minerals such as spodumene, continued to be very weak, reaching a low in June of circa 10% of the 2023 highs. This, combined with the resultant impact on share prices, was painful for every company in the lithium sector, including ILC. However, in H2 2025, the position has seen a considerable improvement.

‘While much of the commodity market’s focus has been on gold, silver and platinum, the rebound in lithium prices has not been widely reported and has been largely overlooked. Yet in H2 2025, the spodumene price has risen by more than 100%, outperforming all precious metals. Most of that gain has come in Q4 2025. The main benchmark lithium carbonate price Li2CO3 has risen by around 65% from its June 2025 lows. If this trend continues, it will be very positive for the lithium sector.

‘The Company’s flagship Raleigh Lake project in Ontario, Canada is again, at today’s prices for spodumene, an economically viable project even if ILC were to focus solely on lithium. Moreover, it also carries a significant rubidium resource, and one of ILC’s goals in 2026 is to put a formal economic value on that rubidium resource, as we did in the PEA for lithium two years ago.

‘In September 2025, ILC announced that it had acquired an option to buy Lepidico’s 100% interest in Lepidico Mauritius for C$975,000. This brings with it an 80% interest in the Namibian company that owns 100% of the Karibib Lithium, Rubidium and Cesium project. As announced at the time, this is a major project that has received substantial investment and, indeed, reached the Definitive Feasibility Study stage under JORC in 2020. If the option is exercised, ILC will have a major stake in the largest declared rubidium resource in Africa and one of the largest in the world. There is also enough cesium at Karibib that, when refined, could meet a year of world demand. We are still waiting for the outcome of an arbitration case that Lepidico is engaged in and will decide whether or not to exercise the option shortly after receiving that result.

Lepidico’s 80% ownership of Karibib resulted from its 2019 acquisition of TSXV-listed Desert Lion Energy in exchange for shares and other securities valued at that time at AUD$ 22.9 million (approximately CAD$20.7 million). Since acquiring the company in 2019, Lepidico invested a further AUD$ 12.1 million (approximately CAD$ 10.9 million) in the Karibib project, excluding central group overheads, with a significant portion directed towards drilling, an environmental study and subsequently a Definitive Feasibility Study and a further Resource Estimate.

This project could become highly important to ILC in 2026, and the Company’s Southern Africa strategy will hopefully also be supplemented by progress on the announced Zimbabwe EPO applications.

‘The Company completed the sale of the Avalonia project in Ireland to a subsidiary of its partner, Ganfeng Lithium, whereby ILC also retains a 2% Net Smelter Royalty. The total of C$2.5m generated from this was used to advance the investment in the Namibian project and other ongoing initiatives.

Outlook

‘The good work done in 2025, and the upturn in the lithium market, gives a strong possibility of 2026 being a successful period for ILC. As well as extra work at the flagship Raleigh Lake project in Canada, if ILC exercises its option to buy Lepidico Mauritius, it will, at Karibib in Namibia, have a project that could otherwise have taken several years and tens of millions of dollars to bring a similar greenfield project to the same stage, let alone the time to identify such a project. Karibib would bring ILC not only lithium, but also a world-class resource in rubidium and one of the larger cesium deposits not controlled by a Chinese company.

‘Lithium and spodumene prices are now back up to the level where mine development is economically viable at Canadian prices. If their rise continues, this will be positive for ILC and the lithium industry overall. ILC’s additional focus on rubidium and cesium gives further strings to its bow that could turn ILC into a much larger company.

‘In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of our valued shareholders, advisors and other stakeholders a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.’

On behalf of the Company,

John Wisbey
Chairman and CEO
www.internationallithium.ca

For further information concerning this news release, please contact +1 604-449-6520 or 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, the expectation of resource estimates, preliminary economic assessments, feasibility studies, lithium or rubidium 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, 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 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/278761

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Reports in early December indicate that President Donald J. Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would block state-level laws regulating artificial intelligence and replace them with a single federal standard. According to early descriptions, the order would bar states from enforcing their own AI rules on safety, transparency, data, or algorithmic accountability.

The administration’s stated goal is to prevent a “chaotic patchwork of state AI laws” that, it argues, would burden interstate commerce and undermine the nation’s competitiveness. The justification is familiar: when the states cannot agree, when new technologies cross borders too easily, only a uniform national standard can provide stability. 

At one level, the reasoning is plausible. Yes, California, Colorado, Texas, Florida, Vermont, New York, and a dozen others have enacted or proposed conflicting approaches to regulating AI. Yes, this makes compliance difficult. But that does not justify a federal takeover of the entire domain of artificial intelligence, especially when the order reportedly envisions not merely preemption of state law, but the creation of a national regulatory framework enforced by federal agencies. The question that should precede any such action is the oldest one in the American political tradition: what powers does the government require in order to protect liberty — and what powers will compromise it? 

I write as someone now completing a book titled “A Serious Chat with Artificial Intelligence,” an extended reflection on the human mind in dialogue with its own creation. That work has made me especially sensitive to a paradox now unfolding: at the very moment when AI is expanding the reach of our intelligence, we risk shrinking the scope of our freedom. The challenge is real, the choices difficult. But the temptation to answer complexity with centralization — the temptation that now animates the push for a single federal rule for AI — has almost always led to stagnation. 

State regulation of AI is not, by itself, an ideal situation. We are indeed seeing 50 variations of concern, from the merely paternalistic to the openly fearful. Some states worry about algorithmic bias, others about deepfakes, still others about data privacy or labor displacement. Several are experimenting with rules requiring disclosure of training data, transparency of model decision-making, or permission requirements for models above certain compute thresholds. This is confusing. It is also federalism working as intended. The states are laboratories of democracy, not subordinate offices waiting for federal consolidation. 

The administration’s answer — federal preemption followed by federal regulation — is not a remedy. It is a cure worse than the disease. The premise behind it is philosophically wrong: that a central authority can foresee the risks of an emergent technology better than the distributed knowledge of millions of actors operating within a free market. That premise was wrong when applied to railroads, radio, electricity, telephony, airlines, and nuclear power. It is even more disastrously wrong when applied to artificial intelligence. 

Yes, government regulation is justified in cases where AI demonstrably is being used as a weapon of war or is modified specifically for crime. Governments successfully regulated nuclear weapons for three-quarters of a century. When state governments turned to regulating nuclear power to satisfy fears and doomsday fantasies, the nuclear power industry froze. Only now are we realizing that had its growth continued, the entire (dubious) “catastrophe” of climate change might instead have been stillborn.

The historical analogy that looms largest is the regulation of the airwaves. For decades, federal licensing of broadcast frequencies created a rigid, centralized, and stagnant media environment dominated by three giant networks. Only when cable television emerged — outside the FCC’s jurisdiction — did that system collapse and innovation resume. The market corrected the government’s mistake. It did so not through national uniformity, but through decentralization. What was true of the airwaves is true of AI: innovation is born at the periphery, not the center.

‘Regime Uncertainty’ 

The deeper economic argument against a single, national AI rule is the one articulated by the historian and economist Robert Higgs, who coined the term “regime uncertainty.” 

Higgs examined why private investment collapsed in the late 1930s even as the Great Depression was easing. The answer: business owners no longer trusted that the rules governing their property, contracts, and earnings would remain stable. With each new intervention, tax, or regulatory threat of the New Deal, the future became unpredictable. And when the future is unpredictable, capital retreats.

That insight perfectly describes the present moment in AI. Innovators are already facing a barrage of unpredictable interventions worldwide: the European Union’s AI Act, which classifies models by risk and bans categories of algorithmic use; China’s “Generative AI Measures” requiring adherence to state ideology; Congress floating licensing schemes for large models; the proliferation of state laws in the United States with incompatible compliance burdens; and now, a looming federal plan to centralize authority over the entire sector. To paraphrase Higgs, when government insists on being the co-author of every technological step, innovation freezes in anticipation of the next decree. 

The Higgs argument is only half the story, however. Higgs tells us why government intervention discourages innovation. Hayek tells us what regulates innovation when the government does not. 

Spontaneous Order 

For Friedrich Hayek, the central lesson of economics was that no single decision-making body — no panel of officials, no federal agency — could ever match the distributed intelligence of a free society. The knowledge required to understand a complex market is not held by any single mind. It is dispersed in millions of judgments, preferences, price signals, reputational cues, and feedback loops operating simultaneously. Out of this decentralized coordination emerges what Hayek called spontaneous order: an evolving, self-adjusting system far more responsive than regulation. 

Applied to artificial intelligence, Hayek’s argument is decisive. AI is not a static technology. It evolves weekly, often daily. It is shaped by user feedback at scale: billions of queries, millions of corrections, and innumerable signals of trust or distrust. When an AI product errs, offends, misleads, or harms, the market reacts immediately. Companies patch vulnerabilities, revise guardrails, withdraw faulty features, or lose customers. The constraint is real. It is continuous. And it is informed by vastly more data than any federal oversight board could ever obtain. 

If a teenager becomes obsessed with an AI avatar and suffers emotional fallout, public outcry registers instantly across social media and news cycles. Every user of the platform casts an implicit vote — continue using it, abandon it, or demand change. The company involved must respond or perish. That is regulation — regulation by consent, not compulsion. And it is the only kind of regulation agile enough to match the speed of AI. 

In other words, Hayek answers the most important question that arises from Higgs: if government does not restrain innovation, will innovation run wild? No. Because the free market restrains it — not by freezing it, but by continuous mid-course corrections. 

However, the push for a single federal rule for AI often implies that only uniformity can protect the public. History suggests the opposite. Uniformity is a great danger when officials do not know what they do not know. A rigid national standard, especially one drafted at the dawn of AI’s development, will inevitably reflect the fears, preferences, and misconceptions of a small political elite. It will enshrine those views long after they have been discredited by experience. Regulators will be tempted to err on the side of caution — of prohibition, delay, or excessive reporting — because no one at a federal agency is ever criticized for being too cautious. They are only blamed when something goes wrong. 

But when regulators overreact, the harms are invisible: the startup never launched, the medical breakthrough delayed, the scientific tool never invented, the small firm unable to afford compliance, the innovative business pushed offshore. These losses are real, even if they are unseen. 

One of the most telling developments in recent months is that some leaders of the AI industry itself are calling for regulation. At a Senate hearing in 2023, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman openly encouraged the creation of a federal licensing regime for advanced models. Senators were delighted. But smaller competitors were alarmed. The CEO of Stability AI warned that such regulation would entrench incumbents and “crush innovation.” The founder of Hugging Face noted that requiring federal permission to train a model would be like requiring a license to write code. These concerns are not abstract. Regulation tends to protect the powerful and eliminate the weak. 

Hayek would have recognized this immediately: when industries embrace regulation, it is often because regulation will serve them. It will not serve the future competitors who would challenge them. It will not serve the young minds with new ideas. It will not serve the yet-unknown innovators who cannot hire a team of lawyers and lobbyists. 

Critics of AI regulation often are asked: “But without government, how do we address the real risks?” The question assumes that centralized regulation is the default condition of order, and freedom the dangerous alternative. That assumption is historically and philosophically backward. 

The real alternative is not government versus chaos. It is government as a centralized overseer versus the spontaneous order of free participants responding to incentives, information, and feedback. The rigid mind versus the adaptive mind. Foreclosing the future versus learning from it. 

Artificial intelligence is a domain uniquely suited to the latter. Its risks are evolving. Its errors become visible instantly. Its user base provides rich data on whether features are helpful, harmful, or somewhere in between. The companies building it are extraordinarily attentive to public trust; reputational failure is death in this field. Where harms arise — fraud, impersonation, privacy breaches — existing law already provides remedies. Where harms are novel, civil courts can adjudicate responsibility, creating precedents rooted in real cases rather than speculative fears. 

Risk Is Inevitable, But Not the Risks of Regulation 

To demand comprehensive regulation now is to demand answers in advance to questions not yet understood. It is to regulate the unknown. And to regulate the unknown is almost always to prohibit it. 

No one denies that AI presents risks. So did electricity, the printing press, the automobile, the telephone, aviation, antibiotics, nuclear power, and the internet. Every one of these technologies was met by prophets of doom who were certain that catastrophe was imminent. The Swiss physician and naturalist Conrad Gessner (1516-1565) feared an “overwhelming abundance of books” would corrupt the human mind. Early critics of the telephone warned that it would annihilate privacy and eliminate face-to-face interaction. President Benjamin Harrison refused to touch the electric switches installed in the White House. Radio was denounced for corrupting children. In every era, fear accompanied invention.

Sometimes the fears were reasonable. But preemptive restraints would have prevented the very learning process that revealed how to use the new technologies safely. A muggy household without air conditioning would have seemed less dangerous to some than a building wired with electricity. But electricity ultimately became safer and more indispensable than anyone predicted. What mattered was not fear, but adaptation. 

The difference between the fears of the past and the fears of today is that today we are tempted to freeze innovation before it teaches us anything. That temptation is strongest in the political class. Bureaucracies do not benefit from rapid change; they benefit from stability, scope, and control. Innovation threatens all three. 

And now, under the proposed federal AI order, we are at risk of taking the first step toward nationalizing the evolution of intelligence itself. It would be an irony worthy of Swift if the American government — long the champion of free enterprise, experimentation, and engineering boldness — became the agent of technological paralysis.

The inevitability of a “single federal standard” is a myth. The United States does not need a national rule for AI. It needs national protection of the freedom to innovate, and national restraint upon those who would regulate prematurely. The problem of state-by-state inconsistency is real. But the proper federal role is to enforce the constitutional principle that states may not obstruct interstate commerce, not to impose a federal regulatory regime in the name of uniformity. 

Federal Deregulation Can Defeat State Chaos 

If the administration wishes to prevent states from impeding AI innovation, it has a simple tool: federal deregulation, not national regulation. Congress can preempt states from restricting AI deployment or training while simultaneously refusing to give federal agencies new regulatory powers over the technology. That would be the correct application of federal power: not central planning of innovation, but protection of the freedom to innovate. 

In my own conversations with AI while preparing “A Serious Chat with Artificial Intelligence,” I found myself returning to a single question: who will protect us from our protectors? It is easy to imagine dangers from unrestrained technology. It is harder to imagine dangers from unrestrained regulation. Yet the latter has done far more damage throughout history. Every great technological leap has been delayed, distorted, or nearly destroyed by those who feared its consequences more than they valued its promise.

The greatest danger is not that AI will escape our control. It is that we will surrender our control of our own minds — our capacity to imagine, invent, experiment, and err — in exchange for the illusion of security. If the federal government adopts a single national AI rule, that illusion will become law. 

The alternative is more demanding, but far more hopeful: trust the spontaneous order of a free society. Trust the judgment of millions of users. Trust competition to discipline excesses. Trust courts to address real harms. Trust innovation to solve the problems innovation creates. Trust, above all, the human mind — the free, adaptive, self-correcting engine of progress. 

Higgs teaches us why not to freeze innovation. Hayek teaches us what will regulate innovation when we refuse to freeze it. Together, they answer the demand for regulation not with anarchy but with confidence. Confidence in liberty. Confidence in knowledge dispersed. Confidence in evolution through experience. 

Artificial intelligence will not destroy us. But fear-driven regulation might. If we lose the courage that built our civilization, we will lose the future AI promises to create.

Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan recently proposed ditching the federal funds rate target as the Fed’s main policy tool. Her proposal would ensure that the Fed can continue to effectively implement monetary policy, but it fails to address one of the main flaws of the post-2008 monetary system.

The Fed’s Operating Target

In order to explore the merits of Logan’s argument, it helps to consider the context of what the Fed tries to do and how it tries to do it. The Fed’s job is to achieve maximum employment and price stability. To do that, it influences borrowing costs across the economy. Everything from mortgage rates to credit card APRs is affected by Fed policy. But it can’t set those rates directly. Instead, it tosses a small pebble into the financial pond—a change in its operating target—and counts on ripples through the financial system to spread outward towards its macroeconomic objectives.

Throughout its history, the Fed has used different pebbles to start those ripples: the quantity of bank reserves, the money supply, and, since the mid-1990s, the federal funds rate – the overnight rate on money that banks lend to each other.

Before 2008, targeting the federal funds rate worked smoothly. The Fed hit its target by adjusting the supply of money in the banking system. When banks were short on money, they would look to make up the shortfall in the federal funds market. Reducing the federal funds rate target made it cheaper for banks to obtain funds, which allowed them to pass lower rates on via their own lending. The ripples eventually reached households and businesses through cheaper loans and easier credit, stimulating spending and investment.

At the moment, adjusting the federal funds rate still produces the Fed’s desired ripple effect. But Logan is raising the alarm: it might be time to reach for a new pebble.

A Fragile Link

Before the Global Financial Crisis, the federal funds market was vibrant. Banks with excess reserves lent to those with shortfalls. The interest rate on those overnight loans is what we call the federal funds rate. 

The financial landscape changed dramatically after the crisis. The Fed flooded the banking system with money through quantitative easing and began paying banks interest on the funds held on deposit at the Fed. Suddenly, money in the banking system was no longer scarce, and banks had little need to borrow from one another. With trillions of dollars now sloshing through the system, both borrowers and lenders largely disappeared.

The market didn’t vanish entirely. A few players, most notably the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs), continue lending because they cannot earn interest on their balances at the Fed. On the demand side, foreign bank branches in the US stepped in to exploit small arbitrage opportunities between the federal funds rate and the Fed’s interest on reserves.

That narrow participation keeps the market alive, but only barely. It now sees about $100 billion in daily volume, compared to trillions of dollars in secured repo markets. As Logan warns, with so few participants, the connection between the federal funds rate and broader money markets is fragile. If the FHLBs were to pull back—say, during a crisis like the Silicon Valley Bank episode in 2023—the market could dry up.

And, if that happens, the Fed could toss its pebble into the pond…and find that no ripples follow.

A New Pebble?

What should replace the federal funds rate? Logan argues that the Fed should consider targeting a Treasury repo rate, such as the tri-party general collateral rate (TGCR).

Repo markets are where borrowers obtain short-term funding by pledging high-quality assets, like Treasury securities, as collateral. Logan describes a number of advantages in moving to a Treasury repo rate target. The most obvious is the size and breadth of the market. TGCR transactions account for more than $1 trillion in daily volume across a broad set of financial institutions. This makes it unlikely to be affected by the behavior of individual institutions, which stands in sharp contrast to the influence of the FHLBs in the federal funds market.

There is also a strong link to other money markets. Since TGCR represents the marginal cost of funds for a meaningful segment of the financial system, changes to it will almost certainly pass through to other short-term interest rates. This again stands in contrast to the federal funds rate, which primarily results from the arbitrage activities of a small number of foreign banks. The possibility of throwing a TGCR pebble and not getting the desired ripple effect is slim.

Notably, the Fed is already trying to influence repo markets by encouraging use of its Standing Repo Facility (SRF). The SRF is designed to keep market repo rates – like the TGCR – in sync with the federal funds rate. Financial institutions appear hesitant to use the SRF. Targeting TGCR directly would be a more straightforward path to achieving the Fed’s goals. 

From Pond to Pool

Logan’s proposal addresses a legitimate concern – the fragility of the federal funds rate – but it doubles down on a bigger problem with the post-2008 monetary system: the financial pond has been transformed into a Fed-controlled pool.

Prior to 2008, the contours of the financial pond were largely determined by market forces. The Fed would toss its pebble in, and the desired ripples would be produced by its interaction with the supply and demand for money in the banking system. In other words, the Fed could control the federal funds rate, but it had to account for existing market conditions to achieve its target range.

After 2008, the Fed massively increased the amount of money in the banking system, to the point where banks no longer borrow and lend to each other. Under this system, the federal funds rate ceases to be a market-clearing price reflecting supply and demand – instead, it becomes a fixed price arbitrarily set by Fed decision makers. The price signals that result from banks trading funds with one another are suppressed, and the Fed becomes the dominant supplier of short-term funding. The financial pond is transformed into a pool requiring the Fed’s regular maintenance.

Logan advocates keeping the current system – that is, keeping a large supply of money in the banking system – even after moving to a repo operating target. This is where her proposal runs into trouble. Maintaining the Fed’s outsized role in the financial system weakens market mechanisms that help to allocate credit efficiently and discipline bank risk-taking. It also raises political concerns: the more interaction the Fed has with the financial system, the greater scope it has for influencing credit allocation and picking “winners” and “losers”.  

In contrast to Logan’s proposal, two other Fed officials – Governor Michelle Bowman and Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid – have recently advocated shrinking the Fed’s role in the financial system. In a November 13 speech, Schmid noted this could “promote a more efficient allocation of liquidity, an allocation influenced by price signals and market forces.” 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has made similar critiques of the Fed’s current framework.   

Conclusion

Reducing the Fed’s role in the financial system – letting the pool evolve back into a pond, with market forces directing the ebb-and-flow – would be a step in the right direction. This evolution will take time, though. 

Logan’s proposal has the virtue of highlighting that the link between the federal funds rate and the broader financial system may break down before that evolution is complete. A well-rounded reform should address both issues – finding an effective, new pebble while also facilitating the evolution back towards a pond.  

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is disputing reports that acting Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Madhu Gottumukkala failed a polygraph after seeking access to highly sensitive intelligence, as an internal investigation and the suspension of multiple career cybersecurity officials deepen turmoil inside the agency, according to a report.

Politico reported that Gottumukkala pushed for access to a tightly restricted intelligence program that required a counter-intelligence polygraph and that at least six career staffers were later placed on paid administrative leave for allegedly misleading leadership about the requirement, an assertion DHS strongly denies.

The outlet said its reporting was based on interviews with four former and eight current cybersecurity officials, including multiple Trump administration appointees who worked with Gottumukkala or had knowledge of the polygraph examination and the events that followed. All 12 were granted anonymity over concerns about retaliation, according to Politico.

DHS pushed back on the reporting, saying the polygraph at issue was not authorized and that disciplinary action against career staff complied with department policy.

‘Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala did not fail a sanctioned polygraph test. An unsanctioned polygraph test was coordinated by staff, misleading incoming CISA leadership,’ DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. ‘The employees in question were placed on administrative leave, pending conclusion of an investigation.’

‘We expect and require the highest standards of performance from our employees and hold them directly accountable to uphold all policies and procedures,’ she continued. ‘Acting Director Gottumukkala has the complete and full support of the Secretary and is laser focused on returning the agency to its statutory mission.’

Politico also reported that Gottumukkala failed a polygraph during the final week of July, citing five current officials and one former official.

The test was administered to determine whether he would be eligible to review one of the most sensitive intelligence programs shared with CISA by another U.S. spy agency, according to the outlet.

That intelligence was part of a controlled access program with strict distribution limits, and the originating agency required any CISA personnel granted need-to-know access to first pass a counter-intelligence polygraph, according to four current officials and one former official cited by Politico.

As a civilian agency, most CISA employees do not require access to such highly classified material or a polygraph to be hired, though polygraphs are commonly used across the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community to protect the government’s most sensitive information.

Politico reported that senior staff raised questions on at least two occasions about whether Gottumukkala needed access to the intelligence, but said he continued pressing for it even if it meant taking a polygraph, citing four current officials.

The outlet also reported that an initial access request in early June, signed by mid-level CISA staff, was denied by a senior agency official who determined there was no urgent need-to-know and noted that the agency’s previous deputy director had not viewed the program.

That senior official was later placed on administrative leave for unrelated reasons in late June, and a second access request signed by Gottumukkala was approved in early July after the official was no longer in the role, according to current officials cited by Politico.

Despite being advised that access to the most sensitive material was not essential to his job and that lower-classification alternatives were available, Gottumukkala continued to pursue access, officials told the outlet.

Officials interviewed by Politico said they could not definitively explain why Gottumukkala did not pass the July polygraph and cautioned that failures can occur for innocuous reasons such as anxiety or technical errors, noting that polygraph results are generally not admissible in U.S. courts.

On Aug. 1, shortly after the polygraph, at least six career staff involved in scheduling and approving the test were notified in letters from then–acting DHS Chief Security Officer Michael Boyajian that their access to classified national security information was being temporarily suspended for potentially misleading Gottumukkala, according to officials and a letter reviewed by Politico.

‘This action is being taken due to information received by this office that you may have participated in providing false information to the acting head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding the existence of a requirement for a polygraph examination prior to accessing certain programs,’ the letter said. ‘The above allegation shows deliberate or negligent failure to follow policies that protect government information, which raises concerns regarding an individual’s trustworthiness, judgment, reliability or willingness and ability to safeguard classified information.’

In a separate letter dated Aug. 4, the suspended employees were informed by Acting CISA Chief Human Capital Officer Kevin Diana that they had been placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation, according to current and former officials and a copy reviewed by Politico.

Gottumukkala was appointed CISA deputy director in May and previously served as commissioner and chief information officer for South Dakota’s Bureau of Information and Technology, which oversees statewide technology and cybersecurity initiatives.

CISA said in a May press release that Gottumukkala has more than two decades of experience in information technology and cybersecurity across the public and private sectors.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Silver Dollar Resources (CSE:SLV,OTCQX:SLVDF,FSE:4YW) (CSE:SLV,OTCQX:SLVDF,FSE:4YW) is a precious metals exploration company targeting high-grade silver and gold opportunities in Mexico. Its cornerstone asset is the La Joya silver–gold–copper project, situated in the southern Durango–Zacatecas silver belt, one of the most productive silver districts globally.

La Joya has seen substantial historical exploration, with more than 51,600 metres drilled in 182 holes defining several mineralized zones, including the Main Mineralized Trend, Santo Niño, and Coloradito. The company is now revisiting the project with an underground-oriented exploration approach, combining structural interpretation, underground sampling, and a detailed review of historic drill core to pinpoint higher-grade mineralization at depth.

Rock sample and geologist examining a rock formation in Silver Dollar Resources

Beyond La Joya, Silver Dollar owns the Nora silver–gold project in Durango, home to the historic Candy mine and an epithermal vein system that has delivered high-grade surface sampling results. The company also holds an equity stake in Bunker Hill Mining following the divestment of the Ranger-Page project, offering leveraged exposure to the anticipated production restart in Idaho’s Silver Valley in early 2026.

Company Highlights

  • 100 percent owned La Joya project, an advanced-stage silver-gold-copper system in Mexico’s Durango-Zacatecas silver belt
  • La Joya was originally proposed as an open pit in 2013 based on US$24 silver, US$1,200 gold and US$3 copper
  • Strategic shift toward evaluating La Joya’s high-grade underground potential supported by new 3D geological modeling, underground sampling, and drill target development
  • Completed sale of the Ranger-Page project to Bunker Hill Mining, providing equity exposure to a near-term US silver producer
  • Fully funded to carry out planned exploration programs through 2026
  • Largest shareholder is mining investor Eric Sprott, with approximately 17.5 percent ownership
  • Multiple exploration catalysts planned, including drilling at La Joya in early 2026

This Silver Dollar Resources profile is part of a paid investor education campaign.*

Click here to connect with Silver Dollar Resources (CSE:SLV,OTCQX:SLVDF,FSE:4YW) to receive an Investor Presentation

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said Sunday it restored a photo featuring President Donald Trump to its latest release of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents after a review determined the image did not depict any Epstein victims.

In a post on X, the DOJ said the photo was initially taken down ‘out of an abundance of caution’ after the Southern District of New York flagged it for additional review to protect potential victims.

Following a review, officials concluded no Epstein victims were shown in the photograph, and it was reposted without ‘alteration or redaction,’ according to the DOJ.

‘The Southern District of New York flagged an image of President Trump for potential further action to protect victims,’ the DOJ wrote. ‘Out of an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice temporarily removed the image for further review. After the review, it was determined there is no evidence that any Epstein victims are depicted in the photograph, and it has been reposted without any alteration or redaction.’

Earlier Sunday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the removal of the photo had ‘nothing to do with President Trump’ and was instead driven by concerns for the women depicted, he said during an appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

The explanation came after reports that at least 16 files had disappeared from the DOJ’s Epstein-related public webpage less than a day after they were posted on Friday, without public notice or an initial explanation, The Associated Press reported.

The missing files included one that showed a series of photos displayed on a cabinet and inside a drawer. In the drawer, there was a photo of Donald Trump pictured alongside Melania Trump, Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, AP reported.

On Saturday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee criticized the removal of the photo, writing, ‘We need transparency for the American public.’

‘This photo, file 468, from the Epstein files that includes Donald Trump has apparently now been removed from the DOJ release,’ Democrats on the House Oversight Committee posted on X. ‘[Attorney General Pam Bondi] is this true? What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.’

The DOJ released the trove of files after The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed by President Trump on Nov. 19, 2025, required AG Pam Bondi to release all unclassified records, communications and investigative materials related to Epstein within 30 days.

The agency posted thousands of pages on a government website Friday related to Epstein’s and Maxwell’s sex-trafficking cases. The files were released as the result of a deadline imposed by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Fox News Digital’s Lori Bashian contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS