The Conversation (0)
- WORLD EDITIONAustraliaNorth AmericaWorld
Investing News NetworkYour trusted source for investing success
March 27, 2025
Generation Mining Limited (TSX: GENM; OTCQB: GENMF) (“Gen Mining” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce positive results on the updated Feasibility Study (“2025 FS” or the “Feasibility Study”) for the Marathon Copper-Palladium Project (the “Project”) located near the Town of Marathon in Northwestern Ontario. All dollar amounts are in Canadian dollars (“$” or “C$”) unless otherwise stated. All references to “Mlbs” are to millions of pounds and “Moz” are to millions of troy ounces and “koz” are to thousands of troy ounces.
Highlights:
- Robust Base Case economics1: An after-tax NPV6% of $1.07 billion, IRR of 28% and 1.9 year payback period based on the 3-yr trailing average metal prices at the effective date2
- Strong critical mineral production during pre-production and the first three years of commercial operation: 151 Mlbs of payable copper, 720 koz of payable palladium and 156 koz of platinum
- Initial Capital: C$992 million3
- Attractive AISC:Life of mine (“LOM”) all-in sustaining costs (“AISC”) of US$2.05/CuEq lb or US$781/PdEq oz3
- At recent long-term consensus prices2: An after-tax NPV6% of $876 million, IRR of 24% and 2.2 year payback period, with 41% of payable metal revenues attributable to copper and 41% attributable to palladium
- At recent spot prices2: An after-tax NPV6% of $749 million, IRR of 21% and 2.4 year payback period, with 44% of payable metal revenues attributable to copper and 37% attributable to palladium.
- Average annual payable metals: 42 Mlbs copper,168 koz palladium, 38 koz platinum, 12 koz gold and 240 koz silver over approximately 13 years of mine life
- Jobs: Creation of over 800 jobs during construction and over 400 direct permanent jobs during operations
- The Next Critical Mineral, Shovel-Ready Project: Fully Permitted for Construction federally and waiting for approval on last permit from the Government of Ontario.
The 2025 FS incorporates the results of the Project optimization work reported by the Company in a news release entitled “Generation Completes Optimization Work for the Marathon Project with Improved Mine Plan and Reduced Capex” issued on November 20, 2024, which focused on two key aspects: 1) optimization of the mine plan to maximize metal production and defer waste stripping in the early years of operations in order to improve early cash flows and reduce the payback period (“Mine Plan Optimization”); and 2) optimization of the process plant design and layout, including sizing of key equipment, plant footprint and foundations, in order to reduce the initial Project capital costs (“Initial Capital Optimization”, and together with the Mine Plan Optimization, the “Optimization Work”).
The Optimization Work has now been further updated to incorporate changes to Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves, the Life-of-Mine (LOM) mining plan and operating and capital costs, using the same metal price assumptions which formed the basis of the November 20, 2024 news release.
The 2025 FS was prepared by Ausenco Engineering Canada ULC (“Ausenco”), along with contributions from Moose Mountain Technical Services (“MMTS”), Knight Piésold Ltd. (“KP”), P&E Mining Consultants Inc. (“P&E”), and JDS Energy and Mining, Inc (“JDS”).
The 2025 FS outlines the operation of an open pit mine and process plant over a mine life of 12.5 years and replaces the Company’s previous feasibility study entitled “Amended Feasibility Study Update, Marathon Palladium & Copper Project, Ontario, Canada” dated May 31, 2024.
Jamie Levy, President and CEO of the Company, commented, “The updated Feasibility Study for the Marathon Copper-Palladium Project clearly underscores its potential to be Ontario’s next producing critical mineral mine. The project not only benefits from a strong commodity mix of critical metals but also stands as a strategic Canadian response to growing threats in the global mineral supply chain.
The Marathon Project’s significant exposure to copper and palladium positions it as a uniquely attractive opportunity in the critical mineral space in North America. With copper facing long-term supply constraints and persistent supply risks from the primary palladium producers in Russia and South Africa, the Marathon Project is well positioned to support North American and European smelters. The Project’s advanced development and permitting is also a key differentiator, which positions us to bring metal to market faster than any other North American copper project not yet in construction.”
Kerry Knoll, Executive Chairman of the Company commented, “Anticipating the final permit approvals from the provincial government in the near future, the Marathon Project is on track to become the next major shovel-ready critical metal project in Ontario and Canada. The potential backing from provincial and national critical metal funds, combined with support from banks, private equity, institutional investors, and retail shareholders, provides a strong foundation for securing full financing in the near term.”
Economic Analysis
The updated Feasibility Study underscores the continued economic robustness of the Marathon Project with an after-tax NPV6% of $1.07 billion, IRR of 28% and 1.9 year payback period based on the 3-yr trailing average metal prices as of November 1, 2024.
The following table presents the key outputs of the economic analysis for the 2025 FS using 3-year trailing average metal prices, together with the same analysis performed using spot and consensus metal prices, and foreign exchange rate assumptions:
| Item | Units | 2025 FS(c) | March 25, 2025 Spot(d) | March 2025 long-term consensus(e) |
| Key Assumptions | ||||
| Exchange rate (C$/US$) | C$/US$ | 1.35 | 1.44 | 1.37 |
| Palladium Price | US$/oz | 1,525 | 965 | 1,133 |
| Copper Price | US$/lb | 4.00 | 4.43 | 4.52 |
| Platinum Price | US$/oz | 950 | 1,003 | 1,240 |
| Gold Price | US$/oz | 2,000 | 2,983 | 2,511 |
| Silver Price | US$/oz | 24.00 | 33.68 | 31.19 |
| Revenue Split (a) | ||||
| Palladium | % | 52 | 37 | 41 |
| Copper | % | 34 | 44 | 41 |
| Platinum | % | 7 | 9 | 10 |
| Gold | % | 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Silver | % | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Economic Results (b)(f) | ||||
| Pre-Tax Cash Flow (undiscounted) | $M | 3,009 | 2,291 | 2,576 |
| Pre-Tax NPV6% | $M | 1,660 | 1,189 | 1,375 |
| Pre-Tax IRR | % | 1.7 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| Pre-Tax Payback | years | 35.1% | 27.6% | 30.6% |
| After-Tax Cash Flow (undiscounted) | $M | 2,032 | 1,554 | 1,744 |
| After-Tax NPV6% | $M | 1,070 | 749 | 876 |
| After-Tax IRR | % | 1.9 | 2.4 | 2.2 |
| After-Tax Payback | years | 27.6% | 21.4% | 23.8% |
| Notes: | ||||
| (a) Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. Splits presented before adjustments for the impact of the Precious Metals Purchase Agreement (“PMPA”) with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (“Wheaton”). | ||||
(b) The economic analysis was carried out in real terms (i.e., without inflation factors) in Q4 2024 Canadian dollars, assuming no project construction financing but inclusive of mining equipment leasing. | ||||
(c) Metal price assumptions are based on the adjusted 3-year historical trailing averages as of November 1, 2024 for each of the metals. The 3-year averages are as follows: Palladium - US$1,523/oz, Copper at U$4.02/lb, Platinum at US$964/oz, Gold at US$1,995/oz and Silver at US$24.02/oz. | ||||
(d) March 25, 2025 spot prices of US$965/oz palladium, US$4.58/lb copper US$981/oz platinum, US$3,020/oz gold, US$33.68/oz silver and exchange rate of C$1.43 : US$1.00, source: Bloomberg | ||||
(e) Long-term consensus pricing provided by Haywood Securities as of March 24, 2025. | ||||
(f) See Non-IFRS Financial Measures, below, for additional information on Pre-Tax and After-Tax Cash Flows. |
Sensitivities
The Project has significant leverage to palladium and copper prices. The after-tax valuation sensitivities for the key metrics are shown below.
After-Tax NPV6% Results | Palladium Price Sensitivity (US$/oz) | ||||||||
800 | 1,000 | 1,250 | 1,500 | 1,525 | 1,750 | 2,000 | 2,200 | ||
Copper Price Sensitivity (US$/lb) | 2.50 | (291) | (9) | 308 | 612 | 643 | 916 | 1,214 | 1,466 |
3.00 | (120) | 145 | 452 | 758 | 788 | 1,057 | 1,368 | 1,606 | |
3.50 | 41 | 296 | 598 | 899 | 929 | 1,211 | 1,509 | 1,746 | |
4.00 | 194 | 438 | 741 | 1,040 | 1,070 | 1,352 | 1,649 | 1,886 | |
4.50 | 337 | 582 | 883 | 1,195 | 1,225 | 1,492 | 1,788 | 2,023 | |
5.00 | 484 | 723 | 1,023 | 1,335 | 1,365 | 1,632 | 1,927 | 2,165 | |
5.50 | 625 | 866 | 1,178 | 1,475 | 1,505 | 1,771 | 2,067 | 2,306 |
After-Tax IRR Results | Palladium Price Sensitivity (US$/oz) | ||||||||
800 | 1,000 | 1,250 | 1,500 | 1,525 | 1,750 | 2,000 | 2,200 | ||
Copper Price Sensitivity (US$/lb) | 2.50 | - | 5.7% | 13.5% | 19.9% | 20.5% | 25.5% | 30.7% | 34.5% |
3.00 | 2.8% | 9.6% | 16.4% | 22.4% | 23.0% | 27.8% | 32.7% | 36.4% | |
3.50 | 7.0% | 12.9% | 19.2% | 24.8% | 25.4% | 30.0% | 34.7% | 38.3% | |
4.00 | 10.5% | 15.8% | 21.7% | 27.1% | 27.6% | 32.1% | 36.6% | 40.1% | |
4.50 | 13.6% | 18.5% | 24.1% | 29.3% | 29.8% | 34.1% | 38.5% | 41.9% | |
5.00 | 16.4% | 21.0% | 26.4% | 31.4% | 31.9% | 36.0% | 40.3% | 43.6% | |
5.50 | 19.0% | 23.5% | 28.6% | 33.4% | 33.8% | 37.8% | 42.1% | 45.3% |
After-Tax Payback | Palladium Price Sensitivity (US$/oz) | ||||||||
800 | 1,000 | 1,250 | 1,500 | 1,525 | 1,750 | 2,000 | 2,200 | ||
Copper Price Sensitivity (US$/lb) | 2.50 | - | 7.8 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.5 |
3.00 | 10.4 | 5.6 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.4 | |
3.50 | 6.8 | 4.9 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | |
4.00 | 5.6 | 4.2 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.3 | |
4.50 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | |
5.00 | 4.2 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.2 | |
5.50 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
After-Tax Results | OPEX Sensitivity | ||||
+30% | +15% | 0% | -15% | -30% | |
NPV6% ($M) | 669 | 871 | 1,070 | 1,282 | 1,479 |
Payback (yrs) | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
IRR (%) | 21.2% | 24.6% | 27.6% | 30.5% | 33.1% |
After-Tax Results | CAPEX Sensitivity | ||||
+30% | +15% | 0% | -15% | -30% | |
NPV6% ($M) | 860 | 966 | 1,070 | 1,173 | 1,277 |
Payback (yrs) | 3.0 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.2 |
IRR (%) | 19.6% | 23.1% | 27.6% | 33.8% | 42.7% |
After-Tax Results | FX Sensitivity | ||||
1.25 | 1.30 | 1.35 | 1.40 | 1.45 | |
NPV6% ($M) | 840 | 955 | 1,070 | 1,199 | 1,313 |
Payback (yrs) | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
IRR (%) | 23.7% | 25.7% | 27.6% | 29.5% | 31.3% |
Capital Costs
The initial capital costs for construction and ramp-up, together with expected sustaining capital and closure costs, are presented in the table below:
Capital Area | 2025 FS ($M) |
Mobile Equipment for Construction(a) | 74 |
Processing Plant | 280 |
Infrastructure | 88 |
TSF, Water Management and Earthworks | 97 |
EPCM, General and Owners Cost | 198 |
Preproduction, Startup, Commissioning | 169 |
Contingency | 87 |
Initial Capital | 992 |
Preproduction revenue(b) | (184) |
Total | 809 |
Sustaining Capital | 565 |
Closure and Reclamation Costs | 72 |
Notes: | |
| (a) Mobile equipment acquired for Construction is presented as the cost of equipment deposits and lease payments during the construction and pre-production period. The remainder of the equipment leasing costs are incurred during operations and included in sustaining capital. | |
| (b) Revenue net of Related Off-Site Costs (Transport, Smelter, and Royalties) and working capital adjustments. See Economic Analysis, above, for additional information on the metal price assumptions used in the 2025 FS. |
Operating Costs
The Project operating costs have been updated and are reflected in the table below.
Description | Units | Operating Cost |
Mining(a) | $/t processed | 12.93 |
Processing | $/t processed | 8.57 |
General & Administration | $/t processed | 2.62 |
Concentrate Transport Costs | $/t processed | 1.96 |
Treatment & Refining Charges | $/t processed | 2.38 |
Royalties | $/t processed | 0.10 |
Total Operating Costs | $/t processed | 28.56 |
Average Operating Cost | US$/oz PdEq(c) | 663 |
Average All-in Sustaining Cost (b) | US$/oz PdEq(c) | 781 |
Average Operating Cost | US$/lb CuEq(c) | 1.74 |
Average All-in Sustaining Cost (b) | US$/lb CuEq(c) | 2.05 |
Notes: | ||
| (a) Mining cost per tonne mined is C$3.49/t . | ||
| (b) All-in sustaining cost excludes the impact of the Wheaton PMPA. | ||
| (c) See Non-IFRS Financial Measures, below, for additional information on Operating Costs, AISC, PdEq and CuEq. |
Mine Plan
The life of mine plan has been updated and the production details are summarized in the table below.
Units | 2025 TR | |
LOM Throughput | ||
Peak Process Plant Throughput | tpd | 27,700 |
Mt/year | 10.1 | |
Peak Mining Rate | tpd | 164,000 |
Mt/year | 60 | |
Mine Production (LOM) | ||
Total Mined | Mt | 489.7 |
Total Waste Mined | Mt | 361.4 |
Total Ore Mined | Mt | 128.3 |
Strip Ratio | waste:ore | 2.8 |
Payable Metal (LOM) | ||
Palladium | koz | 2,161 |
Copper | Mlbs | 532 |
Platinum | koz | 488 |
Gold | koz | 160 |
Silver | koz | 3,051 |
Mineral Resources
The Mineral Resource Estimate below is for the combined Marathon, Geordie and Sally Deposits. The Mineral Resource Estimates for Marathon, Geordie and Sally were prepared by P&E.
Pit Constrained Combined Mineral Resource Estimate for the Marathon, Geordie and Sally Deposits (Effective date November 1, 2024)
Mineral Resource Classification | Tonnes | Pd | Cu | Pt | Au | Ag | |||||
Mt | g/t | koz | % | Mlbs | g/t | koz | g/t | koz | g/t | koz | |
Marathon Deposit | |||||||||||
Measured | 164.0 | 0.56 | 2,973 | 0.20 | 712 | 0.18 | 970 | 0.07 | 358 | 1.7 | 9,089 |
Indicated | 38.1 | 0.39 | 476 | 0.18 | 153 | 0.13 | 159 | 0.06 | 71 | 1.6 | 1,896 |
Meas. + Ind. | 202.0 | 0.53 | 3,449 | 0.19 | 865 | 0.17 | 1,129 | 0.07 | 429 | 1.7 | 10,985 |
Inferred | 2.9 | 0.36 | 34 | 0.16 | 10 | 0.13 | 12 | 0.06 | 6 | 1.2 | 112 |
Geordie Deposit | |||||||||||
Indicated | 17.3 | 0.56 | 312 | 0.35 | 133 | 0.04 | 20 | 0.05 | 25 | 2.4 | 1,351 |
Inferred | 12.9 | 0.51 | 212 | 0.28 | 80 | 0.03 | 12 | 0.03 | 14 | 2.4 | 982 |
Sally Deposit | |||||||||||
Indicated | 24.8 | 0.35 | 278 | 0.17 | 93 | 0.2 | 160 | 0.07 | 56 | 0.7 | 567 |
Inferred | 14.0 | 0.28 | 124 | 0.19 | 57 | 0.15 | 70 | 0.05 | 24 | 0.6 | 280 |
Total Project | |||||||||||
Measured | 164.0 | 0.56 | 2,973 | 0.20 | 712 | 0.18 | 970 | 0.07 | 358 | 1.7 | 9,089 |
Indicated | 80.1 | 0.41 | 1,066 | 0.21 | 379 | 0.13 | 339 | 0.06 | 152 | 1.5 | 3,814 |
Meas. + Ind. | 244.1 | 0.51 | 4,039 | 0.20 | 1,091 | 0.17 | 1,309 | 0.06 | 510 | 1.6 | 12,903 |
Inferred | 29.8 | 0.39 | 370 | 0.22 | 147 | 0.10 | 94 | 0.05 | 44 | 1.4 | 1,374 |
| Notes: | |||||||||||
| a. Mineral Resources were estimated using the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions (2014) and Best Practices Guidelines (2019) prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council. | |||||||||||
| b. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, marketing, or other relevant issues. Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of Mineral Reserves. | |||||||||||
| c. The Inferred Mineral Resource in this estimate has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of the Inferred Mineral Resource could be upgraded to an Indicated Mineral Resource with continued exploration. | |||||||||||
| d. The Marathon Mineral Resource is reported within a constrained pit shell at a NSR cut-off value of $13.6/t. | |||||||||||
| e. Marathon NSR ($/t) = (Cu % x 111.49) + (Ag g/t x 0.73) + (Au g/t x 80.18) + (Pd g/t x 56.02) +(Pt g/t x 36.49) – 2.66 | |||||||||||
| f. The Marathon Mineral Resource Estimate was based on metal prices of US$1,550/oz Pd, US$4.250/lb Cu, US$1,100/oz Pt, US$2,300/oz Au and US$27/oz Ag, and a C$:US$ exchange rate of C$1.35 to US$1.00. | |||||||||||
| g. The Sally and Geordie mineral resources are reported within a constraining pit shell at a NSR cut-off value of $13/t. | |||||||||||
| h. Sally and Geordie NSR ($/t) = (Ag g/t x 0.48) + (Au g/t x 42.14) + (Cu % x 73.27) + (Pd g/t x 50.50) + (Pt g/t x 25.07) – 2.62 | |||||||||||
| i. The Sally and Geordie Mineral Resource Estimate was based on metal prices of US$1,600/oz Pd, US$3.00/lb Cu, US$900/oz Pt, US$1,500/oz Au and US$18/oz Ag, and a C$:US$ exchange rate of 1.30 C$ to 1.00 US$. | |||||||||||
| j. Contained metal totals may differ due to rounding. |
Mineral Reserves
The Mineral Reserve estimate for the Project includes only the Marathon Deposit. The Mineral Reserve Estimate was prepared by MMTS.
Marathon Project Open Pit Mineral Reserve Estimates
(Effective Date of November 1, 2024)
Mineral Reserves | Tonnes | Pd | Cu | Pt | Au | Ag | |||||
Mt | g/t | koz | % | M lb | g/t | koz | g/t | koz | g/t | koz | |
Proven | 115.5 | 0.66 | 2,434 | 0.22 | 549 | 0.20 | 754 | 0.07 | 264 | 1.7 | 6,242 |
Probable | 12.7 | 0.47 | 193 | 0.20 | 56 | 0.15 | 61 | 0.06 | 26 | 1.6 | 635 |
P & P | 128.3 | 0.64 | 2,627 | 0.21 | 605 | 0.20 | 815 | 0.07 | 291 | 1.8 | 6,877 |
Notes: | |||||||||||
| a. The mineral reserves estimate were prepared by Marc Schulte, P.Eng., who is also an independent Qualified Person, reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards, and have an effective date of November 1, 2024. | |||||||||||
| b. Mineral reserves are a subset of the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources Estimate that has an effective date of November 1, 2024. Inferred class Mineral Resources are treated as waste. | |||||||||||
| c. Mineral Reserves are based on the 2024 Marathon Project Feasibility Study Update mine plan. | |||||||||||
| d. Mineral Reserves are mined tonnes and grade; the reference point is the process plant feed at the primary crusher. Process Plant feed tonnes and grade include consideration of mining operational dilution and recovery. | |||||||||||
| e. Mineral Reserves are reported at a cutoff grade of $16/t NSR. The NSR cut-off assumes Pd Price of US$1,525/oz, Cu price of US$4.00/lb, Pt Price of US$950/oz, Au price of US$2,000/oz, Ag price of US$24/oz, at an exchange rate of 0.74 US dollar per 1.00 Canadian dollar; payable percentages of 95% for Pd, 96.5% for Cu, 93% for Pt, 93.5% for Au, 93.5% for Ag; refining charges of US$24.5/oz for Pd, US$0.079/lb for Cu, US$24.5/oz for Pt, US$0.50/oz for Ag; minimum deductions of 2.875 g/t for Pd, 1.1% for Cu, 2.875 g/t for Pt, 1.0 g/t for Au, 30.0 g/t for Ag; treatment charges of US$79/t and transport and off-site costs of US$125/t concentrates, concentrate ratio of 90.9%; metallurgical recoveries are based on variable grade dependent metallurgical recovery curves. | |||||||||||
| f. The NSR cut off-value covers process costs of $8.27/t, general and administrative (G&A) costs of $2.63/t, sustaining and closure costs of $3.13/t, ore mining differential costs of $0.57/t, and stockpile rehandle costs of $1.40/t. | |||||||||||
| g. Numbers have been rounded, which may result in summation differences. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (CIM (2014) definitions) were used for Mineral Reserve classification. |
Qualified Persons
The news release has been reviewed and approved by Daniel Janusauskas, P.Eng., Technical Services Manager of Generation PGM Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and a Qualified Person as defined by Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The 2025 FS was prepared through the collaboration of the following consulting firms and Qualified Persons, each of whom has reviewed and approved the technical information in this news release which was within their primary area of responsibility:
Consultant Company | Primary Area of Responsibility | Qualified Persons |
Ausenco Engineering Canada ULC | Overall integration, capital cost estimation compilation, process plant capital and operating costs, economic analysis, recovery methods, mineral processing and metallurgical testwork | Tommaso Roberto Raponi, P. Eng. |
JDS Energy and Mining, Inc. | Infrastructure, and earthworks capital cost estimates, and project execution plan | Jean-Francois Maille, P.Eng. |
Knight Piésold Ltd. | Tailings Storage Facility, water balance, geotechnical studies (mine rock storage piles, open pit and local infrastructure and foundations) | Craig N. Hall, P.Eng. |
Moose Mountain Technical Services | Mineral Reserves, mining methods, mining operating and capital cost estimate | Marc Schulte, P. Eng. |
P&E Mining Consultants, Inc. | Property description and location, accessibility, history, geological setting and mineralization, deposit types, exploration, drilling, sample preparation and security, data verification, Mineral Resource Estimates and adjacent properties | Eugene J. Puritch, P.Eng., FEC, CET Jarita Barry, P.Geo. Fred H. Brown, P.Geo. David Burga, P.Geo. William Stone, PhD, P.Geo. |
NI 43-101 Technical Report
The 2025 FS was prepared in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves adopted May 19, 2014, and in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Gen Mining intends to file the 2025 FS referenced in this news release as an NI 43-101 Technical Report on or before March 31, 2025. Readers are encouraged to read this Technical Report in its entirety, including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to the details summarized in this news release. The Technical Report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context.
About the Company
Gen Mining’s focus is the development of the Marathon Project, a large undeveloped copper-palladium deposit in Northwestern Ontario. The Marathon Property covers a land package of approximately 22,000 hectares, or 220 square kilometers. Gen Mining is dedicated to fostering a greener future by promoting sustainability, empowering communities, and delivering value to our stakeholders.
About Ausenco
Ausenco is a global company redefining what's possible. The team is based out of 21 offices working across 5 continents to deliver services worldwide. Combining deep technical expertise with a 30-year track record, Ausenco delivers innovative, value-add consulting, studies, project delivery, asset operations and maintenance solutions to the minerals and metals and industrial sectors (www.ausenco.com).
Non-IFRS Financial Measures and Other Measures
The Company has included certain financial measures in this news release, including initial capital cost, operating costs, AISC, and Pre-Tax and After-Tax Cash Flows, which are not measures recognized under IFRS and do not have a standardized meaning. These non-IFRS financial measures are included in this document because these statistics are measures that management will use to monitor future financial performance, and to plan and assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of future mining operations. The Company does not have historical non-IFRS financial measures nor historical comparable measures under IFRS, and therefore the foregoing prospective non-IFRS financial measures may not be reconciled to the nearest comparable measures under IFRS. Non-IFRS measures do not have any standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS, and therefore, they may not be comparable to similar measures employed by other companies. The data presented is intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS.
Non-IFRS performance measures used herein are defined as follows:
- Initial Capital includes all costs incurred from the effective date of the 2025 FS (excluding historical sunk costs) until the point where commercial production is achieved, including expenses related to engineering, equipment purchase and installation, process plant and mine infrastructure construction, and any other costs associated with putting the Project into operations.
- Operating Costs includes mining, processing, general and administrative and other, concentrate transportation costs, treatment and refining charges, and royalties. Costs related to the Wheaton PMPA are excluded.
- AISC includes Operating Costs, closure and reclamation costs, and sustaining capital.
- Pre-tax Cash Flow includes total revenue less Operating Costs, working capital adjustments, equipment financing, initial capital, sustaining capital, closure costs. Costs related to the Wheaton PMPA are included.
- After-tax Cash Flow includes Pre-tax Cash Flow less income taxes payable.
The Marathon Project is a polymetallic deposit. For purposes of estimating the Company’s anticipated costs and future financial performance, the Company discloses certain financial measures herein based on estimates of future palladium equivalent (“PdEq”) and copper equivalent (“CuEq”) metal production. The Company’s estimated PdEq and CuEq are calculated using the payable metals estimates derived from the Company’s LOM, as follows:
- Palladium Equivalent ounces uses the formula PdEq oz = Pd oz + (Cu lb x 4.00 US$/lb + Pt oz x US$950/oz + Au oz x US$2000/oz + Ag oz x US$24.00/oz) / US$1525 Pd/oz.
- Copper Equivalent pounds uses the formula CuEq lbs = Cu lbs + (Pd oz x US$1,525/oz + Pt oz x US$950/oz + Au oz x US$2000/oz + Ag oz x US$24.00/oz) / US$4.00 Cu/lb.
Information Concerning Estimates of Mineral Reserves and Resources
The Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates in this press release have been disclosed in accordance with NI 43-101, which differs from the requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and information with respect to mineralization and Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources contained herein may not be comparable to similar information disclosed by U.S. companies.
The SEC has adopted amendments to its disclosure rules to modernize the mineral property disclosure requirements under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). These amendments became effective February 25, 2019 (the “SEC Modernization Rules”) with compliance required for the first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2021. Under the SEC Modernization Rules, the historical property disclosure requirements for mining registrants included in Industry Guide 7 under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, will be rescinded and replaced with disclosure requirements in subpart 1300 of SEC Regulation S-K. As a result of the adoption of the SEC Modernization Rules, the SEC now recognizes estimates of “Measured Mineral Resources”, “Indicated Mineral Resources” and “Inferred Mineral Resources.” In addition, the SEC has amended its definitions of “Proven Mineral Reserves” and “Probable Mineral Reserves” to be “substantially similar” to the corresponding standards under NI 43-101. While the SEC will now recognize “Measured Mineral Resources”, “Indicated Mineral Resources” and “Inferred Mineral Resources”, U.S. investors should not assume that any part or all of the mineralization in these categories will ever be converted into a higher category of Mineral Resources or into Mineral Reserves. Mineralization described using these terms has a greater amount of uncertainty as to its existence and feasibility than mineralization that has been characterized as reserves. Accordingly, U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any Measured Mineral Resources, Indicated Mineral Resources, or Inferred Mineral Resources that the Company reports are or will be economically or legally mineable. Further, “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined legally or economically. Therefore, U.S. investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of the “Inferred Mineral Resources” exist. There is no assurance that any Mineral Reserves or Mineral Resources that the Company may report as “Proven Mineral Reserves”, “Probable Mineral Reserves”, “Measured Mineral Resources”, “Indicated Mineral Resources” and “Inferred Mineral Resources” under NI 43-101 would be the same had the Company prepared the Reserve or Resource Estimates under the standards adopted under the SEC Modernization Rules.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves, and do not have demonstrated economic viability, but do have reasonable prospects for economic extraction. Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are sufficiently well defined to allow geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed and permit the application of technical and economic parameters in assessing the economic viability of the Mineral Resource. Inferred Mineral Resources are estimated on limited information not sufficient to verify geological and grade continuity or to allow technical and economic parameters to be applied. Inferred Mineral Resources are too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them to enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that Mineral Resources of any classification can be upgraded to Mineral Reserves through continued exploration.
The Company’s Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource figures are estimates and the Company can provide no assurances that the indicated levels of mineral will be produced or that the Company will receive the price assumed in determining its Mineral Reserves. Such estimates are expressions of judgment based on knowledge, mining experience, analysis of drilling results and industry practices. Valid estimates made at a given time may significantly change when new information becomes available. While the Company believes that these Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates are well established and the best estimates of the Company’s management, by their nature Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates are imprecise and depend, to a certain extent, upon analysis of drilling results and statistical inferences which may ultimately prove unreliable. If the Company’s Mineral Reserve or Mineral Reserve Estimates are inaccurate or are reduced in the future, this could have an adverse impact on the Company’s future cash flows, earnings, results or operations and financial condition.
The Company estimates the future mine life of the Marathon Project. The Company can give no assurance that its mine life estimate will be achieved. Failure to achieve this estimate could have an adverse impact on the Company’s future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition.
Forward-Looking Information
This news release contains certain forward-looking information and forward-looking statements, as defined in applicable securities laws (collectively referred to herein as "forward-looking statements"). Forward-looking statements reflect current expectations or beliefs regarding future events or the Company’s future performance. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as "plans", "expects", "is expected", "budget", "scheduled", "estimates", "continues", "forecasts", "projects”, “predicts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “targets” or “believes”, or variations of, or the negatives of, such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “should”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved, including statements related to mineral resource and reserve estimates; proposed mine production plans; projected mining and process recovery rates (including mining dilution); estimates related to reclamation and closure costs; the timing for receipt of government permits, sufficient financing or to commence construction of the Marathon Project, metal prices and other economic assumptions (including currency exchange rates); projected capital and operating costs (including the AISC); the timing and volume of payable metal production and revenues; and the economic analysis and results (including cash flows, IRRs, NPVs and payback period).
Although the Company believes that the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in the statements. There are certain factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking information. These include the timing for a construction decision; the progress of development at the Marathon Project, including progress of project expenditures and contracting processes, the Company’s plans and expectations with respect to liquidity management, continued availability of capital and financing, the future prices of palladium, copper and other commodities, permitting timelines, exchange rates and currency fluctuations, increases in costs, requirements for additional capital, and the Company’s decisions with respect to capital allocation, and the impact of COVID-19, inflation, global supply chain disruptions, global conflicts, including the wars in Ukraine and Israel, the project schedule for the Marathon Project, key inputs, staffing and contractors, continued availability of capital and financing, uncertainties involved in interpreting geological data and the accuracy of Mineral Reserve and Resource Estimates, environmental compliance and changes in environmental legislation and regulation, the Company’s relationships with Indigenous communities, results from planned exploration and drilling activities, local access conditions for drilling, and general economic, market or business conditions, as well as those risk factors set out in the Company’s annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2023, and in the continuous disclosure documents filed by the Company on SEDAR+ at http://www.sedarplus.ca/.
Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect forward-looking statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this news release speak only as of the date of this news release or as of the date or dates specified in such statements. 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 the Company, investors are encouraged to review the Company’s public filings on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
| Footnotes: |
| 1 Unless otherwise noted, the economic analysis includes the impact of the WPM PMPA |
2 See Economic Analysis, below, for metal price and exchange rate assumptions |
3 See Non-IFRS Financial Measures, below, for additional information on Initial Capital, AISC, PdEq and CuEq. |
Contacts
For further information please contact:
Jamie Levy
President and Chief Executive Officer
(416) 640-2934 (O)
(416) 567-2440 (M)
GENM:CA
02 May
Deep-Sea Crisis: Can the ISA Regain Control of the Deep Ocean?
The world’s oceans are increasingly becoming an important new frontier in the geopolitical and economic race for critical minerals, with countries fast-tracking plans for deep-sea mining.
Meanwhile, the global body tasked with regulating such activities is struggling to keep pace.
As sovereign states ramp up efforts to access seabed resources crucial for clean energy and defense technologies, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) finds itself sidelined — raising alarms among environmentalists and nations alike.
Stoking these tensions, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month with the aim of expediting deep-sea mineral extraction in both national and international waters.
The directive, which calls for faster permitting and exploration, bypasses multilateral negotiations at the ISA and uses a 1980 domestic statute — the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act — to justify the unilateral action.
The order “establishes the US as a global leader in seabed mineral exploration and development both within and beyond national jurisdiction," signaling Washington’s intent to secure independence from Chinese mineral supply chains.
But the move has drawn fierce criticism from multiple fronts.
“The US authorization ... violates international law and harms the overall interests of the international community,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun. Such sentiments echo concerns that unilateral actions could unravel decades of work toward collective seabed governance under the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea.
At the heart of the dispute lies the ISA, the UN agency responsible for regulating mining in international waters.
Though it has issued over 30 exploratory permits, it has yet to finalize rules for commercial extraction. That regulatory vacuum has encouraged countries to approach the issue alone and in accordance with their own different agendas.
Norway reverses course on deep-sea mining
In January 2024, Norway became the first country to approve commercial-scale deep-sea mining within its own exclusive economic zone, greenlighting exploration across 280,000 square kilometers — an area larger than the UK.
The move, passed through parliament despite strong domestic and international opposition, is part of the country’s bid to secure metals like cobalt, scandium and lithium for green technologies.
“We will have a relatively long period of exploration and mapping activity to close the knowledge gap on the environmental impact,” Walter Sognnes, co-founder of Loke Marine Minerals, a Norwegian company focused on deep-sea exploration, told the BBC in an interview at the time the news was announced
However, environmentalists argued that the plan undermined Norway’s own standards.
“The Norwegian government always highlighted that they want to implement the highest environmental standards,” said Martin Webeler of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
“That is hypocritical whilst you are throwing away all the scientific advice.”
The Norway Institute of Marine Research also criticized the government’s decision, saying the existing environmental impact assessment was based on limited data and not representative of the vast areas opened for mining. It called for an additional five to 10 years of research before proceeding.
Against that backdrop, Norway reversed course, suspending its deep-sea mining plans at the end of 2024 following mounting political and environmental pressure.
The first licensing round, originally set for 2025, was blocked after the Socialist Left Party threatened to withhold support for the government’s budget unless the initiative was halted.
India eyes Clarion-Clipperton zone, Pacific Islands at crossroads
For its part, India has announced plans to ramp up its presence in the Pacific's Clarion-Clipperton zone, one of the world’s most mineral-rich deep-sea regions. Although the ISA has already granted India two exploration contracts, the country has opted to hold off on operations as regulations remain in flux.
M. Ravichandran, secretary of the country's Ministry of Earth Sciences, said the country is seeking to apply to the UN-backed ISA next year to focus on exploring the zone.
Meanwhile, the resource-rich Pacific Islands are emerging as battlegrounds in this high-stakes race.
Kiribati, a small island nation with jurisdiction over 75,000 square kilometers of prospective seabed, is reportedly in talks with China after a previous deal with Canada's The Metals Company (NASDAQ:TMC) collapsed late last year.
In a statement dated March 17, the Kiribati government called discussions with Chinese ambassador Zhou Limin “an exciting opportunity” to explore its deep-sea resources.
But critics say such moves by smaller nations are often driven by economic desperation and can lead to exploitative outcomes. This tension is familiar in Papua New Guinea, where the failure of the Nautilus Minerals project left environmental damage and financial losses in its wake.
Some Pacific nations are now calling for a global moratorium on seabed mining, citing concerns about the unknown risks to ecosystems and the climate.
Patchwork governance, fragmented oversight
The race toward seabed mining is exposing a critical flaw in global governance: fragmentation. The ISA, which was supposed to provide a unified framework, is losing relevance as more countries chart independent courses.
“The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom,” Jeff Watters, vice president for external affairs at the Ocean Conservancy, told the Guardian.
A study by the Natural History Museum and the UK’s National Oceanography Center analyzing a 1970s test site concludes that some sediment dwellers were able to recover, but larger animals dependent on polymetallic nodules did not return — likely because the nodules, which take millions of years to form, were destroyed.
Despite these warnings, the Metals Company continues to push forward. It has said it plans to mine by the year’s end, pending US government approval, as CEO Gerard Barron remains unfazed by the backlash.
“Here there’s zero flora,” Barron told the BBC in a January 2024 interview. “If we measure the amount of fauna… in the form of biomass, there is around 10g per square metre. That compares with more than 30kg of biomass where the world is pushing more nickel extraction, which is our equatorial rainforests.”
Beyond environmental concerns, the deep-sea mining surge is reshaping geopolitical dynamics. China, which dominates global production and processing of rare earths, has long used its position as leverage in trade disputes. In response to US tariffs, Beijing recently introduced new export controls on rare earths — further intensifying the mineral arms race.
Trump’s executive order makes clear that seabed mining is now viewed as a national security imperative.
“It’s not just drill, baby, drill. It’s mine, baby, mine,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum at a recent conference. “We will literally be at the mercy of others that are controlling our supply chains,” he warned.
But this approach risks setting a dangerous precedent. If powerful nations begin issuing their own licenses outside multilateral systems, others are likely to follow suit. The result could be a patchwork of conflicting claims and reduced protections, particularly for vulnerable maritime nations.
With the ISA still developing a mining code and more countries rejecting its pace, the world faces a dilemma: how to balance the urgent demand for critical minerals with the equally pressing need to preserve fragile marine ecosystems.
Don't forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
02 May
Opportunity or Overreach: Is Australia Making the Right Moves for Critical Minerals?
Australia is currently betting big on critical minerals.
Government support is growing, with the country positioning itself as a key player in the global energy transition; however, some are convinced that the nation is rushing into a crowded race.
The Albanese government recently vowed to establish a critical minerals strategic reserve upon re-election, pledging an initial investment of A$1.2 billion. In an April 24 announcement, the government outlines that the reserve would build on the Australian government's extensive investment in critical minerals through two new mechanisms.
Does an Australian critical minerals reserve make sense?
National offtake agreements are one of the planned mechanisms. These would allow the government to acquire agreed-upon volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects via voluntary agreements, or to establish an option to purchase at a given price, holding security over these assets as part of the strategic reserve.
The second mechanism outlined is selective stockpiling, wherein the government promises to establish Australian stockpiles of certain key critical minerals produced under offtake agreements as required.
Following the government's announcement, Tania Constable, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, published a piece on the move, questioning whether a critical minerals strategic reserve is the best approach.
In her view, the initiative is “certainly not without domestic risk,” and “may impact the commercial viability of operations through continued downward pressure on commodity prices.”
She recommends that Australia focus on fundamentals that will give it back an edge over other mining nations.
“That means lower energy prices, a windback of draconian industrial relations laws, and faster environmental approval times," Constable's statement reads.
Australia's current critical minerals strategy
Australia’s current Critical Minerals Strategy is focused on the period from 2023 to 2030, and is centred on developing strategically important projects, attracting and unlocking investment and promoting the country as a world leader in environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.
It also includes a commitment to reviewing the country's critical minerals and strategic materials list every three years, updating it in response to global strategic, technological, economic and policy changes.
As of writing, 31 critical minerals were recognised in Australia, plus six strategic materials.
AU$4 billion in total commitments are covered under the strategy, including AU$2 billion from the Critical Minerals Facility via Export Finance Australia, and an extra AU$2 billion in 2024.
In an article in the Australian, Lynas Rare Earths (ASX:LYC,OTC Pink:LYSCF) CEO Amanda Lacaze criticises the government's critical minerals policy, arguing that it is “flawed and uneconomical.”
She notes that even a significant portion of the fund wouldn't match Lynas' annual production costs. Lynas is recognised as the largest separated rare earths producer outside of China.
In a separate article written by the Australia-China Relations Institute, James Laurenceson, director at the University of Technology Sydney, says that the current strategy may be too optimistic.
In his view, the real problem is that Australia’s strategic partners aren’t delivering on their end of the supply chain further downstream. His recommendation is to focus on upstream activities like mining and processing, where Australia has a clear comparative advantage.
Critical minerals deals and funding heat up in Australia
Since the announcement of the Critical Minerals Strategy, Australia's critical minerals industry has seen various developments in mergers and acquisitions, as well as government project funding.
Notable M&A activity includes mining giant Rio Tinto's (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) acquisition of Arcadium Lithium, first announced as an all-cash transaction for US$6.7 billion in October 2024.
Another is the AU$560 million deal between Pilbara Minerals (ASX:PLS,OTC Pink:PILBF) and Latin Resources, made legally effective last January. The transaction gives Pilbara ownership of Latin’s Salinas lithium project in Brazil.
On top of these acquisitions are government funding to accelerate critical minerals projects.
Under the Critical Minerals Facility, Iluka Resources (ASX:ILU,OTC Pink:ILKAF) received AU$400 million from the Australian government in December, granted for the Enneaba rare earths refinery.
According to Iluka, the refinery will establish Western Australia as a strategic hub for the downstream processing of rare earths. It is expected to produce neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, terbium and more starting in 2027.
Alongside these moves, Australia is strengthening its rare earths strategy.
On February 12, Australia passed the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive, which will provide a refundable tax credit on 10 percent of eligible costs associated with the production of critical minerals and rare earths.
“The incentives are valued at AU$7 billion over the decade,” said Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King.
“The passing of this legislation is a historic moment for the resources industry and a big deal for resource states like Western Australia and Queensland,” she added. “By processing more of these minerals here in Australia we will create jobs and diversify global supply chains.”
Will history repeat itself?
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) states in an article that the critical minerals reserve would be an important step in securing Australia’s economic future, but warns that the nation must learn from “past mistakes.”
It points to the Pinjarra gallium refinery in Western Australia in its May 2 statement, saying that it represented one of the boldest critical minerals initiatives outside China in the late 1980s.
“Designed to produce 50 tonnes of gallium per year, it promised to place Australia at the heart of the global gallium and rare earths value chain, just as the modern world’s appetite for advanced materials was accelerating.”
However, in only a few years, Pinjarra encountered delays due to environmental permits; meanwhile, gallium prices crashed due to oversupply and China’s competitive spirit strengthened.
“Australia’s lack of midstream and downstream refining capacity added crushing costs and complexity,” ASPI explains in its commentary. “In short, Pinjarra had the ambition — but not the resilience — to withstand the inevitable shocks from operating in niche, high-risk commodity markets.”
The question ASPI poses now is: Can Australia guarantee that the same mistake will not be repeated?
According to the institute, Australia has the resources and strategic location.
“It must now summon the strategic patience and coordinated leadership needed to build true critical minerals sovereignty," ASPI concludes.
Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
02 May
Ontario Tables Sweeping Bill to Restrict Foreign Access to Critical Minerals
Ontario has introduced legislation aimed at tightening control over the province’s mining and energy sectors by limiting foreign involvement, fast-tracking resource development and scaling back species-at-risk protections.
The Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025, also known as Bill 5, was announced at the Toronto Stock Exchange on April 17 by Premier Doug Ford and Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce.
According to the government, the new bill is designed to “safeguard Ontario’s critical minerals, secure the province’s energy infrastructure, and reduce regulatory bottlenecks that hamper development.”
“With President Trump taking direct aim at our economy, it cannot be business as usual,” Ford declared during the announcement, referring to recent US moves to prioritize domestic supply chains for critical resources.
The proposed law would grant the Ontario government sweeping new powers over the mining sector.
These would include the ability to suspend or revoke mining claims, deny transfers or leases and limit access to Ontario’s Mining Lands Administration System — particularly for entities linked to “hostile foreign regimes.”
It would also allow the government to restrict foreign participation in the province’s energy sector.
“In today’s changing world, we need to be clear-eyed about the risks from those who want to exploit our resource bounty,” Lecce said in an April 25 press release that covers the legislation. “That is why it is essential that Ontario is protecting our critical minerals and energy sector from getting into the wrong hands.”
Kevin Holland, member of provincial parliament for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, added that the measures are especially significant for Northern Ontario, where the economy is deeply tied to resource extraction.
“Ontario is taking important actions to protect our mining and energy assets during this volatile time,” he said.
Rolling back environmental protections
According to the provincial government, the legislation is partially a response to concerns raised in a 2021 national security report in which Canada’s natural resources are identified as a strategic vulnerability.
However, the proposed legislation has sparked sharp criticism from environmental advocates who warn that Bill 5 undermines Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. It would be replaced with a much narrower Species Conservation Act that redefines what constitutes a species’ habitat.
Under current law, a habitat includes all areas a species needs to live, migrate and reproduce. The new definition reduces this to “a dwelling place, such as a den, nest or other similar place,” plus the immediate surrounding area.
Critics argue that this change all but guarantees habitat loss for vulnerable species.
“The definition of habitat is so narrow that what it means is less habitat than the species has now,” Laura Bowman, a lawyer with the environmental law charity Ecojustice, told CBC. “And less habitat than the species has now, for a species already in decline, virtually ensures extirpation or extinction,” she added
The bill would also eliminate the requirement for recovery strategies once a species is declared at risk — a key mechanism under the current law that sets out steps to restore populations to sustainable levels.
The legislation is part of Ontario’s push to accelerate development in the Ring of Fire, a mineral-rich region in the province’s far north. The Ford government has long touted the area’s potential to supply key inputs like nickel, lithium and chromite for electric vehicles and clean technologies. According to the government, Bill 5 will “cut red tape and streamline approvals” to jumpstart projects that are currently mired in lengthy environmental and consultation processes — often involving Indigenous communities whose territories overlap with planned developments.
Despite the growing need for secure critical minerals supply chains, the decision to pair national security rhetoric with the rollback of environmental protections is likely to ignite political and legal challenges in the months ahead.
Don't forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
29 April
Quarterly Activities/Appendix 5B Cash Flow Report
American Rare Earths Limited (ARR:AU) has announced Quarterly Activities/Appendix 5B Cash Flow Report
28 April
Western Australia to Fund 77 Mining Projects Through Exploration Grants
Western Australia’s Exploration Incentive Scheme (EIS) has announced another round of successful applicants.
In an April 23 statement, Mines and Petroleum Minister David Michael said 77 projects will benefit from total funding of AU$11.2 million. The projects are divided into three EIS programs: Round 31 of the Co-funded Drilling Program (CDP), Series 8 of the Energy Analysis Program (EAP) and Venture 2 of the Co-funded Geophysics Program (CGP).
A total of AU$7.8 million will be awarded as drill funding to 49 projects, while AU$3.2 million will be spread across 25 geophysics ventures. The remaining AU$200,000 will be divided between three projects under the EAP.
"The EIS plays a pivotal role in overcoming the financial barriers that often prevent early-stage projects from reaching their full potential, and we are committed to ensuring these opportunities prosper,” Michael said.
Among the 49 drill funding recipients are Wildcat Resources’ (ASX:WC8,OTC Pink:WDCTF) Tabba Tabba project and Western Mines Group’s (ASX:WMG) Mulga Tank, which are targeting critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and copper.
According to the government, approximately half of the drill funding recipients are targeting critical minerals, while 75 percent of CGP ventures are focused on uncovering new deposits.
Major diversified miner BHP's (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP) West Musgrave project, which is part of its Western Australia Nickel division, is among the latest recipients of CGP funding.
The project has been suspended since October 2024, and the new funding is expected to help advance development.
The EIS has assisted in advancing various projects over the years. Recently, Ora Banda Mining (ASX:OBM,OTC Pink:ESGFF) from Round 29 of the CDP identified high-grade gold mineralisation at its Little Gem discovery.
This round’s number of CDP recipients falls only one company short of the 50 successful applicants in Round 30, which was dedicated to projects drilling between December 2024 and November 2025. Round 32 of the CDP will open on August 4, 2025, while submissions for Series 9 of the EAP and Venture 3 of the CGP will have to wait until February 2026.
"I encourage all eligible companies to take advantage of the EIS and continue their valuable work in researching, exploring, and developing the minerals that are shaping our future," said Michael.
Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Australia for real-time news updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
10 April
Canadian Election Candidates Unveil Plans to Fast Track Mining and Energy Projects
With Canada’s energy and critical minerals sectors at a crossroads, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has unveiled a sweeping plan to overhaul the country’s resource project approvals process, fast tracking 10 major projects and pledging over US$1 billion in funding to open up Ontario’s mineral-rich Ring of Fire region.
At a Monday (April 7) press conference held in Terrace, BC, Poilievre introduced his “One-and-Done” policy — a streamlined permitting system aimed at eliminating regulatory bottlenecks and cutting multi-year wait times, which he blames for stalling development and weakening Canada’s global economic position.
Under the proposal, a new Rapid Resource Project Office would act as a centralized hub to manage all regulatory approvals across the federal and provincial levels. Each project would be subject to a single application and environmental review, with decisions promised within a year and a target of six months.
“After the Lost Liberal decade, Canada is poorer, weaker, and more dependent on the US than ever before, especially as a market for our natural resources,” Poilievre said in a release. “My ‘One-and-Done’ rule will quickly and safely unleash Canada’s natural resources by rapidly approving the projects Canadians need more of now: mines, roads, LNG terminals, hydro projects, and nuclear power stations, so we can stand on our own two feet and stand up to the Americans."
LNG Canada, Ring of Fire projects top Conservative agenda
Among the most significant commitments is the LNG Canada Phase II expansion in Northern BC, which would double liquefied natural gas output from 14 million to 28 million metric tons annually.
The expansion has faced numerous delays due to emissions caps and concerns over power supply.
A Conservative government, Poilievre said, would repeal federal legislation he calls obstructive — notably Bill C-69, which he brands the “No Pipelines - No Development Law” — and lift the emissions cap that could impede Phase II.
Also at the top of Poilievre’s list is development of the Ring of Fire — a vast area in Northern Ontario rich in chromite, nickel, cobalt and other critical minerals essential for electric vehicles and defense technologies.
Three weeks ago, Poilievre pledged that a Conservative government would approve all federal permits for Ring of Fire projects within six months and commit C$1 billion over three years to build a long-awaited access road connecting mineral deposits and Indigenous communities to the provincial highway network.
“We could boost our economy with billions of dollars, allowing us to become less dependent on the Americans, while our allies overseas would no longer have to rely on Beijing for these metals, turning dollars for dictators into paychecks for our people,” Poilievre said at the time, emphasizing the importance of supply chain security.
He also said companies operating in the Ring of Fire would be allowed to redirect a portion of their federal corporate taxes directly to local Indigenous groups, a move he argues would foster economic reconciliation and local buy in.
Nine other projects slated for acceleration
In addition to LNG Canada Phase II and the Ring of Fire road, Poilievre named nine other projects that his government would prioritize for review and approval:
- Suncor Energy's (TSX:SU,NYSE:SU) Base mine extension (Alberta): A 225,000 barrel per day bitumen expansion that has been under review since 2020.
- NexGen Energy's (TSX:NXE,NYSE:NXE) Rook 1 uranium project (Saskatchewan): A major uranium development awaiting Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approval since 2019.
- First Mining Gold's (TSX:FF,OTCQX:FFMGF) Springpole gold-silver project (Ontario): A proposed gold-silver mine with an on-site mill, in review since 2018.
- Agnico Eagle Mines' (TSX:AEM,NYSE:AEM Upper Beaver gold-copper project (Ontario): A gold-copper underground mine pending review since 2021.
- Northern Road Link (Ontario): A key multi-use road to connect Ring of Fire deposits, under review since 2023.
- Canada Nickel Company's (TSXV:CNC,OTCQX:CNIKF) Crawford nickel project (Ontario): A nickel project and mill, pending since 2022.
- Troilus Gold's (TSX:TLG,OTCQX:CHXMF) Troilus gold-copper project (Québec): In federal assessment since 2022.
- Sorel-Tracy port terminal (Québec): A new terminal in the St. Lawrence industrial corridor.
- AuMEGA Metals' (TSXV:AUM,OTCQB:AUMMF) Cape Ray gold project (Newfoundland): In review since 2017.
Each of these projects has faced lengthy delays under the current review framework, Poilievre said, and would be reviewed immediately to identify and remove administrative barriers.
Carney outlines "One Project, One Review" agenda
At a campaign stop in Calgary, Alberta, Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Mark Carney introduced the "One Project, One Review" policy, which is intended to expedite approvals for major mining projects in Canada.
The initiative aims to eliminate redundant federal and provincial environmental assessments by recognizing provincial evaluations, thereby streamlining the permitting process. The policy is designed to accelerate the development of critical minerals, such as lithium, cobalt and nickel, which are essential for clean energy technologies.
By reducing regulatory delays, the government would seek to enhance Canada's competitiveness in the global mining sector and support its transition to a sustainable energy future.
Carney told the crowd his goal is to make Canada an "energy superpower."
“We are going to aggressively develop projects that are in the national interest in order to protect Canada’s energy security, diversify our trade, and enhance our long-term competitiveness — all while reducing emissions,” Carney explained in a written statement on Wednesday (April 9). “We can lead the energy transition while ensuring affordable energy at home and building the strongest economy in the G-7.”
He pledged to expand Canada's critical mineral exploration tax credit to cover minerals used in defense, semiconductors, energy and cleantech. Carney also plans to broaden eligible exploration expenses to include technical studies and extend the clean manufacturing tax credit to support brownfield site development.
"This is huge,” Pierre Gratton, CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, told Bloomberg. “It includes an awful lot of stuff that we’ve been advocating for for a while, and not getting.”
He added, “This could really help increase Canadian production of critical minerals in the short- to medium-term.”
Don't forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
Latest News
Latest Press Releases
Related News
TOP STOCKS
American Battery4.030.24
Aion Therapeutic0.10-0.01
Cybin Corp2.140.00
Investing News Network websites or approved third-party tools use cookies. Please refer to the cookie policy for collected data, privacy and GDPR compliance. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to our use of cookies.