Inca to acquire Stunalara Metals Limited with high-quality gold/antimony exploration projects in North Queensland

Inca Minerals Limited (ASX: ICG) (Inca or the Company) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a binding Bid Implementation Agreement to acquire Stunalara Metals Limited (Stunalara) via an off market takeover bid (Bid). If successfully completed, Stunalara shareholders will be issued a total of ~ 300,000,000 fully paid Inca shares (being ~ 22.6% of Inca post Bid assuming no other shares are issued).

Stunalara Highlights

Stunalara is a public unlisted Australian exploration company with projects in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia.
Stunalara’s key asset is the high-grade gold & gold-antimony Hurricane exploration project in North Queensland (NQ) that has multiple undrilled high-grade gold & gold-antimony prospects developed from rock chip and grab sampling.
- Gold Prospects
  - Cyclone – up to 4.9 g/t (Au)
  - Cyclone North – up to 7.4 g/t (Au)
  - Monsoon – up to 4.0 g/t (Au)
  - Hurricane North – up to 45.7 (Au)g/t
  - Hurricane South – up to 41.5 g/t (Au)
  - Tornado – up to 17.6 g/t (Au)
  - Typhoon – up to 71.6 g/t (Au)
- Gold-Antimony Prospects
  - Bouncer South – Antimony (Sb) up to 20.8% & up to 7.9 g/t Au
  - Holmes – Sb up to 29.0% & up to 21.7 g/t Au
  - Holmes South – Sb up to 43.2% & up to 5.2 g/t Au
  - Pederson West – Sb up to 5.3% & up to 2.2 g/t Au

Transaction Highlights

At a deemed Inca share price of $0.006, the Bid consideration of 300,000,000 Inca shares implies a value of $1.8 million for Stunalara (fully diluted).
Stunalara shareholders will be offered 6.448981 Inca shares for every 1 Stunalara share held, valuing each Stunalara share at ~4.5 cents each (Offer)¹.
The Offer will be subject to standard conditions including, that, at or before the end of the Offer period, Inca has a relevant interest in at least 90% of all Stunalara shares on issue (on a fully-diluted basis).
Stunalara has engaged an Independent Expert to advise Stunalara shareholders on the fairness and reasonableness of the Offer as Inca director, Mr Andrew Haythorpe, is also a Stunalara director and holds a ~18.6% Stunalara shareholding. Stunalara has also established an independent board committee.
ASX has confirmed that Listing Rules 11.1.2 and 11.1.3 do not apply to the transaction.
Subject to there being no superior proposal and the Independent Expert concluding and continuing to conclude that the Offer is either fair and reasonable, or not fair but reasonable:
- Inca has been informed by Andrew Haythorpe that he intends to accept the Offer twenty-one days after the Offer becomes open for acceptance with respect to all Stunalara shares owned or controlled by him; and
- Inca has been informed the Stunalara Board will unanimously recommend that all Stunalara shareholders accept the Offer.
Under the Bid Implementation Agreement, a mutual reimbursement fee of $100,000 may be payable in certain circumstances by either Inca or Stunalara.
Further details about the Offer, conditions to the Offer and proposed timetable are set out in the Bid Implementation Agreement which is attached as an annexure to this announcement.

Inca’s CEO, Trevor Benson commented:

“Having carefully considered a number of acquisition proposals since I was appointed as CEO last year, it became abundantly clear that Stunalara was a standout opportunity. Its high-grade gold & gold-antimony Hurricane Project in NQ presents a unique opportunity to explore a project with multiple strongly mineralised veins which have historical workings but have never been drilled.”

“In addition, the under explored Mt Reid project in Western Tasmania is located in an area where multiple significant precious and base metal deposits have been discovered, developed and mined over the last 100 years.”

Click here for the full ASX Release

This article includes content from Inca Minerals Limited, licensed for the purpose of publishing on Investing News Australia. This article does not constitute financial product advice. It is your responsibility to perform proper due diligence before acting upon any information provided here. Please refer to our full disclaimer here.

asx:icg resource stocks resource investing

Red toy car on US and Canadian flags, financial chart in background.

Tariff Fallout: GM's Shift Cut in Oshawa Triggers Strong Canadian Union Response

General Motors’ (GM) (NYSE:GM) decision to cut a third shift at its Oshawa, Ontario, assembly plant this fall has ignited a political and labor firestorm in Canada, with hundreds of workers impacted.

Unifor, the country's largest private sector union, issued an urgent call for action this past Friday (May 2) after GM confirmed it will be transitioning the plant to a two-shift operation. The automaker attributed the decision to evolving market conditions, including the 25 percent tariff the US imposed on Canadian-made vehicles in March.

GM spokesperson Marie Binette acknowledged in an email cited by CBC that the restructuring will “impact approximately 700 workers,” though she stopped short of calling the job losses layoffs.

“We are committed to supporting employees through the transition,” she said.

Unifor sees the move as a betrayal of Canadian workers and taxpayers, who helped revive the Oshawa facility after it was shuttered in 2019. The plant, which builds light- and heavy-duty Chevrolet Silverado pickup trucks for North America, reopened in 2021 with the help of significant public investment and union-backed production deals.

“GM Oshawa was reopened thanks to the hard work of our members and significant investments by the federal and provincial governments based on a promise to maintain good jobs and production,” said Chris Waugh, Unifor’s plant chairperson in Oshawa, in Friday's release. “We will not sit idly by as that promise is eroded one shift at a time.”

Lana Payne, national president at Unifor, also weighed in, commenting, “We will not allow GM to barter Canadian jobs to gain Donald Trump’s favor. Cutting the third shift at Oshawa Assembly is a reckless decision that deals a direct blow to our members and threatens to ripple through the entire auto parts supplier network.”

Keep reading...Show less

Mosaic-style Australian flag with textured square tiles and vibrant colours.

Gilbert + Tobin: Australia's Mining Industry Must Adapt as Global Shifts Shape Market

2025 is far from over, but Australia’s mining sector is already facing one of its most complex landscapes yet.

In a report, Australian law firm Gilbert + Tobin discusses economic, political and technological changes in the sector following recent events such as the US tariffs, declining nickel and copper prices and miners’ ESG goals.

In the overview, the firm says Australia’s miners are being forced to rethink their strategies, with the prevailing theme being that the Land Down Under needs to start upping its game.

Tariffs reshaping Australian minerals trade

The current uncertainty around trade policy is causing inconsistencies in investment confidence globally.

Major miners such as BHP (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP)are already flagging concerns, with CEO Mike Henry recently expressing worry about slower growth and the consequences of disrupted trade.

"Despite the limited direct impact of tariffs on BHP, the implication of slower economic growth and a fragmented trading environment could be more significant. China's ability to shift toward a consumption-led economy and for trade flows to adapt to the new environment will be key to sustaining the global outlook," he said.

Gilbert + Tobin states in its report that Australian lithium and rare earths companies are facing "significant" questions.

While the US Inflation Reduction Act had boosted demand prospects, the outlook is now less certain. At the same time, China is increasing its own output and may need to buy less from Australia.

The firm notes that companies may have to find new or additional trading partners for these reasons.

A potential bright spot for Australia is China's critical minerals export restrictions to the US. Australia has a chance to prove its capacity as a minerals supplier, especially for countries seeking alternatives to Chinese supply.

The report cites Lynas Rare Earths (ASX:LYC,OTC Pink:LYSCF) and Iluka Resources (ASX:ILU,OTC Pink:ILKAF) as “well-positioned” companies, with the former recognised as the world's largest non-Chinese producer of separated rare earth materials, and the latter currently developing Australia's first fully integrated rare earths refinery.

“Despite these headwinds, Australia is benefiting from new strategic alliances,” Gilbert + Tobin wrote.

“The Australian Government’s partnerships with the EU and Japan on critical minerals are opening doors for investment and export growth. However, miners must carefully navigate regulatory challenges and shifting trade policies to secure long-term stability.”

Miners facing low metals prices

While the gold price remains high, other metals have sloped downward in 2025.

Copper prices have faced weakness this year, as have nickel prices, prompting asset pauses and shutdowns.

WIN Metals (ASX:WIN) pivoted from nickel to gold this year, and in 2024 BHP shut down its Nickel West operations in Western Australia following increased capital costs and uncertain price recovery.

Gilbert + Tobin recommends that Australia use its strong regulatory framework to maintain its position as a country worth investing in, saying miners should focus on production costs, leverage and hedging strategies.

Is ESG still important to Australian mining?

Looking at ESG, Gilbert + Tobin notes that it shifted away from being just a buzzword in 2020, becoming key to business as the country pushed nationwide ESG goals in a bid to decarbonise by 2050.

Major diversified miner Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO), for example, is aiming for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and plans to invest US$5 billion to US$6 billion in decarbonisation projects.

For its part, BHP has reduced its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 24.1 percent since December 2022, and is progressing towards a 30 percent reduction by 2030. Fortescue (ASX:FMG,OTCQX:FSUMF) is targeting net-zero emissions by 2040, with initiatives like the development of a zero-emissions Infinity Train.

Other miners, such as AngloGold Ashanti (NYSE:AU,JSE:ANG), have had a more complicated time with ESG.

In September 2024, Financial Times reported that the company was restructuring its portfolio to align with ESG goals, including plans to divest from coal assets, when a fire broke out at its Grosvenor mine in Queensland.

This event could reduce the valuation of its coal assets by up to $1 billion, highlighting the financial risks companies may encounter when ESG objectives intersect with operational challenges.

But what is the state of ESG in Australia's mining industry as global turmoil takes centre stage?

Gilbert + Tobin believes it still remains relevant, but could lose some traction.

“In our view, it is too early to call the end of ESG as a major driver of activity in the metals and mining sector. Carbon emissions remain a focal point, with mining companies under pressure to reduce their carbon footprints through renewable energy adoption and electrification of fleets," the report reads.

"However, we may begin to see a reduction in some initiatives on the edge of the ESG equation for miners, including Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity and responsible procurement, particularly if these become a focus of retaliatory trade action in the United States," it continues.

The firm believes if ESG progress stalls Australia could face major setbacks, and notes that the mining industry will likely need to boost spending and effort in order to maintain momentum.

Australia's next steps

For Gilbert + Tobin, Australia's mining companies will have to be more open than ever to change.

“One thing is clear: the mining companies that thrive will be those that balance profitability with sustainability, efficiency with responsibility and innovation with adaptability," it states in its report, adding that while the road ahead may be uncertain, opportunities remain vast, especially for those who are willing to evolve.

The Minerals Council of Australia makes its own recommendations in a recent statement on tariffs.

It breaks down its suggestions into three parts: strengthen global competitiveness, accelerate free trade deals and secure supply chain partnerships with like-minded economies.

“Australia has long been a reliable and trusted global supplier of minerals and critical materials, with our enduring trade and defence partnership with the United States forming the backbone of decades of economic and strategic collaboration,” the council notes. “These trade tariffs undermine this crucial alliance, destabilising supply chains and increasing costs to consumers. It is a race to the bottom.”

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.

Closeup of a US bill with "we trust" text and a face.

Can Trump Fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell? Inside the White House vs. Fed Showdown

US President Donald Trump has publicly assailed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in recent weeks, calling him “a major loser,” and declaring that his "termination cannot come fast enough."

Yet behind the fiery rhetoric lies a more complex question: Can the president fire the head of the Fed?

Trump-Powell feud heats up

Trump's frustration with Powell isn’t new.

Since appointing him in 2017 to replace Janet Yellen, the president has repeatedly criticized Powell for not lowering interest rates fast or far enough. The most recent barrage of attacks came after Powell signaled that the central bank will not rush into cutting rates despite easing inflation and rising political pressure.

“He’s keeping rates too high,” Trump complained during a White House event on April 23. “He historically has been late … he was recommended by a certain person I’m not particularly happy with.”

Trump’s comments followed a string of similar criticisms in prior weeks.

When the European Central Bank cut its key interest rate, Trump demanded that Powell follow suit, saying on social media that the Fed chair “is always TOO LATE AND WRONG.”

Powell, for his part, has maintained the Fed’s independence and downplayed the political noise, telling reporters this past January that he has had “no contact” with Trump. The Fed chair also reiterated that rate decisions will be made based on economic data — not politics.

Powell’s appointment and the Fed’s role

The Fed chair is selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Powell was first confirmed as Fed chair in February 2018 for a four year term, which ended in 2022; he was then reappointed to the position in May 2022. In addition to that, he is a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System until 2028 unless he resigns or is removed for cause.

The Fed plays a critical role in US economic stability. Its primary tools include setting interest rates, regulating banks and maintaining price stability and full employment.

Under Powell’s leadership, the Fed aggressively raised interest rates starting in 2022 to combat inflation, which had reached levels not seen in decades. Inflation began to subside by mid-2023 and stood at 2.4 percent as of March of this year. However, the Fed has kept rates at 4.25 to 4.5 percent, citing lingering risks.

Can Trump legally fire Powell?

The short answer: not easily, and possibly not at all.

Fed governors, including the chair of the central bank, are protected by statute.

According to the Federal Reserve Act, a board member can only be removed “for cause.” Courts have traditionally interpreted “cause” to mean serious misconduct or legal wrongdoing, not simply policy disagreements.

Trump and his advisers have reportedly explored whether they could dismiss Powell under this clause. However, the Wall Street Journal reported in an exclusive that senior White House officials, including Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, have warned the president that such a move would likely spark legal battles, spook markets and ultimately fail to deliver the interest rate cuts he desires.

Lutnick also reportedly told the president that efforts to fire the Fed chair likely would not lead to any practical change on interest rates due to board members aligning their policymaking approaches with Powell.

In an April 22 press conference, Trump appeared to walk back his earlier threats: “I have no intention of firing Powell. This is a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he doesn’t, is it the end? No. It’s not.”

The last major challenge to Fed independence occurred in the 1970s.

Oval Office recordings revealed at a later date that President Richard Nixon had pressured then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns to ease monetary policy ahead of the 1972 election. Burns acquiesced.

The result: short-term economic growth followed by years of painful inflation that ultimately required the draconian measures of Fed Chair Paul Volcker in the early 1980s to correct.

While the Fed’s independence isn’t ironclad in the Constitution, a broad bipartisan consensus has emerged over the past several decades to shield the institution from political interference.

Legal experts, including economist Tim Mahedy, argue that removing a Fed chair for policy decisions would set a dangerous precedent and invite a “systemic financial event.”

There’s also ongoing litigation that could influence the issue.

The Department of Justice is attempting to overturn a 90 year old legal precedent that protects independent agency officials like Powell from being dismissed without cause. While the effort isn't directly about the Fed, it has raised alarms among those who see it as a potential erosion of institutional safeguards.

What's at stake for the US economy?

Despite Trump’s desire for looser monetary policy, Powell has been backed by economists who argue that the Fed is right to proceed cautiously amid the current economic turmoil.

Interest rates remain well above the near-zero levels of the COVID-19 era, and while inflation has cooled, new risks — such as Trump’s escalating tariffs on Chinese imports — could stoke price pressures again.

Trump has imposed 145 percent tariffs on many Chinese goods, with exemptions for some electronics. He told reporters that tariffs will "come down substantially," but has not announced a timeline.

Meanwhile, major retailers like Walmart (NYSE:WMT) and Target (NYSE:TGT) warned during a White House meeting that tariffs could increase costs for consumers. Even Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk, now a senior adviser in the Trump administration, said in a recent earnings call that he will push the president to roll back tariffs.

Powell stands firm — for now

Powell has consistently affirmed that the Fed will base its decisions on data, not presidential pressure.

“The arrangement of central bank independence is very widely understood and supported in Washington, in Congress, where it really matters,” he said during a mid-April speech in Chicago.

Still, the president’s attacks have rattled some on Wall Street, not least because Trump has shown more willingness in this term to test legal and institutional limits. In contrast to Trump's first term, when Powell faced pressure, but never a formal removal threat, today's atmosphere has some investors nervously watching for signs of a deeper standoff.

For now, however, Powell’s job appears safe. Trump’s advisers appear to have convinced him — at least temporarily — that firing Powell would hurt more than help. While the battle over interest rates may continue, Powell looks set to remain at the helm of the US central bank until 2026 — whether the president likes it or not.

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.

Hand voting with Australian flag in background.

Mining the Vote: What Australia's Political Parties are Planning for Mining and Trade

Another Australian federal election is happening on Saturday (May 3), and the country's political parties are in the midst of sharing their plans and goals for various sectors, including the mining industry.

Below is a breakdown of statements and platforms from each party, underlining their positions on the back of recent trade tensions, US tariffs and global production issues.

What are Australia's political parties?

Like many countries, Australia has two major parties, as well as several smaller parties.

The two major parties are the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal Party of Australia.

The ALP is the major left party and is currently in government.

The Liberal Party is the centre-right party in opposition. It is in a long-term coalition with the National Party of Australia. Neither party would be able to form a majority government without the coalition.

ABC describes the Nationals as representing "the interests of those living in regional and rural areas," with values that are similar to the Liberals but with more of a country focus.

The Greens are another notable party in Australia and are the result of an environmental movement in the 1980s. The group highlights environmental protection, social justice and increasing government support payments.

There's also One Nation, a right-wing populist political party launched in Queensland in 1997. Its focus is to protect Australian jobs, industry, agriculture, manufacturing, culture and natural heritage.

What do Australian politicians think about tariffs?

In terms of tariffs, the ALP and Liberal Party aren't fans of US President Donald Trump’s actions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, head of the ALP, has called Trump's 10 percent tariffs “unjustified” and “harmful,” proposing a five point plan to mitigate impacts. This plan includes zeroing in on anti-dumping measures, financial assistance to affected industries and the establishment of a critical minerals reserve.

In a recent article, Reuters quotes Albanese as calling the imposition of tariffs “not the act of a friend."

The Liberal Party has criticized the ALP’s approach to tariffs, arguing that the conditions laid out under the five year plan are insufficient. Shadow Treasurer and Liberal Party member Angus Taylor said that there is a need for more comprehensive policies to tackle inflation and boost productivity.

For their part, the Greens have urged the Australian government to walk away from its AUKUS pact with the US. According to ABC, party leader Adam Bandt described the imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs as a "wake-up call" for Australia to rethink its relationship with a country that has been a key ally.

Pauline Hanson of One Nation has also commented on the tariffs, advocating for their use along with export quotas and other measures to protect Australian industries.

Commitments to Australia's mining sector

In terms of domestic production and keeping resources intact, the Australian government has already delivered support to increase green metals production through the Future Made in Australia Fund.

Professional leading services firm WSP said the country's 2025/2026 federal budget was a "pre-election pitch," noting that it puts the energy, mining and metals sectors "in the winner's circle."

The Future Made in Australia Fund has been allocated AU$1.5 billion, with AU$700 million dedicated to green metals. The green metals sector has also seen AU$2 billion in support from the Green Aluminium Production Credit, which is geared at supporting the Australian aluminium smelter’s transition to renewable energy.

Another AU$1 billion was given to accelerate the development of a new green iron industry.

“This year’s budget supports a fantastic opportunity for Australian industry to process more of our natural resources domestically — while doing so sustainably with renewable energy,” Paul Williams, WSP's managing director of mining and metals, said about the allocation.

The ALP has also underlined the value of national sovereignty over critical infrastructure. In a Guardian article, the party is quoted as expressing its intentions to reclaim the Port of Darwin from Chinese control.

The port is said to be Australia's nearest port to Asia and the nation's “northern gateway” for Australasian trade.

Issues with its ownership stem from when the Northern Territory's government granted a 99 year lease in 2015, making Chinese company Landbridge Group the owner.

Concerns over Landbridge's financial health have sparked talks on the port’s ownership in recent months. Darwin has also become an important subject in the election campaign, as both parties are keen on the reclamation.

Liberal leader Dutton was also quoted by Lloyd’s List as saying that the coalition between the Liberals and Nationals would “move immediately” to bring Darwin back into Australian hands during a visit to the port on April 5.

Who will win the Australian election?

Roy Morgan Research said on Monday (April 28) that the ALP is leading in the polls at 53 percent, as per the latest survey. Meanwhile, the opposition partnership between the Liberals and Nationals is at 47 percent.

"This result represents a swing to the ALP of around 1% since the 2022 Federal Election and if the swing is consistent across the nation would result in a slightly increased majority in the House of Representatives if repeated on Saturday," said Roy Morgan CEO Michele Levine, adding that a final pre-election poll is still to come.

Roy Morgan said the survey comprised a representative cross section of 1,524 Australian voters from April 21 to 27, 2025. Of all participants surveyed, only 6 percent couldn't say who they would vote for.

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.

Inca to acquire Stunalara Metals Limited with high-quality gold/antimony exploration projects in North Queensland

Inca Minerals Investor Kit

GET YOUR FREE INVESTOR KIT

Investor Insight

Overview

Company Highlights

Key Projects

Hurricane Project

Mt Read Project

Management Team

Adam Taylor – Non-executive Chairman

Trevor Benson – Chief Executive Officer

Brad Marwood – Non-executive Director

Andrew Haythorpe – Non-executive Director

Mounting economic pressure