Josef Schachter, president and author at the Schachter Energy Report, shares his thoughts on oil and natural gas prices, supply and demand in 2026.
‘I think before the cycle is over, the 2007 high of US$147 (per barrel) will be breached, because the industry cannot respond quickly by bringing on new oil,’ he said.
Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.’ That question, posed by Juliet in Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ seems to now occupy much of Washington. At a Christmas party with many media from Washington, the question was put to me more succinctly and repeatedly as ‘can they do that?’ The ‘that’ was the renaming of the Kennedy Center as the Trump-Kennedy Center. Soon, courts may have to face this quintessentially Shakespearean question, ‘for never was a story of more woe.’
Around Christmas, Ohio Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, an ex-officio member of the board, announced her lawsuit over the name change.
As a threshold matter, I will address the legal rather than policy basis for the change. Many of us chafed at the renaming of the center, which was a memorial to an assassinated president. However, what people want to know is whether the change can be challenged. The answer is yes, but it will not necessarily be easy or certain in its outcome.
The center was originally built as the National Cultural Center in a 1958 law. It was renamed the John F. Kennedy Center by an act of Congress in 1964 as a living memorial.
The key issue is how that designation was made. It was contained in a statute passed by Congress. Titled John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 20 U.S.C. 3, states that ‘no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.’
There are exceptions in sections 2 and 3 of the provision:
‘(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to—
(A) any plaque acknowledging a gift from a foreign country;
(B) any plaque on a theater chair or a theater box acknowledging the gift of such chair or box; and
(C) any inscription on the marble walls in the north or south galleries, the Hall of States, or the Hall of Nations acknowledging a major contribution; …
(3) For purposes of this subsection, testimonials and benefit performances shall not be construed to be memorials.’
The language supports a congressional intent to insulate the memorial from any changes or dilutions. The specificity of the exceptions to plaques for donors suggests that other major changes, such as a name change, are barred under federal law. Moreover, the center is named by an act of Congress. It is hard to find any authority of the board that would undo or delegate that power.
There is a legitimate question whether a name change is an ‘additional memorial or plaque,’ but it would seem to be so. If a simple plaque to donors had to be expressly exempted, giant letters dedicating the center to an additional person would seem to fall within the congressional intent.
Still, the Trump administration could quote the servant Sampson from ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and tell a court to ‘take it in what sense thou wilt,’ but the statute does not expressly say that name changes are a memorial.
Challengers could argue that, under the board’s interpretation, any memorial established by Congress, from the Lincoln Memorial to the Kennedy Presidential Library, could be renamed or hyphenated.
If a court agrees that the statute reflects a clear congressional intent to bar any change to the memorial, the question is how it can be challenged.
In any legal challenge, the advantage would likely rest with the challengers if they can meet the standing requirements.
Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and sister of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced that, ‘Three years and one month from today, I’m going to grab a pickax and pull those letters off that building, but I’m going to need help holding the ladder. Are you in? Applying for my carpenter’s card today, so it’ll be a union job!!!’
I would not recommend that approach. Most attorneys strive to keep their clients from falling from great heights.
The question is, who has standing to challenge the change. Are Kennedy family members injured in a concrete way to satisfy standing? Associational standing from historical preservation groups can be tricky. However, some may soon test those waters.
The most obvious way to address the issue is for Congress to be heard. It can either ratify the board decision, or it could expressly declare the change to be invalid and clarify that ‘additional memorial’ encompasses any name change. Either resolution may prove difficult with the heavily divided Congress. Soon a judge may join Romeo in his lament: ‘O, teach me how I should forget to think!’
In any legal challenge, the advantage would likely rest with the challengers if they can meet the standing requirements. Otherwise, the name could remain by default … or until another administration decides to make another change to the center previously known as the Kennedy Center.
Of course, today Juliet might resolve the naming problem in a similar fashion with a hyphenated marital name of Juliet Capulet-Montague, though it clearly would have gone over as poorly as the Trump-Kennedy name. It clearly does not smell as sweet to many.
I expect both court and congressional action to follow. Absent a quick resolution by Congress (which seems unlikely), this could result in years of litigation.
However, both sides might be wise to heed Shakespeare’s warning in another play that, ‘where two raging fires meet together, they do consume the thing that feeds their fury.’
President Donald Trump warned early Friday that the U.S. would intervene if Iran started killing protesters.
Writing on Truth Social, the president said if Iran shoots and ‘violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue.’
‘We are locked and loaded and ready to go,’ Trump said.
Trump’s warning comes as demonstrations triggered by Iran’s deteriorating economy expand beyond the capital and raise concerns about a potential heavy-handed crackdown by security forces. At least seven people — including protesters and members of Iran’s security services — have been reported killed during clashes, according to international reporting.
Some of the most severe violence has been reported in western Iran, where videos circulating online appeared to show fires burning in streets and the sound of gunfire during nighttime protests.
The unrest marks Iran’s most significant protests since 2022, when the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in police custody sparked nationwide demonstrations. Officials say the current protests have not yet reached the same scale or intensity, but they have spread to multiple regions and include chants directed at Iran’s theocratic leadership.
Iran’s civilian government under reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian has signaled a willingness to engage with protesters, but the administration faces limited options as the country’s economy continues to deteriorate. Iran’s currency has sharply depreciated, with roughly 1.4 million rials now required to buy a single U.S. dollar, intensifying public anger and eroding confidence in the government.
State television reported the arrests of several people accused of exploiting the unrest, including individuals it described as monarchists and others allegedly linked to Europe-based groups. Authorities also claimed security forces seized smuggled weapons during related operations, though details remain limited.
The demonstrations come amid heightened regional tensions following a 12-day conflict with Israel in June, during which the United States bombed Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian officials have since said the country is no longer enriching uranium, attempting to signal openness to renewed negotiations over its nuclear program to ease sanctions.
However, talks have yet to resume, as both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have warned Tehran against reconstituting its nuclear capabilities — adding further pressure on Iran’s leadership as protests continue.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second White House term signing a torrent of executive orders aimed at delivering on several major policy priorities, including slashing federal agency budgets and staffing, implementing a hard-line immigration crackdown and invoking emergency authority to impose steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.
The pace of Trump’s executive actions has far outstripped that of his predecessors, allowing the administration to move quickly on campaign promises. But the blitz has also triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to block or pause many of the orders, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of presidential power under Article II and when courts can — or should — intervene.
Lawsuits have challenged Trump’s most sweeping and consequential executive orders, ranging from a ban on birthright citizenship and transgender service members in the military to the legality of sweeping, DOGE-led government cuts and the president’s ability to ‘federalize’ and deploy thousands of National Guard troops.
Many of those questions remain unresolved. Only a few legal fights tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a point legal experts say is critical as the administration presses forward with its broader agenda.
Trump allies have argued the president is merely exercising his powers as commander in chief.
Critics counter that the flurry of early executive actions warrants an additional level of legal scrutiny, and judges have raced to review a crushing wave of cases and lawsuits filed in response.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case centered on the power of district courts to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions blocking a president’s executive orders.
Though the case ostensibly focused on birthright citizenship, arguments narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and did not wade into the legality of Trump’s order, which served as the legal pretext for the case. The decision had sweeping national implications, ultimately affecting the more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s orders signed in his second presidential term.
Justices on the high court ultimately sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who had argued to the court that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, telling justices that the injunctions ‘transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,’ and ‘create a host of practical problems.’
The Supreme Court largely agreed. Justices ruled that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must file their lawsuits as class action challenges. This prompted a flurry of action from plaintiffs in the weeks and months that followed as they raced to amend and refile relevant complaints to lower courts.
The Supreme Court also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.
Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower-court orders reinstating two Democratic appointees — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. It also suggested the Supreme Court is poised to pare back a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause.
It is not the only issue in which the justices appeared inclined to side with Trump administration officials and either overturn or pare back Humphrey’s protections.
In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a similar case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. Justices seemed likely to allow the firing to proceed and to weaken Humphrey’s protections for similarly situated federal employees, though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains unclear.
The high court will also review another case centered on Trump’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook early in 2026.
While it’s rarely helpful to speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule on a certain case, court watchers and legal experts overwhelmingly reached a similar consensus after listening to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, the case centered on Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to enact his sweeping tariff plan.
At issue in the case is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. But it’s unclear if such conditions exist, as voiced by liberal and conservative justices in their review of the case earlier in 2025.
Several justices also noted that the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs or taxes, a point that loomed large during oral arguments.
A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy.
Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments, a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices ‘were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.’
‘However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,’ Turley added.
Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs.
‘Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,’ Skorup said.
The Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.
At issue is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to illegal immigrant parents or parents with temporary legal status, a sweeping change critics say would upend roughly 150 years of constitutional precedent.
The order immediately sparked a flurry of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups. Opponents have also argued that the effort is an unconstitutional and ‘unprecedented’ one that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center.
To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.
While it’s unclear how the high court might rule, the lower court rulings suggest the Trump administration might face a steep uphill battle in arguing the case before the Supreme Court in early 2026.
The court said in early December it will hold oral arguments in the case in 2026, between February and April, with a ruling expected by the end of June.
With margins tight in both chambers, control of Congress in 2026 is expected to hinge on a small group of competitive Senate contests and House districts sensitive to national trends. As America plunges into a new year, here are the races that are most likely to define the midterm races.
Senate Republicans are looking to maintain their razor-thin majority after flipping the upper chamber in 2024. There are 33 seats in-cycle in the forthcoming midterms, which often act as a check on an incumbent president’s performance.
The GOP is hoping to replicate the Election Day successes that helped preserve its majority at the midpoint of President Donald Trump’s first term, entering 2026 with what many analysts consider a favorable map.
Georgia is the top prize of Senate Republicans and their campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., is vulnerable in his first attempt at re-election to the Senate and will be met with the full weight of the NRSC’s campaign war chest.
Before the general election, Republicans will first have to let the dust settle on a bloody, four-way primary fight among Reps. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., Mike Collins, R-Ga., former University of Tennessee head football coach Derek Dooley and horse trainer Reagan Box. Republicans’ prized candidate, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, opted not to enter the contest, leaving a wide open playing field for the GOP to fight over.
In the heat of the Senate advancing Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., announced his retirement. What would likely have been a gimme race for the GOP has now turned into a wide open contest for an open seat.
Democrats believe they can flip the seat for the first time since 2008 and hope that former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper will carry them to victory and provide a crucial win to tip the balance of power. Republicans scored their preferred candidate, too, in former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley. He will have a primary challenge though from Michele Morrow.
Similar to North Carolina, Democrats lost their incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., to retirement. Both parties are now gunning for the open seat, but Democrats’ have a tangled primary to survive first before their true candidate emerges.
Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and physician Abdul El-Sayed, are all in on the Democratic side, while Trump and Republicans have coalesced behind former Rep. Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Sen. Elissa Slotkin last year.
Incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is Senate Democrats’ top target in the midterms. Collins, who is looking to score a sixth term in the Senate, could face a formidable opponent in the general election with the full backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., or an upstart progressive candidate that’s looking to throw a wrench into Democrats’ plans.
There are several local candidates that have jumped in on both sides of the race, but the main contenders are Collins, popular Democratic Gov. Janet Mills and oyster farmer Graham Platner, who has rubbed shoulders with progressive heavyweights Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, who was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance earlier this year, will look to finish out the remaining two years of his predecessor’s term. But he’ll face a tough opponent in former Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who narrowly lost last year.
Schumer and Democrats scored their best chance at picking up a seat in Ohio, again trying to turn the state purple after Brown’s loss to Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio. And there will be eye-popping amounts of money thrown at this contest.
Democrats took yet another hit from the retirement train when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., announced she’d leave Congress at the end of her term. That has opened up the field to several familiar Republican names jumping into the contest in the hopes of turning part of the Granite State red.
Republicans have two prime candidates, former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., and former Rep. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who also served as an ambassador for Trump, to pick from. Meanwhile, Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., is the likely heir apparent on the Democratic side.
Control of the House is likely to hinge on fewer than two dozen districts nationwide, as both parties focus their resources on a small set of competitive seats that could decide the chamber. The battlegrounds span suburbs, rural communities and diverse metro areas, underscoring how varied the path to a majority has become.
With GOP Rep. Gabe Evans defending the seat, Colorado’s 8th District remains one of the most competitive House districts in the country. Drawn as a true swing seat after redistricting, it has flipped parties in back-to-back cycles and is often decided by slim margins.
Whether Latino and working-class voters break decisively toward one party and whether the race is decided by a narrow margin. A comfortable win here typically signals momentum heading into other battleground House races.
With a history of close results, Iowa’s 1st District is once again a top battleground as Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks seeks re-election.
The district spans college towns, rural counties and small manufacturing hubs, creating an electorate that frequently splits its ticket. Even as Iowa trends red at the presidential level, the seat continues to hover in toss-up territory and is often among the last House races decided on election night.
Held by GOP Rep. Tom Kean Jr., New Jersey’s 7th is a high-income, college-educated suburban district that has repeatedly swung with the national political climate and historically punished incumbents during unfavorable cycles.
Whether suburban voters continue drifting away from Republicans or stabilize in a midterm environment. A shift here would offer an early read on how educated suburbs are responding to the party in power.
New York’s 17th District, which previously backed former President Joe Biden, is represented by GOP Rep. Mike Lawler and is expected to play an outsized role in determining House control.
Whether Democrats can effectively harness heavy national spending and messaging in a district expected to draw intense attention.
Held by Republican Rep. Chris Mackenzie, Pennsylvania’s 7th is a true purple district in a must-win swing state. This area is made up of a politically diverse electorate that has previously mirrored statewide results.
Economic pressures and immigration debates are expected to shape how working-class and Latino voters approach the race.
California’s 22nd, represented by GOP Rep. David Valadao, has remained a perennial battleground for more than a decade, shaped by its agricultural economy and a large Latino electorate sensitive to turnout swings.
Whether Democrats can boost turnout enough to flip the seat, and whether Central Valley races help offset Republican gains elsewhere in the country.
Zinc companies were supported in 2025 as prices rebounded during the second half of the year and, by the end of December, had crossed above US$3,000 per metric ton.
However, the metal still faces headwinds, as its biggest demand driver is its use in the production of galvanized steel destined for construction projects. Weak outlook comes amid diminishing expectations of a resurgence in the Chinese housing sector.
Additionally, US trade policy has softened demand, as uncertainty has dampened investor sentiment.
Although surpluses in the mined supply of zinc have narrowed, a significant amount of refined product remains in warehouses, which continues to contribute to an oversupply.
Data was gathered on December 24, 2025, using TradingView’s stock screener, and only zinc stocks with market caps greater than C$50 million at that time were considered. Read on to learn more about their operations and plans.
Market cap: C$31.25 billion
Share price: C$62.65
Teck Resources is a major global polymetallic miner, as well as one of the world’s top zinc producers. The company is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia.
The Canadian company produced 615,900 metric tons (MT) of zinc in concentrate in 2024, with 555,600 MT coming from its Red Dog zinc mine in Alaska, US. The remaining 60,300 MT came from Teck’s 22.5 percent share of zinc production from the Peru-based Antamina copper-zinc mine.
Teck’s total 2025 production guidance for the base metal is set in a range of 525,000 to 575,000 MT. As of September, the company’s zinc production for the year totaled 456,000 MT.
In addition to the sites mentioned, Teck owns the Trail operations, which it describes as “one of the world’s largest fully integrated zinc and lead smelting and refining complexes.” Located in BC, the Trail operations produced 256,000 MT of refined zinc in 2024, with 190,000 to 230,000 MT of the material expected in 2025.
In September, Teck agreed to combine with mining giant Anglo American (LSE:AAL,OTCQX:NGLOY) in a C$70 billion ‘merger of equals’ to create Anglo-Teck. The merged company would remain headquartered in Vancouver and become BC’s largest company ever.
Then on December 15, Canada’s federal government announced it had approved the deal after both companies committed to securing 4,000 Canadian jobs and spending C$4.5 billion over five years within Canada. The merger’s completion still requires approvals from other countries and regulatory reviews.
Market cap: C$2.62 billion
Share price: C$4.87
Foran Mining is a development company advancing its McIlvenna Bay project in Saskatchewan, Canada, toward production.
The property consists of 113 claims covering an area of 140,445 hectares near Flin Flon on Saskatchewan’s border with Manitoba.
A technical report from the project released in March 2025 demonstrated an indicated resource of 1.86 billion pounds of zinc at an average grade of 2.18 percent from 38.6 million metric tons of ore, plus an inferred resource of 260 million pounds at a grade of 2.6 percent from 4.5 million metric tons.
In December 2025, Foran announced that development on the project was 79 percent complete, advancing on schedule and on budget, and the company remained on track to begin commercial production in mid-2026. It also said that at the end of November, ore stockpiles had reached approximately 165,000 metric tons.
‘Pre-commissioning activities are well underway, and progress to date demonstrates the operational readiness of our team and infrastructure,’ Foran Executive Chairman and CEO Dan Myerson stated. ‘… 2026 (is) an important transition year for Foran as the Company moves into production, while advancing Phase 2 planning and continued exploration focused on unlocking district scale potential.’
Market cap: C$1.14 billion
Share price: C$6.66
Trilogy Metals is focused primarily on copper, zinc and cobalt at its Alaskan Upper Kobuk projects, which are held by Ambler Metals, a joint venture operating company owned equally by Trilogy and South32 (ASX:S32,OTC Pink:SHTLF).
Its most advanced zinc project is the Arctic copper-zinc-lead-gold-silver volcanogenic massive sulfide project, which is in the feasibility stage and has proven and probable reserves of 43.44 million MT grading 3.12 percent zinc.
In addition, early stage 2023 field work at the company’s wholly owned Helpmejack project in Alaska’s Ambler belt outlined two target areas prospective for volcanogenic massive sulfide and shale-hosted zinc deposits.
Trilogy had been focusing on improving access to the region with its Amber Access project, but it was rejected by the US Bureau of Land Management under the Biden administration in June 2024 due to the impact the proposed road could have on the environment and communities in the region, which has seen little development.
However, the current Trump administration has enacted a series of executive and secretarial orders focusing on developing Alaska’s natural resources, leading to the reversal of the decision.
On October 24, the company announced that the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority had issued a right-of-way permit for the road, re-establishing federal authorization for the project.
‘The execution of these federal permits marks a pivotal milestone for the Ambler Road and the State of Alaska,’ Trilogy Metals President and CEO Tony Giardini said.
Market cap: C$579.91 million
Share price: C$2.73
Fireweed Metals is a critical metals company whose flagship Macmillan Pass zinc project is located in Canada’s Yukon. In 2023, the company acquired the Gayna River zinc project in the Northwest Territories, as well as the Mactung tungsten project, which is adjacent to Macmillan Pass and straddles the border between Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
In November 2023, the Fireweed team, led by Dr. Jack Milton, the firm’s vice president of geology, received the Association for Mineral Exploration’s H.H. ‘Spud’ Huestis Award for its work at the Macmillan Pass property.
In September 2024, after its largest regional exploration campaign ever at Macmillan Pass, the company released an updated resource estimate for the Tom and Jason deposits, as well as inaugural resource estimates for the Boundary zone and End zone deposits.
Fireweed launched its 2025 field program in early June, planned to include 12,000 meters of diamond drilling at Macmillan Pass and 3,000 meters at Gayna.
On September 23, Fireweed reported one of the best assays ever recorded at Macmillan Pass from a 115 meter step-out hole at the Tom South target, which hosted a 54.82 meter intersection grading 18.2 percent zinc, including an interval of 7.1 meters with 32.82 percent zinc.
Then, in an update on December 11, the company announced its inaugural drilling at Gayna intersected zinc mineralization, with a highlighted assay of 51.22 meters grading 4.4 percent zinc, including 24 meters with 7.3 percent.
‘Our first season of drilling at Gayna successfully intersected significant zinc and lead mineralization at the Intrepid target, validating the prospectivity of the project,’ Fireweed Metals President and CEO Ian Gibbs said.
Market cap: C$167.89 million
Share price: C$0.57
Emerita Resources has a portfolio of high-grade, large-scale polymetallic projects covering more than 26,000 combined hectares in Spain’s Iberian Pyrite Belt. The company’s flagship asset is the Iberian Belt West project, which hosts three massive sulfide deposits: La Infanta, La Romanera and El Cura.
Emerita released a resource estimate for Iberian Belt West in May 2023. It finished environmental baseline studies the following month, and completed supporting documentation for its mining license application in December 2023.
In July 2024, the Andalusian government granted Iberian Belt West a declaration of strategic interest, which will streamline the process of moving the project through development.
Phase 2 metallurgical testing results for the La Romanera and La Infanta deposits released in late 2024 show that commercial-grade copper, lead and zinc concentrates can be obtained from both deposits.
In March of this year, Emerita announced an updated resource estimate for Iberian Belt West, showing a 35 percent increase to the total indicated mineral resource tonnage and a 44 percent increase in total inferred mineral resource tonnage.
The total indicated resource stands at 547,000 metric tons of zinc, with an average grade of 2.88 percent zinc, from 18.96 million metric tons of ore, and the inferred resource is 221,000 metric tons from 6.8 million metric tons grading 3.25 percent zinc.
The company has continued to explore the site through the rest of 2025. On October 17, the company announced it had extended the El Cura deposit by 90 meters and highlighted one intersection measuring 4.1 meters with a grade of 8.5 percent zinc.
Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
TORONTO, ON / ACCESS Newswire / December 31, 2025 / 55 North Mining Inc. (CSE:FFF,OTC:FFFNF)(FSE:6YF) (‘55 North‘ or the ‘Company‘) is pleased to announce the appointment of Wayne Parsons as Executive Chair of the Board, effective January 1, 2026.
Mr. Parsons brings over 20 years of experience in the investment business, having worked at BMO, RBC and most recently at National Bank Financial. He has since established a consulting practice focused on the mining sector and provides strategic advisory services to mining companies focused on capital markets strategy, financing execution and investor engagement. Mr. Parsons has served on a number of boards, most recently with Bunker Hill Mining Corp.
‘Wayne’s skills and experience are exactly what 55 North needs as we advance this project toward production,’ said Bruce Reid, Chief Executive Officer of 55 North Mining. ‘He is well connected globally and will be a tremendous help in connecting us with the right people to get this project financed. We met in the early days of Bunker Hill Mining, and when that project encountered challenges, Wayne stepped in, personally funded the recapitalization, and helped assemble the team to move it forward. His reputation will be highly valuable to our future success.’
The Company believes Mr. Parsons’ appointment significantly strengthens its leadership and positions 55 North to execute on its strategy of advancing the Last Hope Gold Project toward development and production.
About 55 North Mining Inc.
55 North Mining Inc. is a Canadian exploration and development company advancing its high-grade Last Hope Gold Project located in Manitoba, Canada.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
|
Mr. Bruce Reid |
Mr. Vance Loeber |
CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This news release of 55 North contains statements that constitute ‘forward-looking statements.’ Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company’s actual results, performance or achievements, or developments in the industry to differ materially from the anticipated results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
SOURCE: 55 North Mining Inc.
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia
(TheNewswire)
Vancouver, British Columbia TheNewswire – December 31st, 2025 Prismo Metals Inc. (‘Prismo’ or the ‘Company’) (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) (OTCQB: PMOMF) is pleased to announce that further to its news release December 3, 2025, the Company has proceeded with an upsized closing (the ‘Closing’) of its previously announced non-brokered private placement of units of the Company (‘Units’) at an issue price of $0.10 per Unit (the ‘Private Placement’). The Closing consisted in the issuance of 2,940,000 Units for gross proceeds of $294,000.
‘With the exception of one investor, every subscriber in this last closing is a new shareholder of Prismo,’ said Alain Lambert CEO of Prismo. ‘Our immediate priority is to undertake our fully funded drill program, as previously announced. This drill campaign will focus primarily on the historic Silver King mine site and will be for a minimum of about 1,000 meters. The objective is to test the upper half of the steeply dipping pipelike Silver King mineralized body as well as potential mineralization adjacent to the dense stockwork that was the focus of historic mining.’
The Company previously announced the first closing of the Private Placement on November 12, 2025 for aggregate gross proceeds of $1,745,000 and a second closing of the Private Placement on December 2, 2025 for aggregate gross proceeds of $165,000. Due to strong investor demand, the Company has now raised aggregate gross proceeds of $2,204,000 through the sale of an aggregate of 22,040,000 Units.
Each Unit consists of one common share in the capital of the Company (a ‘Share‘) and one common share purchase warrant of the Company (a ‘Warrant‘). Each Warrant entitles the holder to purchase one Share for a period of thirty-six (36) months from the date of issue at an exercise price of $0.175.
The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the Private Placement primarily for drilling at its Silver King project and for general corporate purposes. There may be circumstances, however, where, for sound business reasons, a reallocation of funds may be necessary. The Company expects to accept additional subscriptions of Units from new shareholders in the coming days for an approximate amount of $75,000.
The Units issued pursuant to the Closing are subject to a four-month hold period from the closing date of the Closing under applicable Canadian securities laws, in addition to such other restrictions as may apply under applicable securities laws of jurisdictions outside Canada.
In connection with the Closing, the Company issued an aggregate of 185,200 finder’s warrants (the ‘Finder’s Warrants’) and paid finder’s commissions of $18,520 to a certain qualified finder. Each Finder’s Warrant is exercisable for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of issuance to purchase one Share at a price of $0.10. In addition, the Company paid a cash fee of $7,000 to a financial advisor.
The securities being issued in connection with the Closing have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act and may not be offered or sold in the United States, or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons or persons in the United States, absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of the securities in any State in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.
Prismo (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) is a mining exploration company focused on advancing its Silver King, Ripsey and Hot Breccia projects in Arizona and its Palos Verdes silver project in Mexico.
Please follow PrismoMetals on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube
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
Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Market Regulator (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
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 ‘forward-looking 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 results of drilling at Silver King; the intended use of any proceeds raised under the Closing; and the completion of an additional tranche.
These forward-looking 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: the potential inability of the Company to utilize the anticipated proceeds of the Private Placement as anticipated; the potential inability of the Company to complete an additional tranche on the terms disclosed, or at all; and those risks set out in the Company’s public disclosure record on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.com) under the Company’s issuer profile.
In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, the Company has applied several material assumptions, including without limitation, that the Company will use the proceeds of the Closing as currently anticipated and on the timeline currently expected; and that the Company will complete an additional tranche.
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 outlook that are incorporated by reference herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. We seek safe harbor.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWS WIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Copyright (c) 2025 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.
News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia
Rio Silver Inc. (‘Rio Silver’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it has settled an aggregate of $293,250 of indebtedness (the ‘Debts’) through (1) the issuance of an aggregate of 1,396,428 common shares of the Company at a deemed issuance price of $0.21 per share, of which 976,190 shares were issued to non-arm’s length creditors; and (2) the issuance of an aggregate of 420,238 common share purchase warrants entitling the holders to purchase an aggregate of 420,238 common shares of the Company at a price of $0.28 per share until December 31, 2028, none of which share purchase warrants were issued to non-arm’s length creditors. All common shares and share purchase warrants issued to settle the Debts will be subject to a hold period expiring May 1, 2026. Completion of the securities for debt transaction will allow the Company to improve its current working capital deficiency position.
About Rio Silver Inc.
Rio Silver Inc. (TSX-V: RYO | OTC: RYOOF) is a Canadian resource company advancing high-grade, silver-dominant assets in Peru, the world’s second-largest silver producer. The Company is focused on near-term development opportunities within proven mineral belts and is supported by a seasoned technical and operational team with deep experience in Peruvian geology, underground mining, and district-scale exploration. With a clear development strategy, and a growing portfolio of highly prospective silver assets, Rio Silver is establishing the foundation to become one of Peru’s next emerging silver producers. Learn more at www.riosilverinc.com.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF Rio Silver INC.
Chris Verrico
President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director
To learn more or engage directly with the Company, please contact:
Christopher Verrico, President and CEO
Tel: (604) 762-4448
Email: chris.verrico@riosilverinc.com
Website: www.riosilverinc.com
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information: This news release includes forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. All statements within, other than statements of historical fact, are to be considered forward looking. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, exploitation and exploration successes, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions. There can be no assurances that such statements will prove accurate and, therefore, readers are advised to rely on their own evaluation of such uncertainties. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements.
News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia
VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESS Newswire / December 31, 2025 / Goldgroup Mining Inc. (‘Goldgroup‘ or the ‘Company‘) (TSXV:GGA,OTC:GGAZF)(OTCQX:GGAZF).
Goldgroup announces that, subject to the final approval of the TSX Venture Exchange (the ‘TSXV‘), it has entered into an agreement with a private arm’s length British Columbia company under which it has agreed to sell all of the issued and outstanding Class ‘A’ shares and Class ‘B’ common shares in the capital (collectively the ‘Apolo Shares‘) of Minera Apolo, S.A. de C.V. (‘Apolo‘), which owns all the issued and outstanding shares of Minera Catanava, S.A. de C.V. (‘MC‘). Apolo and MC collectively hold a 100% interest in the Pinos gold/silver project (‘Pinos‘) located in Zacatecas State, the second largest mining state in Mexico. Pinos comprises 30 contiguous mining concessions over 3,816 hectares. The sale of Apolo is an Arm’s Length Transaction and there are no finder’s fees payable.
Ralph Shearing, Chief Executive Officer, commented: ‘Having received an unsolicited bid for Pinos, management determined that it would be the best use of the Company’s resources to dispose of the Pinos asset based on the Company’s recent acquisition of the San Francisco gold mine, which is a much larger and more advanced project than Pinos. The Company’s focus will be the continued development and optimization of our flagship Cerro Prieto heap-leach gold mine and advancing towards a re-start of gold production at the San Francisco gold mine (see news release dated December 24, 2025). Both assets are located within 44km in a straight line from each other in the state of Sonora, Mexico. The San Francisco gold mine represents a unique opportunity to consolidate a highly prospective gold district.’ Mr. Shearing further stated: ‘At this stage of our Company’s development, with Pinos being a non-core asset, management and the board of directors has elected to monetize Pinos with an attractive, high cash purchase offer, deploying the sale proceeds towards Cerro Prieto optimization and re-starting gold production at San Francisco.
Under the terms of the Share Purchase Agreement, Goldgroup has agreed to sell all the Apolo Shares to a private arm’s length British Columbia company (the ‘Purchaser‘) in consideration of the payment to Goldgroup of US$5,000,000 in stages, with US$2,450,000 deposit payable on signing which will be refunded if the transaction does not close by February 16, 2026, US$550,000 to be paid on closing and US$2,000,000 to be secured by a Promissory Note and paid on or before the date that is six (6) months from the Closing Date. Further, the Purchaser has agreed to assume any and all liabilities of Goldgroup associated with Apolo, MC and the Pinos project, including the assumption of US$400,000 remaining payable on the original purchase agreement in addition to debt in the amount of US$1,500,000 payable to the previous owners of Apolo that will be triggered by the sale of Apolo. Goldgroup, the Purchaser and the previous owners of Apolo have also agreed to enter an Assumption and Acknowledgement Agreement under which the previous owners acknowledge and agree that they will have no further recourse against Goldgroup for any liabilities related to Apolo, MC and the Pinos project, all of which have been assumed by the Purchaser.
Cautionary Statement
The closing of the sale of Apolo is subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange.
Clarification regarding Investor Relations Agreement
At the request of the TSXV, Goldgroup wishes to clarify its news release of October 13, 2025, regarding the retention of Machai Capital Inc. to provide digital marketing services on behalf of the Company. Goldgroup advises that it paid Machai Capital Inc. $200,000 as an upfront fee. Further Goldgroup advises that neither Machai Capital Inc. nor its principal Suneal Sandhu owned any securities of Goldgroup as at October 13, 2025.
About Goldgroup
Goldgroup is a Canadian-based mining Company with two high-growth gold assets in Mexico. In addition to the San Francisco gold mine, the Company has a 100% interest in the producing Cerro Prieto heap-leach gold mine located in the State of Sonora. An optimization and exploration program is underway at Cerro Prieto to significantly increase existing production and resources. The acquisition of Molimentales del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V. (‘Molimentales‘), the owner of the San Francisco gold mine is subject to final approval from the TSXV.
Goldgroup is led by a team of highly successful and seasoned individuals with extensive expertise in mine development, corporate finance, and exploration in Mexico.
For further information on Goldgroup, please visit www.goldgroupmining.com
On behalf of the Board of Directors
‘Ralph Shearing’
Ralph Shearing, CEO
For more information:
+1 (604) 306-6867
410 – 1111 Melville St.
Vancouver, BC, V6E 3V6
www.goldgroupmining.com
ir@goldgroupmining.com
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 press release.
CAUTIONARY NOTES REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain information contained in this news release, including any information relating to future financial or operating performance, may be considered ‘forward-looking information’ (within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities law) and ‘forward-looking statements’ (within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). These statements relate to analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management. Actual results could differ materially from the conclusions, forecasts and projections contained in such forward-looking information.
These forward-looking statements reflect Goldgroup’s current internal projections, expectations or beliefs and are based on information currently available to Goldgroup. In some cases forward-looking information can be identified by terminology such as ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘should’, ‘expect’, ‘intend’, ‘plan’, ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘projects’, ‘potential’, ‘scheduled’, ‘forecast’, ‘budget’ or the negative of those terms or other comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking information is subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to materially differ from those reflected in the forward-looking information, and are developed based on assumptions about such risks, uncertainties and other factors including, without limitation: receipt of all required TSXV, regulatory and other interested party approvals in connection with the Concurso Mercantilprocess; uncertainties related to actual capital costs operating costs and expenditures; production schedules and economic returns from Goldgroup’s projects; timing to integrate acquisitions (San Francisco Mine) and timing to complete additional exploration and technical reports; uncertainties associated with development activities; uncertainties inherent in the estimation of mineral resources and precious metal recoveries; uncertainties related to current global economic conditions; fluctuations in precious and base metal prices; uncertainties related to the availability of future financing; potential difficulties with joint venture partners; risks that Goldgroup’s title to its property could be challenged; political and country risk; risks associated with Goldgroup being subject to government regulation; risks associated with surface rights; environmental risks; Goldgroup’s need to attract and retain qualified personnel; risks associated with potential conflicts of interest; Goldgroup’s lack of experience in overseeing the construction of a mining project; risks related to the integration of businesses and assets acquired by Goldgroup; uncertainties related to the competitiveness of the mining industry; risk associated with theft; risk of water shortages and risks associated with competition for water; uninsured risks and inadequate insurance coverage; risks associated with potential legal proceedings; risks associated with community relations; outside contractor risks; risks related to archaeological sites; foreign currency risks; risks associated with security and human rights; and risks related to the need for reclamation activities on Goldgroup’s properties, as well as the risk factors disclosed in Goldgroup’s MD&A. Any and all of the forward-looking information contained in this news release is qualified by these cautionary statements.
Although Goldgroup believes that the forward-looking information contained in this news release is based on reasonable assumptions, readers cannot be assured that actual results will be consistent with such statements. Accordingly, readers are cautioned against placing undue reliance on forward-looking information. Goldgroup expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, events or otherwise, except as may be required by, and in accordance with, applicable securities laws.
SOURCE: Goldgroup Mining, Inc.
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia