Author

admin

Browsing

Today is the deadline for President Joe Biden’s former White House physician and four aides to respond to House Oversight Committee interview requests.

Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., is demanding the high-ranking staffers in former President Joe Biden’s White House appear for transcribed interviews on their suspected roles, working ‘behind the scenes’ to ‘cover up’ the former president’s mental decline during his term.

Comer sent interview requests to four key Biden White House aides — former director of the Domestic Policy Council Neera Tanden, former assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff Annie Tomasini, former senior adviser to the first lady Anthony Bernal and former deputy director of Oval Office operations Ashley Williams.

FOX is told lawyers for Neera Tanden, Anthony Bernal, Annie Tomasini and Ashley Williams have contacted the committee, but no interviews are confirmed or scheduled. 

So far, there’s been no contact with physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor. While the Bidens have stayed silent on the latest congressional probe, Jill Biden’s former press secretary is pushing back. 

With regards to Chairman Comer…he spent two years trying to take on the Biden family and came up with nothing. He went fishing in a dry lake,’ said Michael LaRosa.

If they don’t commit by day’s end, the committee said it is ready to issue subpoenas immediately.

‘We believe these are the staffers that were responsible for using the autopen… We want to ask them, ‘Who gave you the authority to use Joe Biden’s signature?’’ Comer said on ‘Hannity.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the authority of judges to block infrastructure projects due to environmental concerns.

The nine justices handed down the lone decision Thursday morning, slightly curbing judicial authority at a time when President Donald Trump’s administration is loudly complaining about alleged judicial overreach. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, relates to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirement for environmental impact statements (EIS) in infrastructure projects supported by the federal government.

‘NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand,’ Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion of the court.

‘Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,’ the opinion continued.

Kavanaugh went on to state that agencies should not be expected to consider the environmental impact of any project aside from the one they are currently working on, ‘even if’ the environmental impacts ‘might extend outside the geographical territory of the project or materialize later in time.’

‘The fact that the project might foreseeably lead to the construction or increased use of a separate project does not mean the agency must consider that separate project’s environmental effects,’ the court ruled.

Thursday’s decision was an 8-0 ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch taking no part in the consideration of the case. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett joined with Kavanaugh’s opinion.

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a separate concurring opinion, onto which joined Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Trump, having a history in major construction projects, has repeatedly complained about environmental impact statements and the roadblocks they can cause.

Republicans have also widely criticized what they see as judicial overreach in federal judges unilaterally blocking major aspects of Trump’s agenda.

‘Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power,’ Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital earlier this month.

‘Just this past week, a D.C. district judge issued a universal injunction blocking the president’s executive order requiring voter ID or proof-of-citizenship prior to voting in national election,’ he continued. ‘Judges are not policymakers.’

The Supreme Court is considering the wide use of universal injunctions in a separate case that will be handed down in the coming weeks.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Coelacanth Energy Inc. (TSXV: CEI) (‘Coelacanth’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce its financial and operating results for the three months ended March 30, 2025. All dollar figures are Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

FINANCIAL RESULTS Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s, except per share amounts)  2025   2024   % Change   
       
Oil and natural gas sales 2,666 3,666 (27 )
       
Cash flow from operating activities 981 3,256 (70 )
Per share – basic and diluted (1) 0.01 (100 )
       
Adjusted funds flow (used) (1) (1,440 ) 1,078 (234 )
Per share – basic and diluted (- ) (- )
       
Net loss (3,617 ) (1,201 ) 201
Per share – basic and diluted (0.01 ) (- ) 100
       
Capital expenditures (1) 25,701 1,263 1,935
       
Adjusted working capital (deficiency) (1) (25,710 ) 67,139 (138 )
       
Common shares outstanding (000s)      
Weighted average – basic and diluted 531,445 529,196
       
End of period – basic 532,202 529,392 1
End of period – fully diluted 624,877 618,165 1​

 

(1) See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures’ section.

  Three Months Ended
OPERATING RESULTS (1) March 31
   2025   2024   % Change   
       
Daily production (2)      
Oil and condensate (bbls/d) 184 300 (39 )
Other NGLs (bbls/d) 25 37 (32 )
Oil and NGLs (bbls/d) 209 337 (38 )
Natural gas (mcf/d) 3,311 3,934 (16 )
Oil equivalent (boe/d) 761 993 (23 )
       
Oil and natural gas sales      
Oil and condensate ($/bbl) 90.21 85.30 6
Other NGLs ($/bbl) 38.01 34.79 9
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 84.03 79.82 5
Natural gas ($/mcf) 3.65 3.40 7
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 38.94 40.57 (4 )
       
Royalties      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 15.95 20.77 (23 )
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.64 0.51 25
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 7.18 9.08 (21 )
       
Operating expenses      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 10.63 9.89 7
     Natural gas ($/mcf) 1.77 1.65 7
     Oil equivalent ($/boe) 10.63 9.89 7
       
Net transportation expenses (3)      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 2.27 2.45 (7 )
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.78 0.68 15
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 4.00 3.54 13
       
Operating netback (3)      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 55.18 46.71 18
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.46 0.56 (18 )
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 17.13 18.06 (5 )
       
Depletion and depreciation ($/boe) (14.30 ) (14.42 ) (1 )
General and administrative expenses ($/boe) (21.76 ) (13.86 ) 57
Share based compensation ($/boe) (18.46 ) (10.11 ) 83
Finance expense ($/boe) (12.86 ) (1.06 ) 1,113
Finance income ($/boe) 1.46 10.60 (86 )
Unutilized transportation ($/boe) (4.05 ) (2.49 ) 63
Net loss ($/boe) (52.84 ) (13.28 ) 298

 

(1) See ‘Oil and Gas Terms’ section.
(2) See ‘Product Types’ section.
(3) See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures’ section.

Selected financial and operational information outlined in this news release should be read in conjunction with Coelacanth’s unaudited condensed interim financial statements and related Management’s Discussion and Analysis (‘MD&A’) for the three months ended March 31, 2025, which are available for review under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

OPERATIONS UPDATE

Coelacanth has reached a major milestone in its development with the completion of the Two Rivers East facility (the ‘Facility’). The Facility was completed on budget and has moved to the testing and start-up phase. The capacity of the Facility is currently 8,000 boe/d but will be expanded in Q4 2025 to 16,000 boe/d with added compression. We expect production to start flowing imminently from the 5-19 pad and ramp up through the summer. As previously released, the 5-19 pad has 9 wells that tested over 11,000 boe/d (1) that will be brought on systematically to approach the phase I capacity of the plant prior to further drilling.

Over the next few years, Coelacanth will continue with its business plan that incorporates:

  1. Systematically developing the resource using pad development and horizontal multi-frac technology to increase production and maximize cash flow and investment returns.
  2. Delineating the lands with vertical and horizontal wells to help in quantifying and understanding the commerciality of its large Montney resource base that includes up to four Montney benches over its 150 contiguous sections of land.
  3. Developing and licensing a flexible infrastructure plan that will allow for the resource to be scaled to a much larger production base.

Coelacanth has licensed additional locations on the 5-19 pad, is in the process of licensing additional development pads, delineation locations and additional infrastructure to grow beyond current plant capacity. While commodity prices and available capital will dictate the pace of execution of the business plan, we are very pleased with the results to date and look forward to reporting on new developments as they arise.

(1) See ‘Test Results and Initial Production Rates’ section for more details.

OIL AND GAS TERMS

The Company uses the following frequently recurring oil and gas industry terms in the news release:

Liquids

Bbls Barrels
Bbls/d Barrels per day
NGLs Natural gas liquids (includes condensate, pentane, butane, propane, and ethane)
Condensate Pentane and heavier hydrocarbons 

 

Natural Gas

Mcf Thousands of cubic feet
Mcf/d Thousands of cubic feet per day
MMcf/d Millions of cubic feet per day
MMbtu Million of British thermal units
MMbtu/d Million of British thermal units per day

 

Oil Equivalent

Boe Barrels of oil equivalent
Boe/d Barrels of oil equivalent per day

 

Disclosure provided herein in respect of a boe may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A boe conversion rate of six thousand cubic feet of natural gas to one barrel of oil equivalent has been used for the calculation of boe amounts in the news release. This boe conversion rate is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead.

NON-GAAP AND OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES

This news release refers to certain measures that are not determined in accordance with IFRS (or ‘GAAP’). These non-GAAP and other financial measures do not have any standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other entities. The non-GAAP and other financial measures should not be considered alternatives to, or more meaningful than, financial measures that are determined in accordance with IFRS as indicators of the Company’s performance. Management believes that the presentation of these non-GAAP and other financial measures provides useful information to shareholders and investors in understanding and evaluating the Company’s ongoing operating performance, and the measures provide increased transparency to better analyze the Company’s performance against prior periods on a comparable basis.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Adjusted funds flow (used)
Management uses adjusted funds flow (used) to analyze performance and considers it a key measure as it demonstrates the Company’s ability to generate the cash necessary to fund future capital investments and abandonment obligations and to repay debt, if any. Adjusted funds flow (used) is a non-GAAP financial measure and has been defined by the Company as cash flow from operating activities excluding the change in non-cash working capital related to operating activities, movements in restricted cash deposits and expenditures on decommissioning obligations. Management believes the timing of collection, payment or incurrence of these items involves a high degree of discretion and as such may not be useful for evaluating the Company’s cash flows. Adjusted funds flow (used) is reconciled from cash flow from operating activities as follows:

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024   % Change   
Cash flow from operating activities  981 3,256 (70 )
Add (deduct):      
Decommissioning expenditures 139 148 (6 )
Change in restricted cash deposits 424 (100 )
Change in non-cash working capital (2,560 ) (2,750 ) (7 )
Adjusted funds flow (used) (non-GAAP) (1,440 ) 1,078 (234 )

 

Net transportation expenses
Management considers net transportation expenses an important measure as it demonstrates the cost of utilized transportation related to the Company’s production. Net transportation expenses is calculated as transportation expenses less unutilized transportation and is calculated as follows:

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Transportation expenses 551 545
Unutilized transportation (277 ) (225 )
Net transportation expenses (non-GAAP) 274 320

 

Operating netback
Management considers operating netback an important measure as it demonstrates its profitability relative to current commodity prices. Operating netback is calculated as oil and natural gas sales less royalties, operating expenses, and net transportation expenses and is calculated as follows:

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Oil and natural gas sales 2,666 3,666
Royalties (491 ) (821 )
Operating expenses (728 ) (894 )
Net transportation expenses (274 ) (320 )
Operating netback (non-GAAP) 1,173 1,631

 

Capital expenditures
Coelacanth utilizes capital expenditures as a measure of capital investment on property, plant, and equipment, exploration and evaluation assets and property acquisitions compared to its annual budgeted capital expenditures. Capital expenditures are calculated as follows:

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Capital expenditures – property, plant, and equipment 668 393
Capital expenditures – exploration and evaluation assets 25,033 870
Capital expenditures (non-GAAP) 25,701 1,263

 

Capital Management Measures

Adjusted working capital
Management uses adjusted working capital (deficiency) as a measure to assess the Company’s financial position. Adjusted working capital is calculated as current assets and restricted cash deposits less current liabilities, excluding the current portion of decommissioning obligations.

($000s) March 31,
2025 
  December 31, 2024   
Current assets 3,431 11,579
Less:     
Current liabilities  (36,009 ) (37,234 )
Working capital deficiency (32,578 ) (25,655 )
Add:     
Restricted cash deposits 4,900 4,900
Current portion of decommissioning obligations 1,968 2,118
Adjusted working capital deficiency (Capital management measure) (25,710 ) (18,637 )

 

Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

Adjusted Funds Flow (Used) per Share
Adjusted funds flow (used) per share is a non-GAAP financial ratio, calculated using adjusted funds flow (used) and the same weighted average basic and diluted shares used in calculating net loss per share.

Net transportation expenses per boe
The Company utilizes net transportation expenses per boe to assess the per unit cost of utilized transportation related to the Company’s production. Net transportation expenses per boe is calculated as net transportation expenses divided by total production for the applicable period.

Operating netback per boe
The Company utilizes operating netback per boe to assess the operating performance of its petroleum and natural gas assets on a per unit of production basis. Operating netback per boe is calculated as operating netback divided by total production for the applicable period.

Supplementary Financial Measures

The supplementary financial measures used in this news release (primarily average sales price per product type and certain per boe and per share figures) are either a per unit disclosure of a corresponding GAAP measure, or a component of a corresponding GAAP measure, presented in the financial statements. Supplementary financial measures that are disclosed on a per unit basis are calculated by dividing the aggregate GAAP measure (or component thereof) by the applicable unit for the period. Supplementary financial measures that are disclosed on a component basis of a corresponding GAAP measure are a granular representation of a financial statement line item and are determined in accordance with GAAP.

PRODUCT TYPES

The Company uses the following references to sales volumes in the news release:

Natural gas refers to shale gas
Oil and condensate refers to condensate and tight oil combined
Other NGLs refers to butane, propane and ethane combined
Oil and NGLs refers to tight oil and NGLs combined
Oil equivalent refers to the total oil equivalent of shale gas, tight oil, and NGLs combined, using the conversion rate of six thousand cubic feet of shale gas to one barrel of oil equivalent.

The following is a complete breakdown of sales volumes for applicable periods by specific product types of shale gas, tight oil, and NGLs:

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
Sales Volumes by Product Type  2025   2024 
     
Condensate (bbls/d)                      18                      19
Other NGLs (bbls/d)                      25                      37
NGLs (bbls/d)                      43                      56
     
Tight oil (bbls/d)                    166                    281
Condensate (bbls/d)                      18                      19
Oil and condensate (bbls/d)                    184                    300
Other NGLs (bbls/d)                      25                      37
Oil and NGLs (bbls/d)                    209                    337
     
Shale gas (mcf/d)                 3,311                 3,934
Natural gas (mcf/d)                 3,311                 3,934
     
Oil equivalent (boe/d)                    761                    993

 

TEST RESULTS AND INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES

The 5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 9.4 days and produced at an average rate of 377 bbl/d oil and 2,202 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

The A5-19 Basal Montney well was production tested for 5.9 days and produced at an average rate of 117 bbl/d oil and 630 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

The B5-19 Upper Montney well was production tested for 6.3 days and produced at an average rate of 92 bbl/d oil and 2,100 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

The C5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 5.8 days and produced at an average rate of 736 bbl/d oil and 2,660 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

The D5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 12.6 days and produced at an average rate of 170 bbl/d oil and 580 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

The E5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 11.4 days and produced at an average rate of 312 bbl/d oil and 890 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure was stable, and production was starting to decline.

The F5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 4.9 days and produced at an average rate of 728 bbl/d oil and 1,607 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

The G5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 7.1 days and produced at an average rate of 415 bbl/d oil and 1,489 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

The H5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 8.1 days and produced at an average rate of 411 bbl/d oil and 1,166 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure was stable and production was starting to decline.

A pressure transient analysis or well-test interpretation has not been carried out on these nine wells and thus certain of the test results provided herein should be considered to be preliminary until such analysis or interpretation has been completed. Test results and initial production rates disclosed herein, particularly those short in duration, may not necessarily be indicative of long-term performance or of ultimate recovery.

Any references to peak rates, test rates, IP30, IP90, IP180 or initial production rates or declines are useful for confirming the presence of hydrocarbons, however, such rates and declines are not determinative of the rates at which such wells will continue production and decline thereafter and are not indicative of long-term performance or ultimate recovery. IP30 is defined as an average production rate over 30 consecutive days, IP90 is defined as an average production rate over 90 consecutive days and IP180 is defined as an average production rate over 180 consecutive days. Readers are cautioned not to place reliance on such rates in calculating aggregate production for the Company.

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This document contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘should’, ‘believe’, ‘intends’, ‘forecast’, ‘plans’, ‘guidance’ and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements or information.

More particularly and without limitation, this news release contains forward-looking statements and information relating to the Company’s oil and condensate, other NGLs, and natural gas production, capital programs, and adjusted working capital. The forward-looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by the Company, including expectations and assumptions relating to prevailing commodity prices and exchange rates, applicable royalty rates and tax laws, future well production rates, the performance of existing wells, the success of drilling new wells, the availability of capital to undertake planned activities, and the availability and cost of labour and services.

Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements and information are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Since forward-looking statements and information address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks. These include, but are not limited to, the risks associated with the oil and gas industry in general such as operational risks in development, exploration and production, delays or changes in plans with respect to exploration or development projects or capital expenditures, the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to production rates, costs, and expenses, commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations, marketing and transportation, environmental risks, competition, the ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources and changes in tax, royalty, and environmental legislation. The forward-looking statements and information contained in this document are made as of the date hereof for the purpose of providing the readers with the Company’s expectations for the coming year. The forward-looking statements and information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws.

Coelacanth is an oil and natural gas company, actively engaged in the acquisition, development, exploration, and production of oil and natural gas reserves in northeastern British Columbia, Canada.

Further Information

For additional information, please contact:

Coelacanth Energy Inc.
Suite 2110, 530 – 8th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta T2P 3S8
Phone: (403) 705-4525
www.coelacanth.ca

Mr. Robert J. Zakresky
President and Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Nolan Chicoine
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

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

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/253761

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Investorideas.com, a global investor news source covering gold and silver stocks presents a mining snapshot highlighting news from silver miners, from expanded land packages to acquisitions, featuring Apollo Silver Corp. (TSXV: APGO) (OTCQB: APGOF) (FSE: 6ZF0).

Silver Stocks and the Land Grab for Silver Assets

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6292/253763_98936cef8488f87c_001full.jpg

The Company is focused on advancing its portfolio of two prospective silver exploration and resource development projects, the Calico Project, in San Bernardino County, California, and its option on the Cinco de Mayo Project, in Chihuahua, Mexico.

With strong demand and a supply deficit since 2021, silver miners are actively acquiring land and developing projects to increase production and address the shortfall.

In line with the sector’s growth strategy, Apollo Silver Corp. (TSXV: APGO) (OTCQB: APGOF) (FSE: 6ZF0) recently announce it has acquired 2,215 hectares of highly prospective claims contiguous to its Waterloo property at its Calico Silver Project.

From the news:
The newly acquired claims, referred to as the Mule claims, comprise 415 lode mining claims and were acquired from LAC Exploration LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lithium Americas Corp. (TSX: LAC) (NYSE: LAC), which was the previous operator of the property. Preliminary mapping and sampling conducted by the previous operator of the Mule claims identified several high-grade silver targets, which will be evaluated as part of Apollo’s future exploration planning.

Additionally, a mapping and sampling program was recently completed at the Burcham gold prospect area in the southwest region of the Waterloo property (see news release dated February 12, 2025). This program confirmed the Calico fault system’s role in controlling silver (Ag) and gold (Au) mineralization in the area and identified potential for copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and lead (Pb) mineralization associated with stratabound and manto lenses.

Highlights:

Mule claims expand the Calico Project land package by over 285%, from 1,194 hectares to 3,409 hectares of contiguous claims.

Mule claims trend along the mineralized Calico Fault System responsible for mineralization seen at Calico.

Reports from the prior operator indicate that there are several strongly anomalous silver values on the property, which Apollo will attempt to ground-truth in the coming exploration programs.

Sampling done across the Mule claims by previous operator has identified a large Ag anomaly associated with the same suite of host rocks at the Waterloo property.

Exploration at the Burcham prospect at Waterloo included assays from 27 surface samples:

Assay peaks up to 14.10 g/t Au, 20.70 g/t Ag, 0.17% Cu, 22.80% Zn and 5.74 % Pb from various samples.

Identification of strata-bound lenses and mantos that show strong potential for Cu, Zn and Pb mineralization.

Ross McElroy, President and CEO of Apollo commented, ‘The addition of the Mule claims substantially enhances the Calico Project. Calico already hosts three discrete drill-delineated zones with resource estimates along a 4-km-long trend within the Calico fault zone. The Mule claims increase the project’s land area by 2.5 times, strategically located to the east along this highly prospective mineralized corridor, offering significant potential for further discoveries. Apollo is committed to unlocking value in California for our shareholders.’

The Mule claims, comprising 415 lode mining claims administered by the Bureau of Land Management, feature a continuation of the mineralized Calico Fault System, as identified through mapping and sampling by the previous operator. The sedimentary rocks of the Barstow Formation, which hosts the Waterloo silver deposit and the volcanic Pickhandle Formation are prevalent across the acquired claims. The contact between the Barstow and Pickhandle Formations has demonstrated potential for gold mineralization, similar to that at Waterloo. Sampling across the Mule claims has identified several strong Ag and Au anomalies. Apollo plans to conduct a follow-up exploration program to develop exploration targets and delineate this highly prospective contact.

Earlier this month, Pan American Silver Corp. and MAG Silver Corp announced a definitive agreement for Pan American to acquire all issued and outstanding common shares of MAG through a plan of arrangement. MAG, a tier-one primary silver mining company, holds a 44% joint venture interest in the large-scale, high-grade Juanicipio mine, operated by Fresnillo plc, which holds the remaining 56% interest in the joint venture.

More from the news:
Under the terms of the transaction, MAG shareholders will receive total consideration of approximately $2.1 billion, equivalent to $20.54 per MAG share, based on the closing price of Pan American’s common shares on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on May 9, 2025. The consideration comprises $500 million in cash and 0.755 Pan American shares per MAG share, subject to proration. This represents premiums of approximately 21% and 27% to the closing price and 20-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP) of MAG’s common shares on the NYSE American (NYSEAM) as of May 9, 2025. Upon completion, existing MAG shareholders will own approximately 14% of Pan American’s shares on a fully diluted basis, benefiting from participation in a larger, diversified, and growth-oriented silver and gold producer.

Michael Steinmann, President and CEO of Pan American commented: ‘Our acquisition of MAG brings into Pan American’s portfolio one of the best silver mines in the world. Juanicipio is a large-scale, high-grade, low-cost silver mine that will meaningfully increase Pan American’s exposure to high margin silver ounces. Furthermore, we see future growth opportunities through the significant exploration potential at Juanicipio as well as MAG’s Deer Trail and Larder properties. This strategic acquisition further solidifies Pan American as a leading Americas-focused silver producer. We would like to thank the Fresnillo and the Juanicipio management teams for the constructive interactions and impressive site visit. Together, we bring many decades of operator experience in Mexico and Latin America to the Joint Venture and we are looking forward to a collaborative future and value generation for all shareholders involved.’

George Paspalas, President and CEO of MAG commented, ‘This transaction represents a compelling opportunity for our shareholders, providing an immediate premium and meaningful exposure to Pan American’s world-class assets and proven growth strategy. We are proud of what we’ve accomplished at MAG, particularly our partnership with Fresnillo which has created extraordinary value at the exceptional Juanicipio mine. Through the acquisition of our interest by Pan American – a respected leader in the global precious metals industry – our shareholders will participate in an exciting future defined by operational excellence, substantial exploration potential, and strong financial stewardship with significant portfolio exposure.’

Dolly Varden Silver Corporation recently announced that, following its news release dated May 5, 2025, it has completed the acquisition of the Kinskuch Property in northwest British Columbia’s Golden Triangle.

From the news:
The Kinskuch Property is adjacent to the Company’s Kitsault Valley Project and dramatically increases the Kitsault Valley Project size to approximately 77,000 hectares, covering some of the most underexplored and prospective rocks for silver, gold and copper mineralization in the Golden Triangle.

Dolly Varden completed its acquisition of the Kinskuch Property from Hecla Mining Company for consideration of $5 million, which was satisfied by Dolly Varden issuing 1,351,963 common shares of the Company to Hecla. Hecla will also retain a 2% net smelter return royalty on the Kinskuch Property area (the ‘NSR’). The NSR will include a 50% buyback right, for $5 million, that will allow Dolly Varden to reduce the royalty to 1% at any time. As per an existing agreement between Dolly Varden and Hecla, Hecla will maintain a designated position on Dolly Varden’s Technical Committee, working together to unlock the potential of the underexplored areas.

The year began with a significant development for the sector when, in January, First Majestic Silver Corp. and Gatos Silver, Inc. announced the completion of First Majestic’s acquisition of Gatos Silver under the agreement and plan of merger, as detailed in their joint news release dated September 5, 2024.

More from the news:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2025, both First Majestic and Gatos Silver announced that they received all necessary shareholder approvals at the respective special meetings of each company’s shareholders. Approximately 98.44% of the votes cast at the special meeting of First Majestic’s shareholders were voted in favour and approximately 99.23% of the votes cast at the special meeting of Gatos Silver’s stockholders were voted in favour.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, First Majestic has acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Gatos Silver and Gatos Silver is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Majestic. Stockholders of Gatos Silver will receive 2.55 First Majestic common shares for each Gatos Silver Share held, and cash in lieu of fractional First Majestic Shares .

‘With the closing of this transaction, First Majestic is integrating a high-quality, long-life, positive-free-cash-flow operation into our portfolio of producing mines in Mexico. Cerro Los Gatos is truly a world-class district with robust production and cost efficiency, combined with significant exploration potential,’ said Keith Neumeyer, President and CEO. ‘Over the coming quarters, we will communicate our plans for Cerro Los Gatos, including strategies to realize synergies and integration throughout the business. I take this opportunity to personally welcome Gatos Silver shareholders into First Majestic as we create the industry’s leading intermediate primary silver producer. Finally, I welcome our joint venture partner, Dowa Metals and Mining, with whom we look forward to working closely at Cerro Los Gatos as a supportive and trusted partner.’

These acquisitions underscore the growing trend of land asset expansion and consolidation among silver miners.

Research more mining stocks at Investorideas.com with our mining stocks directory at Investorideas.com https://www.investorideas.com/Gold_Stocks/Stocks_List.asp.

About Investorideas.com – Big Investing Ideas
Investorideas.com is the go-to platform for big investing ideas. From breaking stock news to top-rated investing podcasts, we cover it all.

Disclaimer/Disclosure: This article featuring Apollo Silver Corp is paid for content as part of a monthly featured mining stock service. Our site does not make recommendations for purchases or sale of stocks, services or products. Nothing on our sites should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell products or securities. All investing involves risk and possible losses. Investor ideas does not provide investment opinion but may quote industry experts and their opinions.

More disclaimer info: https://www.investorideas.com/About/Disclaimer.asp Learn more about publishing your news release and our other news services on the Investorideas.com newswire https://www.investorideas.com/News-Upload/

Global investors must adhere to regulations of each country. Please read Investorideas.com privacy policy: https://www.investorideas.com/About/Private_Policy.asp.

Follow us on X @investorideas

Follow us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Investorideas

Follow us on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/Investorideas

Contact Investorideas.com 800-665-0411

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/253763

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Blue Lagoon Resources Inc. (CSE: BLLG) (FSE: 7BL) (OTCQB: BLAGF) (the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that President & CEO Rana Vig will be attending and presenting at The Mining Investment Event of the North, Canada’s premier mining investment conference, taking place June 3-5, 2025, in Québec City.

Mr. Vig will meet with institutional investors, fund managers, and analysts from across North America and abroad to present the Company’s progress toward gold production that is expected to commence this summer at its high-grade Dome Mountain Gold Project, featuring an average grade of 9 grams per tonne (g/t) and located in one of the best mining jurisdictions in the world, just outside Smithers, British Columbia.

‘With Dome Mountain fully permitted and scheduled to begin production this summer, we are entering an exciting phase of growth,’ said Mr. Vig. ‘We’re one of the few junior gold companies positioned to generate near-term cash flow in a rising gold market, while offering significant long-term upside through exploration.’

The three-day event brings together a curated group of emerging and established mining companies for targeted one-on-one meetings and panel discussions with leading investors and industry experts. Participation supports Blue Lagoon’s strategy to actively expand its investor base and raise awareness of its uniquely positioned project.

About Blue Lagoon Resources Inc.

Blue Lagoon Resources is a Canadian based publicly listed mining company (CSE: BLLG) (FSE: 7BL) (OTCQB: BLAGF) focused on building shareholder value through the aggressive development of its 100% owned Dome Mountain Gold project. The Company is run by professionals with significant finance and mining experience and operates within a prime mining jurisdiction in British Columbia, Canada. With the granting of a full mining permit, a key milestone achieved in February 2025 – one of only nine such permits issued in British Columbia since 2015 – Blue Lagoon is now focused on last preparatory activities and tasks related to the safe and secure opening of the Dome Mountain Gold Mine, targeting Q3 2025 as the start of gold production. The Company’s primary objective has always been to become a cash-flowing mining company, to ultimately deliver tangible monetary value to shareholders, state, and local communities.

The Company is not basing its production decision at Dome Mountain on a feasibility study of mineral reserves demonstrating economic and technical viability. The production decision is based on having existing mining infrastructure, past bulk sampling and processing activity, and the established mineral resource. The Company understands that there is increased uncertainty, and consequently a higher risk of failure, when production is undertaken in advance of a feasibility study.

For further information, please contact:

Rana Vig
President and CEO
Telephone: 604-218-4766
Email: ranavig@bluelagoonresources.com

The CSE has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information: This release includes certain statements that may be deemed ‘forward-looking statements’. All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts, that address events or developments that Blue Lagoon Resources Inc. (the ‘Company’) expects to occur, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words ‘expects’, ‘targets’, ‘plans’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘projects’, ‘potential’, ‘mine’, ‘production’ and similar expressions, or that events or conditions ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘may’, ‘could’ or ‘should’ occur. 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 may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include results of exploration activities may not show quality and quantity necessary for further exploration or future exploitation of minerals deposits, volatility of gold and silver prices, delays in mine development activities, future cash flow expectations and continued availability of capital and financing, permitting and other approvals, and general economic, market or business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management, contractors and consultants on the date the statements are made. Except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements in the event that management’s, contractor’s and consultants’ beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/253799

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Nuvau Minerals (TSXV: NMC) is pleased to announce that it will be participating in THE Mining Investment Event, Canada’s Only Tier 1 Global Mining Investment Conference©, taking place June 3-5, 2025, at the Quebec Convention Centre, Quebec City, Canada.

Nuvau Minerals’s management will be available to meet with investors throughout the three-day conference.

Information regarding THE Event, including investor registration details, a list of participating companies, panelists and keynote speakers, as well as a preliminary agenda, can be found at https://www.themininginvestmentevent.com/.

About Nuvau Minerals
Nuvau Minerals Corp, a private Canadian metal exploration company, has entered into an agreement to acquire the Matagami Mining Camp in Quebec, a historic mining camp with 60 years of mining history and almost 60 million tonnes mined from 12 past mines. The acquisition comprises over 2,400 claims covering an area of over 1,250 square kilometers in the northern part of the Abitibi. The company will invest over $30 million in an aggressive 3-year exploration program focused on exploring critical minerals, mainly zinc and copper, with multiple highly prospective exploration targets across the property.

THE Event is by invitation only – Interested investors & issuers, please go here:
https://www.themininginvestmentevent.com/register or contact Jennifer Choi, jchoi@irinc.ca

About: THE Mining Investment Event—Canada’s Only Tier 1 Global Mining Investment Conference© is held annually in Québec City, Canada. It is independently sponsored and designed to facilitate privately arranged meetings between mining companies, international investors, and various mining government authorities. The conference provides a platform to hear from some of the most influential thought leaders in the sector.

THE Event is committed to promoting diversity, equality, and sustainability in the mining industry through education and innovation through its unique Student Sponsorship and SHE-Co Initiatives.

For further information:

Kimberly Darlington
Investor Relations
514-771-3398
kimberly@refinedsubstance.com

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Lithium Africa is a next-generation exploration company purpose-built to seize the opportunities of the coming lithium supercycle. With a focus on early-stage land acquisition, rapid drilling, and a landmark joint venture with Ganfeng Lithium, the company delivers maximum exploration efficiency, capital leverage, and de-risked discovery potential at scale.

Lithium Africa’s mission is to discover, de-risk, and monetize Tier 1 hard rock lithium assets through data-driven targeting, aggressive fieldwork, and disciplined exit strategies. Its partnership with Ganfeng—one of the world’s leading lithium producers—anchors its strategy with industrial expertise and financial strength from the earliest phases of project development.

Lithium Africa is the first company to implement a systematic, multi-jurisdictional discovery strategy across the continent, combining world-class geology with capital discipline and strategic focus to unlock the next generation of globally significant lithium deposits.

Company Highlights

  • Exploration-focused Model: Lithium Africa focuses purely on discovery and value creation, with no intention to develop or operate a mine
  • Strategic 50/50 JV with Ganfeng Lithium: Doubles exploration spending and provides access to processing expertise and long-term downstream offtake partners.
  • Pan-African Footprint: Over 8,000 sq km of tenure across Zimbabwe, Morocco, Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, and others – enabling diversification in discovery strategy.
  • Contrarian, Countercyclical M&A: Well-capitalized and positioned to roll up distressed lithium juniors during a downcycle
  • Rapid Permitting & Scalability: Target jurisdictions offer 3- to 4-year discovery-to-mine timelines versus 10 to 15 years in North America.
  • RTO & Listing Expected by August 2025: Tight structure, early institutional support and significant near-term drilling catalysts

This Lithium Africa profile is part of a paid investor education campaign.*

Click here to connect with Lithium Africa to receive an Investor Presentation

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Macy’s cut its full-year profit guidance on Wednesday even as it beat Wall Street’s quarterly earnings expectations, as the retailer’s CEO said it will hike prices of certain items to offset tariffs.

In a news release, the department store operator said it reduced its earnings outlook because of higher tariffs, more promotions and “some moderation” in discretionary spending. Macy’s stuck by its full-year sales forecast, however.

For fiscal 2025, Macy’s now expects adjusted earnings per share of $1.60 to $2, down from its previous forecast of $2.05 to $2.25. It reaffirmed its full-year sales guidance of between $21 billion and $21.4 billion, which would be a decline from $22.29 billion in the most recent full year.

In an interview with CNBC, CEO Tony Spring said about 15 cents to 40 cents per share of the guidance cut is due to tariffs. He said about 20% of the company’s merchandise comes from China.

Macy’s will raise some prices and stop carrying certain items to mitigate the hit from tariffs, he added.

“You’re dealing with it on both the demand side as well as the increased cost side,” he said. “And so navigating that, we have a series of different scenarios to try to figure out kind of what will be the reality, and we want our guidance to reflect the flexibility of that uncertainty, so that we can react in real time to how we serve or better serve the consumer.”

Spring said the company will be “surgical” with price changes.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of approach,” he said. “There are going to be items that are the same price as they were a year ago. There is going to be, selectively, items that may be more expensive, and there are items that we might not carry because the pricing doesn’t merit the quality or the perceived value by the consumer.”

Here’s how Macy’s did during its fiscal first quarter, compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

In the three-month period that ended May 3, the company’s net income was $38 million, or 13 cents per share, compared with $62 million, or 22 cents per share, in the year-ago period. Sales dropped from $4.85 billion in the year-ago quarter. Excluding some one-time charges including restructuring charges, adjusted earnings per share were 16 cents.

The company’s shares were down more than 2% in early trading on Wednesday.

Economic uncertainty — including President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff announcements — has complicated Macy’s turnaround plans. The New York City-based legacy retailer is more than a year into a three-year effort to become a smaller, but healthier business. It’s shuttering weaker stores and investing in stronger parts of the company, including luxury department store Bloomingdale’s and beauty chain Bluemercury. It has also tried to improve the customer experience, including by speeding up online deliveries and adding staff to stores.

Spring told analysts on the earnings call that the tariff impact on Macy’s outlook includes the additional costs of inventory previously imported under the 145% China tariffs, which have since dropped to 30%. He said the outlook does not include a potential increase in tariffs on the European Union or any other U.S. trading partner.

Trump recently threatened to implement, and then delayed, a 50% tariff on the EU.

Macy’s sells a mix of national band private brands, which are sold exclusively at its stores and on its website. Spring told CNBC that the company has reduced the share of its private brands that comes from China to about 27% — a drop from 32% last year and more than 50% before the Covid pandemic.

CFO Adrian Mitchell said on the company’s earnings call that Macy’s has taken action to blunt the impact of tariffs on national brands it sells, too. He said the company has renegotiated orders with vendors, canceled some orders and delayed others.

“We’ve been able to gain some vendor discounts, which has been helpful to us, but we’re absorbing some of that price as well,” he said.

And in some cases, Macy’s is keeping prices the same despite higher costs to appeal to value-conscious customers and gain market share from competitors, Mitchell added.

Spring said on the company’s earnings call on Wednesday that Macy’s sales were stronger in March and April compared to February, attributing some of that to improving weather. So far, sales trends in the second quarter have been above those in March and April, he added.

Macy’s plans to close about 150 underperforming namesake stores across the country by early 2027.

In the fiscal first quarter, Macy’s namesake brand remained its weakest. Comparable sales across Macy’s owned and licensed business, plus its online marketplace, declined 2.1% year over year.

When Macy’s took out the stores that it plans to shutter, however, trends looked slightly better. Comparable sales of its go-forward business, including its owned and licensed business and online marketplace, declined 1.9%

On the other hand, comparable sales at Bloomingdale’s rose 3.8% year over year, including its owned, licensed and marketplace businesses. Comparable sales at Bluemercury climbed 1.5% year over year.

To try to turn its namesake stores around, Macy’s has invested in 50 locations — dubbed the “First 50” — with more staffing, sharper displays and changes to its mix of merchandise. It has expanded that initiative to 75 additional stores, bringing the total to 125 locations that have gotten increased attention. That’s a little over a third of the 350 namesake locations that Macy’s plans to keep open.

Those 125 locations performed better than the overall Macy’s brand. Comparable sales among those revamped stores owned and licensed by Macy’s were down 0.8% compared with the year-ago period.

On Macy’s earnings call in March — before Trump made several sudden tariff moves that baffled companies and investors — Spring said the company’s guidance “assumes a certain level of uncertainty” about the economic outlook. He said even Macy’s affluent customer “is just as uncertain and as confused and concerned by what’s transpiring.”

Earlier this spring, Macy’s announced a few key leadership changes — including a new chief financial officer. Macy’s new CFO, Thomas Edwards, will begin on June 22. He previously served as the chief financial officer and chief operating officer of Capri Holdings, the parent company of Michael Kors. He will succeed Mitchell, who is leaving Macy’s.

As of Tuesday’s close, Macy’s shares are down about 29% so far this year. That trails the S&P 500′s nearly 1% gains during the same period. Macy’s stock closed on Tuesday at $12.04 per share, bringing the retailer’s market value to $3.35 billion.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Dick’s Sporting Goods said Wednesday it’s standing by its full-year guidance, which includes the expected impact from all tariffs currently in effect.

The sporting goods giant said it’s expecting earnings per share to be between $13.80 and $14.40 in fiscal 2025 — in line with the $14.29 that analysts had expected, according to LSEG.

It’s projecting revenue to be between $13.6 billion and $13.9 billion, which is also in line with expectations of $13.9 billion, according to LSEG.

“We are reaffirming our 2025 outlook, which reflects our strong start to the year and confidence in our strategies and operational strength while still acknowledging the dynamic macroeconomic environment,” CEO Lauren Hobart said in a news release. “Our performance demonstrates the momentum and strength of our long-term strategies and the consistency of our execution.”

Here’s how the company performed in its first fiscal quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

The company’s reported net income for the three-month period that ended May 3 was $264 million, or $3.24 per share, compared with $275 million, or $3.30 per share, a year earlier. Excluding one-time items related to its acquisition of Foot Locker, Dick’s posted earnings per share of $3.37.

Sales rose to $3.17 billion, up about 5% from $3.02 billion a year earlier.

For most investors, Dick’s results won’t come as a surprise because it preannounced some of its numbers about two weeks ago when it unveiled plans to acquire its longtime rival Foot Locker for $2.4 billion. So far, Dick’s has seen a mix of reactions to the proposed acquisition.

On one hand, Dick’s deal for Foot Locker will allow it to enter international markets for the first time and reach a customer that’s crucial to the sneaker market and doesn’t typically shop in the retailer’s stores. On the other hand, Dick’s is acquiring a business that’s been struggling for years and some aren’t sure needs to exist due to its overlap with other wholesalers and the rise of brands selling directly to consumers.

While shares of Foot Locker initially soared more than 80% after the deal was announced, shares of Dick’s fell about 15%.

The transaction is expected to close in the second half of fiscal 2025 and, for now, Dick’s outlook doesn’t include acquisition-related costs or results from the acquisition.

In the first full fiscal year post-close, Dick’s expects the transaction to be accretive to earnings and deliver between $100 million and $125 million in cost synergies.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump is the first president since Ronald Reagan to run and get elected on a peace through strength platform. To date, the president has executed this vision by leveraging America’s forward presence across the Middle East and Asia — aircraft carriers, fighters and bombers, and a global network of American military installations — to project power and restore deterrence.  

The next challenge in realizing a peace through strength program is more fundamental: it will require addressing critical military vulnerabilities, including an overextended force, an industrial base at capacity, and severe readiness challenges.  

To his credit, the president has lived up to his security goals on a number of fronts. Just as he dismantled ISIS shortly after entering office in 2017, the president targeted the Houthis to cripple their ability to interfere with international shipping transiting the Red Sea. 

Operation Rough Rider, the largest air campaign since Trump’s operation against ISIS, went beyond President Joe Biden’s targeted pinprick attacks. U.S. airstrikes hit more than 800 targets and significantly reduced Houthi missile and drone launches. The president subsequently announced a ceasefire ending Houthi attacks on ships navigating Middle Eastern waters. 

As for Iran, the primary source of instability in the Middle East, the president’s maximum pressure campaign includes arming Israel and bolstering deterrence in the region, by deploying a second carrier strike group, a THAAD missile battery, Patriot missile battalions and B-2 bombers. 

In East Asia, the theater many Trump administration officials would like to prioritize, Trump has deployed anti-ship cruise missiles overlooking the critical waterways between the Philippines and Taiwan. It is the closest to the Chinese mainland that U.S. land-based cruise missiles have been deployed.  

Trump has also ordered two freedom of navigation missions through the Taiwan Strait. The second operation on April 23, China’s Navy Day, was a direct rebuke to Chinese claims over Taiwan. 

Now comes the harder part — addressing that trifecta of fundamental pressure points facing the military. 

In the Red Sea, the Navy has performed admirably in its longest surface engagement since World War II. However, a friendly fire incident, the loss of several drones and two F/A-18s, one falling overboard during an evasive maneuver and another due to a failed arrest, reveal the limitations of a historically small fleet that is overworked and highly exposed. 

Operations in the Middle East have also compromised readiness in Asia. In addition to air defense redeployments, the Pentagon may have to dip into stockpiles in Asia to replenish munition supplies in the Middle East. The shortage reveals a larger issue: transferring munitions gives up existing capability in Asia that won’t be replenished for years given the state of the industrial base.  

Industrial challenges affect every munition from JASSM-ERs to 155mm shells. For example, in 2023 the Pentagon bought 55 Tomahawk missiles, yet 68% of that annual purchase was expended in one single day against the Houthis. Each new Tomahawk faces a two-year lead time, underscoring the urgent need for industrial expansion.  

Trump’s application of peace through strength in the Western Hemisphere, while laudable, is adding new pressures to a force already at its breaking point. The USS Gravely, a destroyer that recently completed a nine-month tour in the Red Sea, was quickly redeployed to assist with border protection. 

Some of the strain can be addressed with smart policy choices, such as how U.S. forces are organized in Europe. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently ordered a major restructuring of the Army, replacing some armored and attack helicopter formations with drone swarms and precision munitions which have proven their worth in Ukraine. Hegseth’s 8% budget reallocation plan is another opportunity to reinvest low-priority budget items into next generation warfighting technology needed elsewhere. 

Unfortunately, there are signs that techno-optimism may be interfering with prudent budgeting: the administration requested a $893 billion base defense budget for FY26, well below the $1 trillion budget the administration promised which does not keep pace with inflation.  

As a percentage of GDP, the president’s budget would be the lowest since the Clinton years, when the U.S. cashed a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War. The administration will find it challenging to implement a peace through strength program with a shrinking defense budget that would fall short of providing the necessary resources to sustain a forward presence that provides the president with military options and negotiating leverage over adversaries.  

Fortunately, President Trump has congressional partners ready to pair his ambitious strategy with an ambitious buildup and budget. The chairs of the Armed Services Committees are determined to provide significant real growth to the president’s budget request, and the House reconciliation bill includes $150 billion for shipbuilding, Golden Dome, and other administration priorities.  

As Reagan warned in 1986, ‘blueprints alone don’t deter aggression. We have to translate our lead in the lab to a lead in the field. But when our budget is cut, we can’t do either.’  

Flanked by large ‘Peace through Strength’ banners at al-Udeid Air Base, a major staging area during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump recently declared that ‘America’s military will soon be bigger, better, stronger and more powerful than ever.’  

With the right budget and right focus, he has a historic opportunity to fulfill that promise and cement himself as a peace-through-strength president. As the president confronts an ascending axis of China, Russia and Iran, he can move beyond employing the tools of strength to rebuilding that strength and delivering a lasting peace. 

Michael Stanton is a research assistant at the Reagan Institute. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS