Author

admin

Browsing

The graphite market was dominated by oversupply, trade disputes and China’s continued grip in 2025.

Prices hit multi-year lows as a US investigation into Chinese anode imports highlighted the vulnerability of the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain, with tariffs and anti-dumping duties creating uncertainty for North American producers.

Although natural graphite output has risen from 966,000 metric tons in 2020 to 1.6 million metric tons in 2024, China accounts for nearly all recent supply growth and also dominates refining.

The nation is projected to control roughly 80 percent of battery-grade graphite production through 2035.

Outside the Asian nation, analysts note that US and European producers face high costs and limited alternatives, with trade tensions and tariffs further constraining non-China supply.

While graphite projects in Madagascar and Mozambique offer some diversification of supply, graphite refining capacity remains heavily concentrated, leaving the market exposed to supply shocks.

A US-China trade agreement made late in 2025 eased volatility in the natural anode market, but oversupply and weak demand continue to pressure flake graphite prices as the year closed.

“The agreement between the US and China to roll back planned export restrictions on markets such as graphite is set to provide a stable picture for the next year,” wrote Fastmarkets’ Andrew Saucer in a November update.

“However, for graphite, it leaves many existing trade barriers in place which should solidify shifts in how China and the US are finding alternatives to each other in their natural and synthetic supply chains.’

Graphite prices under pressure

Speaking at the Benchmark Week conference in November 2025, Adam Webb, head of energy raw materials at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, explained why flake graphite prices — as well as the majority of the battery metals suite — saw weak prices through early 2025, despite a promising demand outlook.

“Essentially, what’s happened here is demand has grown very strongly, but supply growth has actually outpaced demand growth,” Webb said. “Therefore you’ve got the markets in a surplus, and that weighs on prices.”

As graphite prices sank in 2024, a ripple effect impacted supply, hitting the production side hard.

“With flake graphite, you’ll notice it’s actually supply has increased less than demand, and that is because prices were so low that in 2024 you had significant Chinese capacity come offline,’ Webb commented.

‘Also in flake graphite you have competition with synthetic graphite.”

Graphite anodes remain the dominant choice for lithium-ion batteries, but price divergence has sharpened competition between natural and synthetic materials.

Synthetic graphite is expected to retain the largest market share in the near term, thanks to its superior fast-charging performance, durability and electrolyte compatibility. However, natural graphite is gaining attention for its lower cost, higher capacity and lower energy intensity. This competition has divided the market as prices for flake graphite remain low, further pressured by weak demand in the industrial segment.

“Flake pricing on the other hand continues to feel the impact of lower steel demand in 2025 amid declines in Asian and European production in the first seven months of the year,” a September Fastmarkets report notes.

“Expectations among market participants are that production in China will continue to decline through the end of the year and continue to weigh on overall global production.”

Energy storage surge to underpin long-term graphite demand

Despite the market challenges noted by Benchmark’s Webb, the metals consultancy and price reporting agency forecasts 9 percent growth in graphite demand between 2025 and 2035.

This uptick will be strongly supported by a rise in the EV and battery energy storage system (BESS) segments.

“Flake graphite, you’ll see that that price is going up despite the oversupplied market, and that is because to meet that rising demand, there needs to be more supply coming online, and a lot of that supply coming online is high cost. So that’s going to push up the price support, basically, gradually through time,” Webb said.

The BESS market emerged as a major growth driver in 2025, reinforcing long-term demand for battery raw materials, including graphite. As Benchmark outlines, the market for BESS is expected to register roughly 44 percent growth for 2025, almost double the rate of overall lithium-ion battery demand.

As a result, energy storage is set to account for a quarter of total battery demand in 2025.

In North America, momentum has been uneven.

While interest in large-scale storage remains strong, BESS integrators faced mounting pressure in 2025 due to limited domestic battery cell supply, project delays and shrinking margins.

Several leading system providers reported weaker financial results, highlighting the risks of heavy reliance on imported cells and fragmented supply chains.

In Europe, deployed energy storage capacity surpassed 100 gigawatts by November, with batteries accounting for the vast majority of new installations. China, by contrast, saw a renewed surge in energy storage battery shipments. Policy reforms introduced under “Document No. 136” shifted renewable power toward market-based pricing and removed mandatory storage requirements, allowing battery projects to compete on commercial returns.

Together, these regional dynamics underline the growing importance of stationary storage in the global battery market. As BESS capacity expands alongside EVs, demand for graphite anodes is expected to remain structurally strong, even as supply chains and pricing face continued adjustment.

Establishing an ex-China anode supply chain

At Benchmark Week, industry insiders agreed graphite demand will continue to rise through the decade, but the anode supply chain remains constrained by China’s dominance and the high cost of building alternatives elsewhere.

Today, more than 90 percent of battery-grade anode material is sourced from China, a concentration that has become increasingly untenable for western automakers and cell manufacturers.

“Customers are actively looking for diversification,” said Michael O’Kronley, CEO of Novonix (ASX:NVX,OTCPL:NVNXF), noting that supply security has shifted from a long-term aspiration to an immediate priority.

Yet replacing Chinese supply is proving far from straightforward.

A panel featuring graphite executives highlighted that anode qualification can take years, requiring extensive testing to ensure materials perform consistently over a battery’s full lifespan.

“Battery materials aren’t qualified overnight,” O’Kronley said. “It takes years of co-development and patient capital.”

Cost remains the central obstacle. Building an anode plant in North America can cost three to 10 times more than in China, while customers remain reluctant to pay a premium. “A new supply chain has to be paid for somewhere,” O’Kronley warned, arguing that government support is essential if diversification is to scale.

Natural graphite producers face similar pressures.

Financing has become more difficult amid weak prices, even as long-term demand expectations remain strong.

“We expect demand growth closer to 2030,” said Patrice Boulanger, vice president of sales, marketing and business at Québec-focused Nouveau Monde Graphite (NYSE:NMG), adding that government offtake agreements are increasingly critical to unlocking private financing.

Despite growing interest in silicon, lithium metal and other next-generation anodes, the panelists were unanimous that graphite will remain dominant.

“Graphite is clearly here to stay,” said Viren Hira of Syrah Resources (ASX:SYR,OTCPL:SYAAF), with both natural and synthetic materials expected to underpin battery growth through at least the next decade.

Adding context during his own presentation at Benchmark Week, Webb outlined how cost dynamics are reshaping the anode market, particularly the balance between synthetic and natural graphite.

“On the anode side, we’ve seen a move towards synthetic graphite,” he said, noting that the shift has been driven less by performance and more by economics. Producers, he explained, have increasingly turned to lower-quality, lower-cost feedstocks, enabling them to reduce production costs.

As a result, prices for synthetic anode material have fallen, making it more competitive and supporting its growing share of battery anode demand.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Cobalt metal prices have trended steadily higher since September of last year, entering 2026 at US$56,414 per metric ton and touching highs unseen since July 2022.

The cobalt market staged a dramatic reversal in 2025, shifting from deep oversupply to structural tightening after decisive intervention by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Prices began last year near nine year lows amid a lingering glut, but surged after the DRC, responsible for roughly three-quarters of global supply, imposed an export ban in February, later replaced by strict quotas.

By the end of the year, cobalt metal prices had more than doubled, underscoring how quickly supply-side policy reshaped market fundamentals. What emerged was not a demand-driven recovery, but a supply-led reset. Indonesian output, largely tied to nickel processing, helped cushion the shock but proved insufficient to replace lost Congolese units.

As inventories thinned and quotas capped future exports, the market exited 2025 near balance, setting the stage for a tighter and more volatile cobalt landscape heading into 2026.

Cobalt chokepoints: DRC dominance, China and the Lobito Corridor

With the concentration of cobalt output stemming from two nations, supply chain security has come into focus. An issue Roman Aubry, nickel and cobalt analyst at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence expects to last through 2026.

“2025 has demonstrated the risks associated with having a single country being

He added: “Looking ahead to 2026 it’s clear that the market has to anticipate continued uncertainty from the DRC. While they’ve announced a detailed quota system for the next two years, the DRC reserves the right to adjust it as it sees fit. Given the current ex-DRC cobalt stocks, Benchmark expects there to be significant risk of demand destruction as we approach the end of the year, therefore it is likely the DRC will need to adjust the export quota.”

Concern over China’s control of battery and critical metal supply chains is also likely to carry over through the year, as tensions between Washington and Beijing oscillate and the US looks to fortify its access to the metals.

Aubry pointed to the Lobito Corridor as a key factor in the US securing ex-China supply.

The major rail and port project linking the mineral-rich Copperbelt of the DRC and Zambia to Angola’s Atlantic coast, could reshape the global cobalt supply chain by lowering export costs, speeding transit times and diversifying routes away from China‑dominated infrastructure.

The US International Development Finance Corporation has committed hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to modernize the corridor’s rail and port facilities, potentially boosting annual transport capacity by an order of magnitude and cutting costs by as much as 30 percent compared with existing routes.

“In regards to Western-China relations, we’ve seen the US become increasingly conscious of its reliance on China refining for critical minerals, taking steps to improve ties with the DRC,” said Aubry. “This has mainly come in the form of a strategic agreement to develop the Lobito rail corridor, which would allow the DRC to export cobalt directly to the Atlantic, as well as the establishment of a coordinated Strategic Minerals Reserve within the DRC.”

Is cobalt substitution in the cards?

Before the DRC levied export controls over cobalt exports human rights and child labour concerns around artisinal cobalt extraction plagued the sector.

Paired with the supply chain challenges, battery manufacturers began shifting chemistry away from cobalt-rich formulas, like nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) and lithium-iron-phiosphate (LFP) began growing in market share.

In 2025, demand for nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) battery cells remained strong in markets focused on longer driving range and performance, particularly in North America and Europe, but lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells continued their rapid ascent, driven by cost advantages and growing adoption in China and entry-level electric vehicles (EVs).

Industry forecasts project LFP’s share of global battery cell capacity to exceed 60 percent in 2025, reflecting broader shifts toward lower-cost chemistry amid affordability pressures, while NCM and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) cells continue to dominate premium segments where energy density remains critical.

Amid a shrinking EV market share, Aubry pointed to overall growth in the EV segment, as well as cobalt’s other end uses as factors likely to support demand.

“While battery chemistries are expected to shift towards lower-cobalt or cobalt- free chemistries, the volume of EV batteries is expected to more than offset this,” he explained.

“From all applications, cobalt demand is expected to grow almost 80 percent in the next decade,

He added: “Outside of the EV space, portables are an area of significant growth, particularly batteries for newer technologies like drones. Industrial applications also present a stable source of growth.”

Market volatility drives need for raw materials hedging

During a presentation at Benchmark Week 2025, Casper Rawles, COO at Benchmark Intelligence, highlighted the growing value of hedging for companies operating in the battery raw materials space.

According to Benchmark data, raw materials could account for 20 percent to 40 percent of battery costs by 2030, exceeding 50 percent for some chemistries.

For EV manufacturers such as BYD (OTCPL:BYDDF), annual spending on critical battery materials could exceed US$2 billion, leaving margins highly exposed to price swings.

Against that backdrop, Rawles underscored the need for more sophisticated hedging strategies, noting that shifts in sentiment, supply, demand and geopolitics can reprice these markets with little warning.

Hedging allows companies to manage commodity price volatility by offsetting exposure in the physical market with positions in the futures market.

Producers and consumers typically hedge either to lock in prices that protect margins or to secure fixed pricing tied to external contracts, buying or selling futures to counterbalance their underlying risk. In practice, firms can tailor these strategies to reduce price exposure partially or eliminate it altogether, depending on their risk tolerance.

As Rawles explained, cobalt’s 2025 price rebound emphasizes how exposed the market is to geopolitics, with the DRC’s export controls triggering a rapid reversal from oversupply to scarcity.

“Ultimately we saw an export quota being put in place. Now that quota is pretty limited,’ said Rawles.

‘When we think about the type of volumes we’re expecting to be needed by the market it’s really not going to be sufficient to fulfill market demand. That really shows how quickly the fortunes of these minerals can change,” he added, noting that the DRC’s dominance gives it outsized influence over global pricing.

Rawles stressed that cobalt volatility is no longer driven by supply and demand alone, but by sentiment and geopolitics, with major implications for battery makers and automakers, where raw materials account for a large share of costs.

“Even if you think you know the outlook at the start of the year, that can change in a heartbeat,” he said.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Jim Wiederhold, commodity indices product manager at Bloomberg, shares his commodities outlook for 2026, saying that while precious metals dominated last year, there’s potential for a rotation toward industrial metals like copper in the year ahead.

‘The fundamental story for industrial is very strong,’ he said.

‘There’s potential huge supply/demand imbalances coming in the future.’

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

MIAMI GARDENS, FL — Fernando Mendoza delivered some late magic and No. 1 seed Indiana held on to beat No. 10 Miami, 27-21, in the College Football Playoff championship game to claim the first title in program history.

The win completes a stunning turnaround orchestrated by second-year coach Curt Cignetti, who inherited what is historically one of the weakest programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision but quickly transformed the Hoosiers into the best team the sport has to offer.

A surprisingly low-scoring game through the first half began to open up in the third quarter and then took on a frenzied pace in a final quarter that saw Mendoza put the finishing touches on the most memorable individual season in program history by providing clutch plays on two Indiana scoring drives.

Buy IU championship books, newspapers, gear

Mendoza finished 16 of 27 for 186 yards and ran for a touchdown. Kaelon Black ran for 79 yards on 17 carries and Roman Hemby added 60 yards on 19 carries. Omar Cooper led IU with 71 yards on five receptions and Charlie Becker added 65 yards, including multiple driving-extending catches in the fourth quarter.

Miami quarterback Carson Beck threw for 232 yards on 19 of 32 passing with a touchdown and an interception. Mark Fletcher Jr. had 112 yards on 17 carries and freshman receiver Malachi Toney had a game-high 10 catches for 122 yards and a score.

The teams exchanged punts on the game’s first three possessions. Indiana opened scoring on a 34-yard field goal by Nicolas Radicic with 2:42 left in the first quarter. That capped an 11-play, roughly six-minute drive featuring a key 25-yard completion to Cooper after a holding penalty left IU facing first-and-20 inside its own red zone.

After the teams combined for three consecutive three-and-out drives, the Hoosiers stirred to life and took a 10-0 lead with 6:13 remaining in the half on a 1-yard plunge by tight end Riley Nowakowski. Capping an 85-yard march, the score was set up by a 15-yard completion to Becker that was originally called a touchdown but brought back to the 5-yard line on an official review.

At this point, Miami’s offense had gained only 26 yards, 9 coming on Fletcher’s carry on the first play from scrimmage, and just a single first down.

Combined with the Hoosiers’ growing lead, this rough start led Miami to attempt and convert a fourth-and-1 play at its 34-yard line on a short Fletcher run. But after a 25-yard grab by receiver CJ Daniels pushed the Hurricanes into IU territory, coach Mario Cristobal opted for a long field goal attempt on fourth-and-2 from the 32.

Kicker Carter Davis’s 49-yard attempt with 33 seconds left in the half had the distance but drifted right and clanged off the goalpost to send the Hoosiers into the break ahead 10-0. IU went into the locker room with a 100-yard edge in total offense (169-69) and 11 first downs to Miami’s three. The Hurricanes were 0 of 6 on third down.

But the momentum built during that drive carried over into the third quarter. After sacking Mendoza twice and forcing an IU punt, Miami scored on its second play of the half via a 57-yard run by Fletcher, who waited patiently for a seam to open on the right side before going untouched into the end zone to make it 10-7 less than four minutes into the half.

That was the sixth run of at least 50 yards given up by the Hoosiers’ defense this season, more than all but five teams in the FBS.

Two drives later, following another IU punt, Miami was stopped short on a third-and-8 completion to Toney and lined up to punt back to the Hoosiers at its 16-yard line with 5:04 left in the third quarter.

Miami’s special teams were again an issue: IU’s Mikail Kamara blocked Dylan Joyce’s punt, which bounced into the end zone and was recovered by Isaiah Jones to put the Hoosiers back up by double digits at 17-7.

That was the first blocked punt for a score in College Football Playoff history.

The Hurricanes remained composed and provided a response. Starting at its 19 with five minutes to go in the third quarter, Miami went 81 yards in 10 plays, ending with Fletcher’s second touchdown run from 3 yards out, and drew within a field goal at 17-14 with 14:57 to play.

Miami had dominated the third quarter and put the Hoosiers on their heels. After that score, the Hurricanes were ahead in total offense with 222 yards to IU’s 180; the defense held Mendoza without a completion in the quarter.

But the fourth quarter would belong to the Hoosiers.

IU would have a major answer behind a rejuvenated Mendoza. He threw for 37 yards on the next drive, including a key 19-yard completion to Becker on fourth-and-5 from the Miami 37, and then ran it in from 12 yards out on fourth-and-4 from the 12 to put Indiana ahead 24-14 with 9:18 left.

Yet Miami would not go away thanks to more open-field brilliance from Toney. The Hurricanes needed just 2:34 to go 91 yards and make it 24-21 via Toney’s weaving 22-yard touchdown on a short completion from Beck. The former Georgia transfer found Toney for a 41-yard two plays earlier to drive deep into IU territory.

With 6:37 left, the Hoosiers took over at their 25 with a chance to put Miami in a serious bind with another score. Again, Mendoza stepped up to deliver one final blockbuster sequence.

He hit Cooper for 14 yards on a third-and-5 from IU’s 31. He then found Becker for 19 yards on third-and-7 from the 48 to get the Hoosiers across midfield. After Hemby went around the right end for 10 yards on the following play, the Hoosiers were set up at the Miami 23 at the two-minute timeout.

Hemby then ran for 9 yards and Miami called its first timeout. IU followed that with a key false start to make it second-and-6 from the 19 with 1:56 to play. The Hoosiers gained a yard on the next runs, both of which were followed by Miami timeouts, to make it fourth-and-4 from the 18.

Radicic made the 35-yard field goal to grow the lead to 27-21 with 1:42 left, but Miami was left in position to win the game with a touchdown.

The Hurricanes committed a false start on the first play. Beck was hit and threw incomplete on first-and-15. Next, Beck again missed his target but the Hoosiers were flagged for a late hit, giving Miami a first down at its 35-yard line.

A 7-yard gain from Beck to Toney with 51 seconds left moved the Hurricanes into IU territory at the 47. On the next snap, Beck arced a throw down the left sideline toward Keelan Marion. But Marion wasn’t looking for the ball; defensive back Jamari Sharpe undercut Marion and intercepted at the Hoosiers’ 7-yard line to seal the win.

Before going 11-2 and losing in the opening round of last year’s playoff, IU had never won more than nine games in a season. The 2025 team is the first national champion since Yale in 1894 to finish 16-0. In their final four games, the Hoosiers beat teams then ranked No. 1, No. 5, No. 10 and No. 11 in the US LBM Coaches Poll.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Exploration drilling underway and PFS-level technical programs ongoing at the Company’s Saskatchewan gold project

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR,OTC:FTBYF) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQB: FTBYF) (‘Fortune Bay’ or the ‘Company’) is entering 2026 with a strengthened balance sheet and a clear strategic focus on advancing its Goldfields Gold Project (‘Goldfields’ or the ‘Project’), a gold development asset in Saskatchewan, one of the world’s top-tier mining jurisdictions.

Following a year of significant technical and corporate progress in 2025, the Company is fully funded to execute its planned 2026 program at Goldfields, centered on; 1) project development work, that includes advancing toward a Prefeasibility Study (‘PFS’) in tandem with permitting activities, and 2) exploration drilling targeting additional near-mine ounces that could further strengthen Goldfields’ excellent economics. Exploration drilling has resumed after the holiday break and initial drill results are expected in the first quarter of 2026.

Goldfields is very well-positioned for advancement, with excellent PEA economics, a high-confidence mineral resource base, established infrastructure, and the benefit of Saskatchewan’s stable, top-tier jurisdiction.‘ said Dale Verran, CEO of Fortune Bay. ‘The work completed in 2025 strengthened the project’s technical foundation and firmly set the stage for expedited advancement. With funding secured, our priority in 2026 is disciplined execution, advancing development while growing the resource and positioning Goldfields to unlock meaningful value as the gold market continues to strengthen.’

2025: A Year of Demonstrating Project Value and Setting the Stage for Advancement

Throughout 2025, Fortune Bay advanced Goldfields through a series of key milestones aimed at strengthening technical confidence, improving execution readiness, and positioning the project for the next stage of value creation.

Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment: Defining an Expedited Development Path

In September 2025, Fortune Bay completed an independent Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment (‘Updated PEA’) for Goldfields, confirming the project as a robust open-pit development asset supported by a well-defined resource base, existing infrastructure, and Saskatchewan’s stable regulatory environment.

At a base-case gold price of US$2,600/oz, the Updated PEA outlined after-tax economics of C$610 million NPV (5%) and a 44% IRR, with initial capital estimated at C$301 million. At spot gold prices at the time of the study (US$3,650/oz), the after-tax NPV (5%) increased to C$1.25 billion, highlighting the project’s strong sensitivity to gold prices. On average, every US$100 change in the gold price assumption results in an approximate C$61 million change in after-tax NPV.

The Updated PEA positions Goldfields for accelerated advancement toward construction by maintaining throughput below 5,000 tpd, enabling the Project to remain within the provincial permitting framework. This expedited pathway is supported by established infrastructure, a de-risked resource base (with 97% of ounces in the mine plan classified as Indicated), and a valid provincially approved Environmental Impact Statement (‘EIS’) from 2008 for a 5,000 tpd open-pit operation.

To read the full release visit https://fortunebaycorp.com/news/post/fortune-bay-announces-updated-pea-for-goldfields-saskatchewan.

Permitting Work: Advancing Execution Readiness

Alongside the Updated PEA, Fortune Bay advanced environmental baseline studies during 2025, building upon extensive historical datasets and the existing EIS. Both aquatic and terrestrial baseline environmental studies were completed in late 2025, with final reporting and ongoing monitoring continuing into early 2026 and beyond.

In addition, a well-attended community tour of Indigenous communities and municipalities was completed in November 2025 to support early engagement on the development of Goldfields. Productive meetings were also held with Chiefs and Council members from local Indigenous nations to introduce the project and seek initial feedback from leadership.

Post-PEA Technical Programs: Advancing Toward PFS-Level Studies

Following completion of the Updated PEA, the Company initiated a series of post-PEA technical programs aimed at further de-risking the project and advancing studies toward the PFS level. This work included high-resolution topographic (LiDAR) survey, waste rock characterization, metallurgical testwork, and planning for additional PFS-level work programs.

Exploration: Positioning for Resource Expansion

In parallel with project development work, Fortune Bay refined exploration targets across the Goldfields property, integrating historical drilling, updated geological modeling, and insights gained through the PEA process. This work directly informed the design of the current exploration drilling program targeting additional near-mine ounces that could further strengthen Goldfields’ exceptional economics and improve the overall development profile. 

2026: Funded, Focused, and Advancing

With funding secured, Fortune Bay’s 2026 work program is designed to translate the technical and permitting progress achieved in 2025 into tangible value advancement at Goldfields. The Company enters the year with a clear operational focus and the financial capacity to execute its plans without near-term capital constraints.

Exploration

A central component of the 2026 program is resource expansion drilling, targeting priority areas identified through recent geological modeling and insights gained from the Updated PEA. The drilling is intended to test the potential to further strengthen project scale, extend mine life, and enhance the overall development profile. Initial drill results are expected in the first quarter of 2026.

Project Development

The Company plans to advance three key project development strategies in parallel; 1) PFS-level work streams, 2) Saskatchewan-led environmental approvals, and 3) community consultation and engagement.

PFS-level work streams will include expanded geotechnical, metallurgical and waste rock geochemistry investigations. Metallurgical and waste rock studies in 2025 were scoped to inform and support design of optimized PFS-level investigations in 2026. An integrated work program is being developed to reduce the amount of drilling required to the extent possible.

  • Geotechnical drilling and investigations, in tandem with hydrogeological survey, will expand on historical studies to further characterize host-rock physical properties and support optimization of the open pit design. Surface investigations and soil profile testing will also be carried out to support higher-confidence infrastructure design, including that of the tailings storage facility, process plant and other site infrastructure.
  • Metallurgical studies will include expanded testing to better constrain parameters around process plant design and reagent consumption, including broad-scale variability testing.
  • Waste rock characterisation study will be carried out, including acid base accounting and geochemistry, to support waste rock facility design and complement site water balance and environmental (permitting) advancement.

Results from recent baseline environmental studies and the waste rock characterization program will be integrated with feedback from early engagement activities and the project scope outlined in the Updated PEA to inform development of the Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal is the first step in the provincial environmental assessment process and will be used as a basis for initiation of regulatory engagement with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment in Q1 of 2026. This work will build upon the Provincially-approved 2008 Environmental Impact Statement for a 5,000 tpd open-pit operation. Community engagement will continue in 2026 to strengthen relationships and continue meaningful dialogue on the project with the public and local Indigenous Nations, including rights holders.

The technical progress achieved at Goldfields in 2025, and the fully funded program planned for 2026, reinforce the Company’s strategy of disciplined, cycle-aware advancement of a high-quality gold asset in a top-tier jurisdiction.

Technical Report & Qualified Person

Details for the Updated PEA for Goldfields are provided in the technical report titled ‘Goldfields Project Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report & Preliminary Economic Assessment, Saskatchewan, Canada‘, dated October 20, 2025, prepared by Kevin Murray, P.Eng.; Scott C. Elfen, P.E.; James Millard, P.Geo.; Jonathan Cooper, P.Eng.; Marc Schulte, P.Eng.; Cliff Revering, P.Eng.; and Ron Uken, Pr.Sci.Nat. for Fortune Bay Corp. The technical report is available under the Company’s issuer profile on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and on the Company’s website at www.fortunebaycorp.com.

The technical and scientific information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Gareth Garlick P.Geo., Vice-President Technical Services of the Company, who is a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101. Mr. Garlick is an employee of Fortune Bay and is not independent of the Company under NI 43‑101.

About Fortune Bay

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV:FOR,OTC:FTBYF; FWB:5QN; OTCQB:FTBYF) is a Canadian mineral exploration and development company with assets in Canada and Mexico. The Company’s primary focus is advancing the Goldfields Gold Project in Saskatchewan, Canada. Fortune Bay also holds the Poma Rosa Gold-Copper Project in Chiapas, Mexico, as well as an optioned uranium project portfolio in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan. Fortune Bay continues to evaluate and advance its portfolio in a disciplined manner while maintaining a strong technical foundation and prudent capital management. For more information, please visit www.fortunebaycorp.com or contact info@fortunebaycorp.com.

On behalf of Fortune Bay Corp.

‘Dale Verran’
Chief Executive Officer
902-334-1919

Cautionary Statement

Information set forth in this news release contains forward-looking statements that are based on assumptions as of the date of this news release. These statements reflect management’s current estimates, beliefs, intentions, and expectations. They are not guarantees of future performance. Words such as ‘expects’, ‘aims’, ‘anticipates’, ‘targets’, ‘goals’, ‘projects’, ‘intends’, ‘plans’, ‘believes’, ‘seeks’, ‘estimates’, ‘continues’, ‘may’, variations of such words, and similar expressions and references to future periods, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, and include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to: the results of the Updated PEA, including future Project opportunities, future operating and capital costs, closure costs, AISC, the projected NPV, IRR, timelines, permit timelines, and the ability to obtain the requisite permits, economics and associated returns of the Project, the technical viability of the Project, the market and future price of and demand for gold, the environmental impact of the Project, and the ongoing ability to work cooperatively with stakeholders, including Indigenous Nations, local Municipalities and local levels of government. Since forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Although these statements are based on information currently available to the Company, the Company provides no assurance that actual results will meet management’s expectations. Risks, uncertainties and other factors involved with forward- looking information could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Forward looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, the Company’s objectives, goals or future plans, statements, exploration results, potential mineralization, the estimation of mineral resources, exploration and mine development plans, timing of the commencement of operations and estimates of market conditions. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to failure to identify mineral resources, failure to convert estimated mineral resources to reserves, the inability to complete a feasibility study which recommends a production decision, the preliminary nature of metallurgical test results, delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required governmental, environmental or other project approvals, political risks, inability to fulfill the duty to accommodate Indigenous Nations and local Municipalities, uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future, changes in equity markets, inflation, changes in exchange rates, fluctuations in commodity prices, delays in the development of projects, capital and operating costs varying significantly from estimates and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration and development industry, and those risks set out in the Company’s public documents filed on SEDAR. Although the Company believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking information in this news release are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by law. For more information on Fortune Bay, readers should refer to Fortune Bay’s website at www.fortunebaycorp.com.

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

SOURCE Fortune Bay Corp.

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2026/20/c5036.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

After the Rose Bowl, it was a movie. But after the national championship, it became real.

Moments after defeating Miami 27-21 in a thrilling national championship that came down to the wire, Indiana coach Curt Cignetti finally allowed himself to believe a Hoosiers football national championship is possible.

Speaking to ESPN’s Molly McGrath on the field after the game, Cignetti broke down how Indiana won its first national title, while also inserting some of his now-customary sentimentalism. The coach, already a legend in his own right, was all smiles following the win, even as he acknowledged some of the struggles Indiana faced over the course of the game.

Celebrate Indiana’s title with books, page prints, more

‘It took a lot to get here, but I’ll tell you what it took to come out ahead in this game was a lot of guts,’ Cignetti said. ‘I give Miami a lot of credit they played really hard. We couldn’t get anything done on offense — couldn’t protect the quarterback at all … Let me tell ya: We won the national championship at Indiana University. It can be done. And I’m so happy for our fans. Words can’t describe it.’

As the interview ended, Cignetti concluded with what seems to be another motif he’s adopting. After McGrath asked him how he was going to celebrates, he said while beaming: ‘I’m gonna have a beer.’

It wasn’t a perfect win for Cignetti and the Hoosiers, but to hear him tell it, that’s what made it special. Even as he listed everything that went wrong in the game, Cignetti had high praise for Fernando Mendoza and his players. After his beer, Cignetti will undoubtedly be back to work preparing for 2026, as Indiana gets ready to defend a title for the first time ever.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Robert Saleh is back among the head coaching ranks of the NFL.

The Tennessee Titans are hiring Saleh, the San Francisco 49ers’ defensive coordinator, to be their next head coach, a person with knowledge of the situation confirmed to The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deal was not yet finalized.

NFL Media’s Ian Rapoport reported on Jan. 18 that the Titans had scheduled Saleh for an in-person interview on Jan. 19, right after their interview with Kansas City Chiefs offensive coordinator Matt Nagy. Saleh had a second interview scheduled with the Arizona Cardinals on Jan. 20, per NFL Media’s Tom Pelissero, but Tennessee did not let him leave its building without a deal.

Saleh, 46, spent three and a half years as head coach of the New York Jets between 2021 and 2024. He joined the Green Bay Packers staff in the middle of the 2024 season as an offensive consultant. Before the 2025 season, Saleh returned to San Francisco for a second stint as the team’s defensive coordinator, a role he originally served under head coach Kyle Shanahan from 2017 to 2020.

Tennessee’s head coach vacancy has been open since Week 6, when the Titans fired former head coach Brian Callahan amid his second season in charge after the team got off to a 1-5 start. Callahan finished his tenure with a 4-19 record as Tennessee’s head coach.

Saleh takes over a Titans team that just drafted quarterback Cam Ward with the No. 1 overall pick in 2025 and owns the No. 4 overall pick in the 2026 NFL Draft.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

If Indiana football can pull out the win in the College Football Playoff national championship game, it will be because of the aggression from Curt Cignetti to go for it on fourth down in the fourth quarter… twice.

Following a timeout to mull over the decision with a three-point lead, Cignetti sent the offense back out on the field, and did it ever work out in the Hoosiers’ favor. Their Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback, Fernando Mendoza, bulldozed his way to the end zone for a 12-yard rushing touchdown.

The gusty touchdown call pushed the Hoosiers’ lead back up to a 10-point game with just over nine minutes remaining at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida.

‘That’s why he won the Heisman Trophy,’ ESPN’s Chris Fowler said on the broadcast at the end of the touchdown call.

Added Kirk Herbstreit: ‘What a call from Curt Cignetti and the offensive coordinator Mike Shanahan.’

It was the second fourth-down conversion that the Hoosiers were able to convert on their first scoring drive since the second quarter, as Mendoza connected with Charlie Becker for a ridiculous catch as he fell backwards on the field along the sidelines.

Mendoza’s rushing score was just his seventh on the ground this season for the Miami native. It also got a heartwarming reaction from his mom, Elsa — who is battling multiple sclerosis — from the stands with the rest of the Mendoza family.

The Hurricanes responded to Mendoza’s touchdown with a 22-yard touchdown pass from Carson Beck to Malachi Toney, bringing the score back to a one-possession game at 24-21 with 6:37 remaining in the fourth quarter.

If Mendoza and Indiana can pull out the win over Miami, the Hoosiers will win their first-ever national championship in program history. It would also give the Big Ten their third consecutive CFP championship, with the last two coming from Michigan and Ohio State.

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fastDownload for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

It was a busy week on the NCAA women’s hockey schedule. 

Most of the women’s Beanpot championship took place in Boston, with the home of the Boston Bruins hosting the final two games on Tuesday. Boston College takes on Northeastern in the third-place game at 4:30 p.m. ET, while Harvard and Boston University will battle for the championship at 7:30 p.m. ET.

All of the nation’s top programs were in action this past week as well.

While the WCHA’s top three teams maintained their dominance, Minnesota-Duluth was this week’s biggest dropper in the women’s college hockey power rankings. The Bulldogs have gone winless in six straight games. The Yale Bulldogs, meanwhile, are on the rise.

Here’s a look at the top 10 NCAA women’s hockey programs this week.

Women’s college hockey power rankings

1. University of Wisconsin (WCHA)

This team continues to mow through the competition. Since being left of USA’s Olympic roster, Lacey Eden has been a force to be reckoned with. She scored two goals in each of Wisconsin’s 5-1 wins over St. Thomas this weekend. Every weekend, a new leader steps forward in Wisconsin, which makes them such a difficult team to plan for and beat.

2. Ohio State University (WCHA)

The Buckeyes swept through conference rival Minnesota State with ease. A four-goal performance from Joy Dunne and a four-point night from Jocelyn Amos powered Ohio State’s offense on Friday, while Swedish Olympian Hilda Svensson continued her spectacular rookie season. If there’s one question mark remaining for Ohio State, it’s in net where they’ve played three different goaltenders this season. None has emerged as a clear difference-maker.

3. University of Minnesota (WCHA)

It’s a broken record at this point, but Abbey Murphy has become unstoppable. Murphy recorded her fifth and sixth straight multi-point games this weekend. She notched eight points in two games, boosting her nation-leading totals to 33 goals and 58 points in 24 games. Uniquely, she also leads the nation in penalty minutes. Minnesota showed no mercy to Bemidji State this past weekend, outscoring them 16-4 in a series sweep.

4. Penn State (AHA)

Penn State is a difficult program to judge. They keep winning, but they haven’t looked as dominant lately, and many of their wins continue to come against weaker opponents with thinner margins. They beat Syracuse 3-2 and 4-1, with captain and American national team member Tessa Janecke continuing to lead as Penn State’s top scorer and best player. The question is: where would Penn State rank if it played in the ECAC or the WCHA? 

5. Princeton (ECAC)

Princeton’s best continue to get better as Issy Wunder and Mackenzie Alexander lead the way. The Tigers’ depth, however, also stepped forward in wins over Harvard and Dartmouth. One significant change since last season is the return of Uma Corniea in net. She’s been the consistent and reliable factor Princeton needed, stopping 33 of 34 shots faced over the weekend.

6. Quinnipiac (ECAC)

Felicia Frank has been the busiest goaltender in NCAA women’s hockey this season, and she may be the best as well. She only bettered her numbers this past week, winning both starts while turning aside 37 of 38 shots faced in wins over Dartmouth and Harvard. Kahlen Lamarche continues to add to her career-best season totals, including nearly doubling her goal output from last season as she now sits at 27 in 26 games.

7. Northeastern (Hockey East)

With more midweek action approaching to close out the Beanpot, Northeastern won its only matchup of the weekend, a 2-1 decision over New Hampshire. Eloise Caron scored both for the Huskies, which looked out of sorts after failing to punch their ticket to the Beanpot final. They fell 2-1 in an emotional overtime upset at the hands of Boston University last Tuesday. 

8. Yale (ECAC)

Watch out, top 10, Yale is hot. Yale beat higher-ranked Colgate and Cornell this weekend, with goaltender Samson Frey picking up the Bulldogs’ third shutout in four games and captain Carina DiAntonio continuing to power their offense. Yale even beat Providence College 4-2 on Monday, with Hannah Weyerhaeuser recording a hat trick. It’s not just the results, but how they’re achieving those wins that have them moving up the rankings.

9. Cornell (ECAC)

Cornell fell to Yale but beat a red-hot Brown team. Annelies Bergmann remains their deciding factor in net. When she’s at the top of her game, this team doesn’t lose. But their continued struggles to score put a lot of onus on Bergmann’s play. Sometimes, even making at least 30 saves isn’t enough for a win, which was the case in Cornell’s loss to Yale. 

10. University of Minnesota-Duluth (WCHA)

January hasn’t been kind to Minnesota-Duluth. Since their sluggish start overseas in Northern Ireland, the Bulldogs haven’t been themselves. They tied St. Cloud State in the first game before losing the extra point in a shootout, and they lost to them again in the second game, 5-2. This team is spiraling, having not won a game in its last six.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Investor Insight

Sun Summit Minerals is targeting the delineation of a multi-million-ounce gold-silver resource at its flagship JD project. With strategic positioning in an emerging consolidation hotspot, compelling valuation metrics, and a track record of discovery, Sun Summit is primed to deliver substantial value creation in the coming quarters.

Overview

Sun Summit Minerals (TSXV:SMN,OTCQB:SMREF) is a Canadian mineral exploration company focused on developing its district-scale gold and copper projects in British Columbia.

The company has completed its 2025 exploration programs at the flagship JD Project and its inaugural exploration program at the Theory Project, located in the Toodoggone District.

Complementing JD and Theory is the company’s Buck project, a large, bulk-tonnage gold-silver system near Houston, BC, with an initial NI 43-101 resource estimate and significant exploration upside.

With capital in hand, a five-year exploration permit secured, and a camp established at JD, Sun Summit is executing a focused strategy to build scale, unlock resource potential and drive shareholder value. Under the leadership of its new CEO, the company has re-focused its strategy with a sharpened vision, a strengthened technical and leadership team, and a portfolio of high-quality, strategically located assets positioned to drive long-term shareholder value.

Company Highlights

  • Tiered Exploration Strategy: Sun Summit Minerals is advancing a focused portfolio in British Columbia with its flagship JD Project in the Toodoggone District as the primary discovery driver, supported by early-stage exploration at the nearby Theory Project, and complemented by the Buck Project in central BC, a strategic asset with a published mineral resource estimate.
  • Strategic Location: Sun Summit’s assets are located in well-established and mining-friendly regions of British Columbia. The flagship JD project and early-stage Theory Project are situated in the prolific Toodoggone district—home to Thesis Gold and Centerra’s Kemess Mine, while Buck lies in Central BC near the Blackwater, Huckleberry, and Equity Silver mines.
  • Potential for Multiple Expansion: Trading at approximately US$38/oz gold equivalent (EV/oz) based on Buck alone, with no value currently ascribed to the JD Project, the company represents a deep value opportunity compared to its next-door neighbour, Thesis Gold, which trades at approximately US$136/oz. Success at the drill bit from ongoing exploration at JD could support a higher valuation over time.
  • Experienced, Capital Markets-Savvy Leadership: CEO Niel Marotta brings 30 years of capital markets acumen, including experience from Fidelity and Orezone. The broader team includes senior geologists and advisors with decades of success in gold discoveries and mine development in BC.
  • Positioned for Consolidation: With majors like Freeport, Centerra, and Skeena investing heavily in adjacent properties, Sun Summit’s flagship JD Project is strategically located and advancing at the right time in the Lassonde Curve to benefit from industry-wide M&A and consolidation trends.

Key Projects

JD & Theory Projects

The JD & Theory projects span more than 25,000 hectares in the heart of the Toodoggone mining district in north-central BC, one of Canada’s most prospective belts for epithermal gold-silver and porphyry copper-gold systems. The district is home to Thesis Gold’s Ranch and Lawyers deposits (4.6 Moz gold equivalent, C$700 million market cap), Centerra’s Kemess underground development, and TDG Gold’s Shasta-Baker project. Infrastructure around the project includes hydroelectric grid access, the nearby Sturdee airstrip and all-season roads.

Results from the 2025 drill campaign at Creek Zone

The JD project hosts a 4.5 km mineralized corridor, known as Creek-Finn, with multiple underexplored targets showing evidence of both high-grade veins and broad disseminated gold systems. Historic and recent drill highlights include:

  • 2.1 grams per ton (g/t) gold over 122.5 m including 121 g/t gold over 1.5 m (CZ-24-004)
  • 11.7 g/t gold over 22 m including 61.2 g/t gold over 4 m (CZ97-008)
  • 7.3 g/t gold over 35.7 m including 215.4 g/t gold over 1 m (JD95-0472)

The Creek Zone features high-grade epithermal veins within broader disseminated zones, supported by strong IP anomalies and gold-in-soil results up to 12.2 g/t gold. The Finn Zone hosts near-surface mineralization with extensive historical drilling (~270 holes) and is open in all directions. Other targets include McClair (porphyry copper), East McClair (copper-gold skarn) and Moosehorn.

Sun Summit Minerals has completed its 2025 21-hole, 6,864 -meter drill program, successfully intersecting gold mineralization in all holes. The results have defined a northwest-trending, structurally controlled zone measuring approximately 750 meters by 300 meters and extending to a vertical depth of around 150 meters. The zone remains open both along strike and at depth, highlighting significant potential for further expansion. A five-year permit secured in April 2025 provides exploration continuity through 2030.

Sun Summit can earn 100 percent of the JD project by making staged cash/share payments and completing work commitments through 2029. Following the completion of its 2025 exploration program, the company closed an $11.5 million financing on December 23, 2025, fully funding the 2026 exploration program and strengthening its ability to advance the earn-in without near-term dilution.

Buck Project

The 100 percent owned Buck project spans 52,000 hectares and is located near key deposits, including Artemis Gold’s Blackwater (8 Moz gold), Imperial’s Huckleberry copper mine, and Newmont’s historic Equity Silver mine. Buck features near-surface bulk-tonnage gold-silver mineralization with porphyry copper-molybdenum potential at depth.

In February 2025, Sun Summit published its inaugural NI 43-101 mineral resource:

  • Indicated: 1.15 Mt @ 0.519 g/t gold equivalent (19,100 oz)
  • Inferred: 52.2 Mt @ 0.489 g/t gold equivalent (820,400 oz)

Mineralization remains open in all directions.

Buck is considered a strategic asset providing leverage to rising gold prices and future transaction potential, but currently receives minimal capital allocation as JD is prioritized.

Sun Summit can earn 100 percent of the JD project by making staged cash/share payments and completing work commitments through 2029. With ~C$6 million earmarked for the project this year alone, Sun Summit is expected to fulfill its 2025 and 2026 earn-in obligations without additional equity raises.

Management Team

Niel Marotta – Chief Executive Officer and Director

Niel Marotta has three decades of capital markets experience, including a successful tenure at Fidelity (FMRCo.), where he managed the top-performing Select Gold Fund and oversaw >$1 billion in AUM. He was previously VP at Orezone Resources, where he helped lead its C$350 million acquisition by IAMGOLD. Marotta has raised over $1 billion in financing and is driving Sun Summit’s transition from a legacy explorer to a discovery-focused value generator.

Brian Lock – Executive Chairman

A veteran of the mining industry with 40+ years of executive experience, Brian Lock has led multiple public companies, including Castle Peak Mining and Scorpio Gold. His expertise spans project development, M&A and corporate governance.

Waseem Javed – Chief Financial Officer

A seasoned mining CFO, Waseem Javed ensures disciplined capital deployment and financial controls. His experience spans junior explorers and mid-tier producers across Canada and the US.

Ken MacDonald – VP Exploration

Ken MacDonald is a registered professional geologist with over 30 years in mineral exploration and permitting in BC. Formerly with the BC Mines Branch and multiple juniors, he leads Sun Summit’s technical programs and NI 43-101 compliance.

Christopher Leslie – Technical Advisor

An expert in porphyry and epithermal systems, Christopher Leslie led the discovery of the 8 Moz Blackwater deposit while at Richfield Ventures, and later served as VP exploration for Tower Resources. He was instrumental in advancing the JD-Theory project during its prior ownership.

Robert D. Willis – Senior Advisor

Founder of several successful exploration companies, including Pioneer Metals and Manhattan Minerals, Robert Willis has 35+ years of technical and executive experience across North and South America.

Terry Salman – Strategic Advisor

Founder of Salman Partners and one of Canada’s most influential mining financiers, Terry Salman has backed dozens of successful juniors over a 40-year career in mining investment banking.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com