Author

admin

Browsing

The 2025-26 Premier League season kicks off this weekend and will run through matchweek 38 on May 24.

The season opens with the defending league champions Liverpool hosting AFC Bournemouth at Anfield in what should be an emotional evening after the death of Diogo Jota in July.

During the second weekend of fixtures, Everton will christen a new stadium against Brighton & Hove Albion on Sunday, Aug. 24. The team is leaving its home for more than 100 years — Goodison Park — for a new and modern stadium — Hill Dickinson Stadium.

Here is the full, 380-match fixture list for the 2025-26 Premier League season:

August 15 – Friday

  • Liverpool vs. AFC Bournemouth

August 16 – Saturday

  • Aston Villa vs. Newcastle United
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Fulham
  • Sunderland vs. West Ham United
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Burnley
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Manchester City

August 17 – Sunday

  • Chelsea vs. Crystal Palace
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Brentford
  • Manchester United vs. Arsenal

August 18 – Monday

  • Leeds United vs. Everton (Sky Sports)

August 22

  • West Ham vs. Chelsea

August 23

  • Manchester City vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Brentford vs. Aston Villa
  • Burnley vs. Sunderland
  • Arsenal vs. Leeds United

August 24

  • Crystal Palace vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Everton vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Fulham vs. Manchester United

August 25

  • Newcastle United vs. Liverpool

August 29

  • Aston Villa vs. Crystal Palace

August 30

  • Chelsea vs. Fulham
  • Manchester United vs. Burnley
  • Sunderland vs. Brentford
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Everton
  • Leeds United vs. Newcastle United

August 31

  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Manchester City
  • Nottingham Forest vs. West Ham United
  • Liverpool vs. Arsenal

September 13

  • Arsenal vs. Nott’m Forest
  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Brighton
  • Crystal Palace vs. Sunderland
  • Everton vs. Aston Villa
  • Fulham vs. Leeds United
  • Newcastle United vs. Wolves
  • West Ham United vs. Spurs
  • Brentford vs. Chelsea

September 14

  • Burnley vs. Liverpool
  • Man City vs. Man Utd

September 20

  • Liverpool vs. Everton
  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Newcastle United
  • Brighton vs. Spurs
  • Burnley vs. Nott’m Forest
  • West Ham United vs. Crystal Palace
  • Wolves vs. Leeds United
  • Man Utd vs. Chelsea
  • Fulham vs. Brentford

September 21

  • Sunderland vs. Aston Villa
  • Arsenal vs. Man City

September 27

  • Brentford vs. Man Utd
  • Aston Villa vs. Fulham
  • Chelsea vs. Brighton
  • Crystal Palace vs. Liverpool
  • Leeds United vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Manchester City vs. Burnley
  • Nott’m Forest vs. Sunderland

September 28

  • Spurs vs. Wolves
  • Newcastle United vs. Arsenal

September 29

  • Everton vs. West Ham United

October 4 (matchweek 7)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Fulham
  • Arsenal vs. West Ham United
  • Aston Villa vs. Burnley
  • Brentford vs. Manchester City
  • Chelsea vs. Liverpool
  • Everton vs. Crystal Palace
  • Leeds United vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Manchester United vs. Sunderland
  • Newcastle United vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Brighton & Hove Albion

October 18 (matchweek 8)

  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Newcastle United
  • Burnley vs. Leeds United
  • Crystal Palace vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Fulham vs. Arsenal
  • Liverpool vs. Manchester United
  • Manchester City vs. Everton
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Chelsea
  • Sunderland vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Aston Villa
  • West Ham United vs. Brentford

October 25 (matchweek 9)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Arsenal vs. Crystal Palace
  • Aston Villa vs. Manchester City
  • Brentford vs. Liverpool
  • Chelsea vs. Sunderland
  • Everton vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Leeds United vs. West Ham United
  • Manchester United vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Newcastle United vs. Fulham
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Burnley

November 1 (matchweek 10)

  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Leeds United
  • Burnley vs. Arsenal
  • Crystal Palace vs. Brentford
  • Fulham vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Liverpool vs. Aston Villa
  • Manchester City vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Manchester United
  • Sunderland vs. Everton
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Chelsea
  • West Ham United vs. Newcastle United

November 8 (matchweek 11)

  • Aston Villa vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Brentford vs. Newcastle United
  • Chelsea vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Crystal Palace vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Everton vs. Fulham
  • Manchester City vs. Liverpool
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Leeds United
  • Sunderland vs. Arsenal
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Manchester United
  • West Ham United vs. Burnley

November 22 (matchweek 12)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. West Ham United
  • Arsenal vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Brentford
  • Burnley vs. Chelsea
  • Fulham vs. Sunderland
  • Leeds United vs. Aston Villa
  • Liverpool vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Manchester United vs. Everton
  • Newcastle United vs. Manchester City
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Crystal Palace

November 29 (matchweek 13)

  • Aston Villa vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Brentford vs. Burnley
  • Chelsea vs. Arsenal
  • Crystal Palace vs. Manchester United
  • Everton vs. Newcastle United
  • Manchester City vs. Leeds United
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Sunderland vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Fulham
  • West Ham United vs. Liverpool

December 3 (matchweek 14)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Everton
  • Arsenal vs. Brentford
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Aston Villa
  • Burnley vs. Crystal Palace
  • Fulham vs. Manchester City
  • Leeds United vs. Chelsea
  • Liverpool vs. Sunderland
  • Manchester United vs. West Ham United
  • Newcastle United vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Nottingham Forest

December 6 (matchweek 15)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Chelsea
  • Aston Villa vs. Arsenal
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. West Ham United
  • Everton vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Fulham vs. Crystal Palace
  • Leeds United vs. Liverpool
  • Manchester City vs. Sunderland
  • Newcastle United vs. Burnley
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Brentford
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Manchester United

December 13 (matchweek 16)

  • Arsenal vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Brentford vs. Leeds United
  • Burnley vs. Fulham
  • Chelsea vs. Everton
  • Crystal Palace vs. Manchester City
  • Liverpool vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Manchester United vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Sunderland vs. Newcastle United
  • West Ham United vs. Aston Villa

December 20 (matchweek 17)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Burnley
  • Aston Villa vs. Manchester United
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Sunderland
  • Everton vs. Arsenal
  • Fulham vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Leeds United vs. Crystal Palace
  • Manchester City vs. West Ham United
  • Newcastle United vs. Chelsea
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Liverpool
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Brentford

December 27 (matchweek 18)

  • Arsenal vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Brentford vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Burnley vs. Everton
  • Chelsea vs. Aston Villa
  • Crystal Palace vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Liverpool vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Manchester United vs. Newcastle United
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Manchester City
  • Sunderland vs. Leeds United
  • West Ham United vs. Fulham

December 30 (matchweek 19)

  • Arsenal vs. Aston Villa
  • Brentford vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Burnley vs. Newcastle United
  • Chelsea vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Crystal Palace vs. Fulham
  • Liverpool vs. Leeds United
  • Manchester United vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Everton
  • Sunderland vs. Manchester City
  • West Ham United vs. Brighton & Hove Albion

January 3, 2026 (matchweek 20)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Arsenal
  • Aston Villa vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Burnley
  • Everton vs. Brentford
  • Fulham vs. Liverpool
  • Leeds United vs. Manchester United
  • Manchester City vs. Chelsea
  • Newcastle United vs. Crystal Palace
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Sunderland
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. West Ham United

January 7 (matchweek 21)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Arsenal vs. Liverpool
  • Brentford vs. Sunderland
  • Burnley vs. Manchester United
  • 20:00 Crystal Palace vs. Aston Villa 
  • Everton vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Fulham vs. Chelsea
  • Manchester City vs. Brighton & Hove Albion 
  • Newcastle United vs. Leeds United
  • West Ham United vs. Nottingham Forest

January 17 (matchweek 22)

  • Aston Villa vs. Everton
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Chelsea vs. Brentford
  • Leeds United vs. Fulham
  • Liverpool vs. Burnley
  • Manchester United vs. Manchester City
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Arsenal
  • Sunderland vs. Crystal Palace
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. West Ham United
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Newcastle United

January 24 (matchweek 23)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Liverpool
  • Arsenal vs. Manchester United
  • Brentford vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Burnley vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Crystal Palace vs. Chelsea
  • Everton vs. Leeds United
  • Fulham vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Manchester City vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Newcastle United vs. Aston Villa
  • West Ham United vs. Sunderland

January 31 (matchweek 24)

  • Aston Villa vs. Brentford
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Everton
  • Chelsea vs. West Ham United
  • Leeds United vs. Arsenal
  • Liverpool vs. Newcastle United
  • Manchester United vs. Fulham
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Crystal Palace
  • Sunderland vs. Burnley
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Manchester City
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. AFC Bournemouth

February 7 (matchweek 25)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Aston Villa
  • Arsenal vs. Sunderland
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Crystal Palace
  • Burnley vs. West Ham United
  • Fulham vs. Everton
  • Leeds United vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Liverpool vs. Manchester City
  • Manchester United vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Newcastle United vs. Brentford
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Chelsea

February 11 (matchweek 26)

  • Aston Villa vs. Brighton & Hove Albion 
  • Brentford vs. Arsenal
  • Chelsea vs. Leeds United
  • 20:00 Crystal Palace vs. Burnley
  • Everton vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • 20:00 Manchester City vs. Fulham
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Sunderland vs. Liverpool
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Newcastle United
  • West Ham United vs. Manchester United

February 21 (matchweek 27)

  • Aston Villa vs. Leeds United
  • Brentford vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Chelsea vs. Burnley
  • Crystal Palace vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Everton vs. Manchester United
  • Manchester City vs. Newcastle United
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Liverpool
  • Sunderland vs. Fulham
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Arsenal
  • West Ham United vs. AFC Bournemouth

February 28 (matchweek 28)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Sunderland
  • Arsenal vs. Chelsea
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Burnley vs. Brentford
  • Fulham vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Leeds United vs. Manchester City
  • Liverpool vs. West Ham United
  • Manchester United vs. Crystal Palace
  • Newcastle United vs. Everton
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Aston Villa

March 4 (matchweek 29)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Brentford
  • Aston Villa vs. Chelsea
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Arsenal
  • Everton vs. Burnley
  • Fulham vs. West Ham United
  • Leeds United vs. Sunderland
  • Manchester City vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Newcastle United vs. Manchester United
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Crystal Palace
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Liverpool

March 14 (matchweek 30)

  • Arsenal vs. Everton
  • Brentford vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Burnley vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Chelsea vs. Newcastle United
  • Crystal Palace vs. Leeds United
  • Liverpool vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Manchester United vs. Aston Villa
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Fulham
  • Sunderland vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • West Ham United vs. Manchester City

March 21 (matchweek 31)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Manchester United
  • Aston Villa vs. West Ham United
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Liverpool
  • Everton vs. Chelsea
  • Fulham vs. Burnley
  • Leeds United vs. Brentford
  • Manchester City vs. Crystal Palace
  • Newcastle United vs. Sunderland
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Arsenal

April 11 (matchweek 32)

  • Arsenal vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Brentford vs. Everton
  • Burnley vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Chelsea vs. Manchester City
  • Crystal Palace vs. Newcastle United
  • Liverpool vs. Fulham
  • Manchester United vs. Leeds United
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Aston Villa
  • Sunderland vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • West Ham United vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers

April 18 (matchweek 33)

  • Aston Villa vs. Sunderland
  • Brentford vs. Fulham
  • Chelsea vs. Manchester United
  • Crystal Palace vs. West Ham United
  • Everton vs. Liverpool
  • Leeds United vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Manchester City vs. Arsenal
  • Newcastle United vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Burnley
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Brighton & Hove Albion

April 25 (matchweek 34)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Leeds United
  • Arsenal vs. Newcastle United
  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Chelsea
  • Burnley vs. Manchester City
  • Fulham vs. Aston Villa
  • Liverpool vs. Crystal Palace
  • Manchester United vs. Brentford
  • Sunderland vs. Nottingham Forest
  • West Ham United vs. Everton
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Tottenham Hotspur

May 2 (matchweek 35)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Crystal Palace
  • Arsenal vs. Fulham
  • Aston Villa vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Brentford vs. West Ham United
  • Chelsea vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Everton vs. Manchester City
  • Leeds United vs. Burnley
  • Manchester United vs. Liverpool
  • Newcastle United vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Sunderland

May 9 (matchweek 36)

  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Burnley vs. Aston Villa
  • Crystal Palace vs. Everton
  • Fulham vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Liverpool vs. Chelsea
  • Manchester City vs. Brentford
  • Nottingham Forest vs. Newcastle United
  • Sunderland vs. Manchester United
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Leeds United
  • West Ham United vs. Arsenal

May 17 (matchweek 37)

  • AFC Bournemouth vs. Manchester City
  • Arsenal vs. Burnley
  • Aston Villa vs. Liverpool
  • Brentford vs. Crystal Palace
  • Chelsea vs. Tottenham Hotspur
  • Everton vs. Sunderland
  • Leeds United vs. Brighton & Hove Albion
  • Manchester United vs. Nottingham Forest
  • Newcastle United vs. West Ham United
  • Wolverhampton Wanderers vs. Fulham

May 24 (matchweek 38)

  • Brighton & Hove Albion vs. Manchester United
  • Burnley vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers
  • Crystal Palace vs. Arsenal
  • Fulham vs. Newcastle United
  • Liverpool vs. Brentford
  • Manchester City vs. Aston Villa
  • Nottingham Forest vs. AFC Bournemouth
  • Sunderland vs. Chelsea
  • Tottenham Hotspur vs. Everton
  • West Ham United vs. Leeds United
This post appeared first on USA TODAY

  • Former University of Texas wide receiver Isaiah Bond announced he is signing with the Cleveland Browns.
  • Bond went undrafted in the 2025 NFL Draft after sexual assault allegations, for which he maintains his innocence and says charges will not be pursued.
  • The Browns receiving corps is currently led by Jerry Jeudy and Cedric Tillman.

We’re nearly to Week 2 of the NFL preseason and teams now have one game of film in addition to what they’re seeing in practice to assess roster strengths and weaknesses.

The Cleveland Browns may have decided to add another player to the wide receiver room.

Former Texas wide receiver Isaiah Bond announced on X that he is signing with the Browns. The Longhorns standout went undrafted in the 2025 NFL Draft and is a mid-training camp addition for Cleveland.

‘I want to express my deepest gratitude to the Cleveland Browns for believing in me and allowing me the opportunity to continue my career in the NFL,’ Bond wrote in his post. ‘Football has been my passion since I was six years old, and plying at this level is a blessing I will never take for granted.’

Bond was expected to be a Day 2 pick in the NFL Draft even after a subpar performance at the NFL scouting combine. But Bond turned himself in to the Frisco Police Department for an outstanding warrant for sexual assault in April.

Bond stated in his post that the prosecutor has decided not to pursue charges.

‘I will learn from this experience as I grow in wisdom, character, and faith,’ Bond wrote. ‘On the advice of my attorney, I will not discuss the details of this case, but I want to be clear: from the very beginning I have refuted these allegations and maintained my innocence. I stand firm by that today.’

The deal has not been finalized yet, per ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

Bond played in 13 games as a true freshman for Alabama in 2022. He led the team in receptions a year later with 48 for 668 yards and four touchdowns.

Bond transferred from Alabama to Texas for his final year of college football in 2024. As a Longhorn, he struggled to build rapport with starter Quinn Ewers and had just 34 receptions for 540 yards and five touchdowns. Fellow transfer Matthew Golden became the top receiver down the stretch for the Longhorns and ended up as a first-round pick in the 2025 NFL Draft to the Green Bay Packers.

Despite the drop in production, Bond was viewed as a probable draft pick given his game speed. The off-field allegations kept him from being selected.

Browns WR depth chart

Here’s how things look ahead of Bond’s potential arrival:

  • Jerry Jeudy
  • Cedric Tillman
  • Jamari Thrash
  • Diontae Johnson
  • Kaden Davis
  • DeAndre Carter
  • Gage Larvadain
  • Luke Floriea
  • Cade McDonald
  • Kisean Johnson
  • Chase Cota
  • David Bell
This post appeared first on USA TODAY

GMV Minerals Inc. (the ‘Company’ or ‘GMV’) (TSXV:GMV)(OTCQB:GMVMF) is pleased to announce positive results from the updated Preliminary Economic Assessment (‘PEA’) study of the Mexican Hat Gold Project (the ‘Mexican Hat Project’), located in Cochise County, southeastern Arizona.

A National Instrument 43-101 –Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43-101’) compliant technical report (the ‘Report’) entitled ‘Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, Mexican Hat Project’ with an effective date of August 8, 2025 will be filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca under the Company’s profile within 45 days of this news release. All amounts are stated in second quarter 2025 US dollars (US$).

The Mexican Hat hosts a shallow oxide gold resource with excellent metallurgy and high recoveries, supported by a low strip ratio and minimal pre-stripping. Infrastructure is in place and the Mexican Hat Project demonstrates a robust NPV and IRR. With fast leach kinetics and low reagent consumption, the Company believes the Mexican Hat Project offers exceptional potential economics.

Highlights:

    • Based on price sensitivity analysis at approximately the current price of US$3,350 per ounce of gold, the project returns a pre-tax IRR of 106.8% (after-tax 82.5%) and a pre-tax NPV at a 5% discount rate of US$767 million (after-tax US$538.1 million) with a payback period of 1.10 years (1.3 years after-tax).
    • Base Case mine life of 10 years with total production of 597,841 ounces, averaging approximately 60,000 ounces per year.
    • Crushed mineralized material will be conveyor stacked at a rate of approximately 10,000 tonnes/day on a conventional heap leach pad.
    • Capex: US$89,997,000 (including US$15.4 million contingency).
    • Opex: US$788 million LOM with Low LOM Strip Ratio of 2.05
    • Estimated cash cost of production is US$1,354 per ounce with an all-in-sustaining cost of $1,545 per ounce inclusive of sustaining capital and additional overhead support.
    • Engineering design analysis indicates the potential to increase pit size and contained ounces with increased gold prices.

    FINANCIAL INDICATORS

    The following table summarizes the financial indicators for the Mexican Hat Project for both before and after taxes.

    Financial Indicators Before Taxes

    Values

    NPV cash flow (undiscounted)

    US$537.7M

    NPV @ 5%

    US$390.2M

    IRR %

    66.1%

    Payback (years)

    1.53

    Financial Indicators After Taxes

    Values

    NPV cash flow (undiscounted)

    US$377.9M

    NPV @ 5%

    US$268.3M

    IRR %

    50.2%

    Payback (years)

    1.82

    GOLD PRICE SENSITIVITY TABLE (US$ MILLIONS)

    The following table summarizes the pre-tax and post-tax economic results to gold price sensitivity.

    Pre-Tax and Post-Tax Sensitivity to Gold Price

    -60%

    -45%

    -30%

    -15%

    Base

    +15%

    +34%

    +45%

    +60%

    US$/troy oz Gold

    1,000

    1,375

    1,750

    2,125

    2,500

    2,875

    3,350

    3,625

    4,000

    IRR (Pre-Tax)

    18.3%

    45.0%

    66.1%

    85.0%

    106.8%

    118.7%

    134.2%

    NPV @ 5% (Pre-Tax) US$M

    -274.7

    -108.5

    57.7

    224.0

    390.2

    556.4

    767.0

    888.9

    1,055.1

    IRR (Post-Tax)

    11.3%

    33.4%

    50.2%

    65.2%

    82.5%

    91.9%

    104.2%

    NPV @ 5% (Post-Tax) US$M

    -274.9

    -117.3

    25.8

    149.3

    268.3

    387.4

    538.1

    625.4

    744.4

    INITIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (US$ MILLIONS)

    Initial capital expenditures are estimated at US$89,997,000 million as detailed below:

    OPERATING COSTS

    The mine operating costs were calculated to average $3.49 per tonne mined as summarized below.

    Mine Operating Cost Center

    Unit Cost (US$/t mined)

    Owner Mining Personnel

    $0.11

    Owner Supplies & Misc.

    0.03

    Contractor Mining

    3.35

    Total Cost (Rounded)

    $3.49

    The life-of-mine operating costs were calculated to average US$20.44/tonne resource processed as summarized below.

    Operating Cost

    Cost per Tonne of Crushed Material Processed (US$/t)

    Mining

    $10.60

    Processing

    $8.79

    G&A

    $1.05

    Total Site Operating Cost

    $20.44

    MINERAL RESOURCES

    An updated Mineral Resource Estimate prepared by DRW Geological Consultants Ltd., with an effective date of August 8, 2025, was used in the PEA. Details of the Mineral Resource Estimate can be found in the Report to be filed on SEDAR+ within 45 days of this release.

    Category

    Cut-off (g/t Au)

    Grade (Au, g/t)

    Tonnes

    Gold Oz

    Strip Ratio

    Inferred

    0.20

    0.58

    36,733,000

    688,000

    2.36

    • The Mineral Resource Estimate has been constrained to a preliminary optimized pit shell, using the following parameters: SG = 2.57 gm/cc based on testwork, mining costs = $3.00/tonne, mining recovery = 98%, mining dilution = 2%, process cost = $5.00 per tonne, G&A = $1.05 per tonne, gold price = $2,500 per troy ounce, throughput at 10,000 tpd., discount rate = 5%. A cost of $0.03 was added per bench to the mining cost below the existing level surface.
    • A top cut of 32 gpt gold is applied to all zones except Zone 6 which has a top cut of 50 gpt gold.
    • Mineral Resources have been calculated using the Inverse Distance Squared method.
    • Mineral Resources constrained to optimized pit shells are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
    • Conforms to NI 43-101, Companion Policy 43-101CP, and the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. Inferred Resources have been estimated from geological evidence and limited sampling and must be treated with a lower level of confidence than Measured and Indicated Resources.
    • All numbers are rounded. Overall numbers may not be exact due to rounding.
    • There are no known legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the mineral resources.

    MINE PLAN

    The mine plan is conceived as a conventional open pit tuck and shovel/loader operation. There are two independent pits which are developed with five-phase or pushback designs. Pit shells were designed using 6.0-meter benches with a catch bench installed every 18 meters. A bench face angle of 66° was used, resulting in an inner-ramp angle of 45° when catch benches were included. An 88% overall gold recovery has been used in this study, which was based on bottle roll and column leach test results. Base case haulage ramps are 26 meters wide and have a design gradient of 10%. Processing rates are based on a daily crushing rate of approximately 10,000 tonnes per day utilizing two stage crushing

    The mine and crushing will be operated by contractors with oversight by GMV mine management. The mine plan produces a nominal tonnage to the crushing and heap leach of 3,500 Ktonnes per year (10,000 tpd) from a total material movement of 93.8 Ktonnes for the life of mine (26,106 tpd LOM average).

    The PEA is preliminary in nature; it includes inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. There is no Mineral Reserve at the Mexican Hat Project at this time. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Over the course of the mine life, 38.6 Mtonnes of Mineralized Resource is planned for processing out of a total material movement of 117.8 Mtonnes.

    INFRASTRUCTURE & PROCESS PLANT

    The Mexican Hat Project is located in the southeastern part of the State of Arizona, approximately 72 miles east-southeast of Tucson, and can be accessed from the Old Ghost Town Road., a gravel road extending south of the Town of Pearce or north from Gleeson Road.

    Groundwater will be used as the source of water for mining operations. No permitting restrictions or quantity issues are anticipated.

    A 69 kV powerline to site will be supplied by Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative from their power plant located 30 km north of the project site.

    The crushing plant will be operated by a contractor to produce a crushed product for heap leaching with a 25 mm top size. Pregnant solution from the heap leach will be processed in a conventional adsorption desorption recovery (ADR) plant. The process plant will produce doré gold bars.

    TECHNICAL REPORT AND QUALIFIED PERSONS

    The Report entitled Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment, Mexican Hat Project’, with an effective date of August 8, 2025 and which was prepared by the following Qualified Persons (as defined under NI 43-101), all of whom are independent of the Company, will be filed by the Company within 45 days of this release on www.sedarplus.com:

    • Mr. Brian Olson, Q.P., Samuel Engineering, Inc. (Metallurgical Test Work and Recovery, Process Plant and Process Operating Costs)
    • Mr. Steven Pozder, P.E., Samuel Engineering, Inc. (Project Economics and Infrastructure)
    • Dr. Dave Webb, Ph.D., P.Eng., P.Geo., DRW Geological Consultants Ltd. (Mineral Resource Estimate, Property Description and Location, Accessibility, Climate, Local Resource, Infrastructure and Physiography, History, Geological Setting and Mineralization, Deposit Types, Exploration, Drilling, Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security, Data Verification).
    • Mr. Thomas L. Dyer, P.E., RESPEC LLC. (Mine Design, Production Schedule, Capital and Operating Costs)
    • Mr. Francisco J. Barrios, P.E., BBA Consultants International LP (Pad Design and Loading)
    • Ms. Dawn Garcia, CPG, PG, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Environmental)

    All Qualified Persons have contributed to their corresponding sections in Interpretation, and Recommendations. The Qualified Persons have reviewed and approved the scientific, technical, and economic information obtained in this news release.

    For a description of the data verification process and limitations, underlying assumptions and the results of surveys and quality assurance program regarding exploration information, please refer to the Company’s existing NI 43-101 Technical Report filed on SEDAR+ entitled ‘Preliminary Economic Assessment, Mexican Hat Project’ with an effective date of October 20, 2020.

    Ian Klassen, President & CEO remarked that ‘The robust PEA confirms our contention that the project’s strong economic potential de-risks the development pathway, providing a solid foundation for advancement. The results validate the open-pit, heap-leach concept, demonstrate excellent metallurgy and recoveries, and outline a simple mining and processing strategy. With high margins, rapid payback, and straightforward engineering, the PEA positions the project well for the future, where detailed design, capital optimization, and permitting can advance with confidence.’

    2025-2026 Forward Looking Plan

    The Mexican Hat Project PEA economics justify continued investment in project development. The forward-looking plan for Mexican Hat includes work required to advance the project through Feasibility Study and into the permitting process.

    These tasks include:

    • Approx. 7000 meters of in-fill drilling to increase confidence in the current geological understanding and mineral resource estimation to sufficient level to support mineral reserve development
    • Metallurgical column, hardness, and grinding tests to further optimize and improve heap leach gold recovery, and to provide information for feasibility design work
    • Performing a trade-off study for self-mining and crushing versus contract mining and crushing
    • Geotechnical drilling and analysis to optimize pit slope design parameters
    • Conduct base-line water sampling, and update of hydrologic, cultural, and environmental studies for permitting

    About GMV Minerals Inc.

    GMV Minerals Inc. is a publicly traded exploration company focused on developing precious metal assets in Arizona. GMV, through its 100% owned subsidiary, has a 100% interest in a Mining Property Lease commonly referred to as the Mexican Hat Project, located in Cochise County, Arizona, USA. The project was initially explored by Placer Dome (USA) in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s. GMV is focused on developing the asset and realizing the full mineral potential of the property through near term gold production.

    PEA Information and Cautionary Note Regarding Inferred Mineral Resources

    The mine plan evaluated in the PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources, as defined by NI 43-101 that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be converted to Mineral Reserves. Additional drilling and technical studies will need to be completed in order to fully assess its viability. There is no certainty that a production decision will be made to develop the Mexican Hat Project or that the economic results described in the PEA will be realized. Mine design and mining schedules, metallurgical flow sheets and process plant designs will require additional detailed work and economic analysis and internal studies to ensure satisfactory operational conditions and decisions regarding future targeted production.

    Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors

    The United States Securities and Exchange Commission permits U.S. mining companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only those mineral deposits that a company can economically and legally extract or produce. We use certain terms in this report, such as ‘measured,’ ‘indicated,’ ‘inferred,’ and ‘resources,’ that the SEC guidelines strictly prohibit U.S. registered companies from including in their filings with the SEC.

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

    This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking information’ under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking information include estimates and statements that describe the Company’s future plans, objectives or goals, including words to the effect that the Company or management expects a stated condition or result to occur. Forward-looking information may be identified by such terms as ‘believes’, ‘anticipates’, ‘expects’, ‘estimates’, ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘will’, or ‘plan’. Forward-looking information contained in this news release include, but are not limited to, statements or information with respect to: the results of the PEA, including the IRR and NPV, life of mine and production, capital and operating expenditures, cost estimates; permitting restrictions, and the mine plan, including infrastructure requirements and future plans; the filing of the PEA, including timing thereof, mineral resources; and future gold prices. Since forward-looking information are based on assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties as described in the Company’s filings with Canadian securities regulators. Assumptions upon which forward-looking information contained in this news release is based, without limitation, include: results of future exploration; gold prices; accuracy of the results of the PEA, including key assumptions and methods used to determine mineral resources and the results of the PEA; the ability to obtain required permits and approvals; the ability to execute future plans; exchange rates; ability to obtain funding; and changes in regulatory or community environment; Risks, and uncertainties include: results of further exploration; risks related to mineral tenure, permits and approvals; risks related to the execution of future plans; changes in gold price and exchange rates; risks related to obtaining financing; foreign country risks; regulatory risks and liabilities; and those risks and uncertainties as further described in the Company’s filings with Canadian securities regulators which can be found on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca under the Company’s profile. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. 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.

    Dr. D.R. Webb, Ph.D., P.Geo., P.Eng. is the Q.P. responsible for this release within the meaning of NI 43-101 and has reviewed the technical content of this release and has approved its content.

    ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

    Ian Klassen, President
    For further information please contact:
    GMV Minerals Inc.
    Ian Klassen
    Tel: (604) 899-0106
    Email: info@gmvminerals.com

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

    Source

    Click here to connect with GMV Minerals Inc. (TSXV:GMV)(OTCQB:GMVMF) to receive an Investor Presentation

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Wednesday (August 13) as of 9:00 p.m. UTC.

    Get the latest insights on Bitcoin, Ethereum and altcoins, along with a round-up of key cryptocurrency market news.

    Bitcoin and Ethereum price update

    Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$122,444, up by 2.6 percent over the last 24 hours, and its highest valuation of the day. It briefly dropped to its lowest valuation of $120,414 shortly after the opening bell.

    Bitcoin has found itself at the crossroads of macroeconomic data, political influence and shifting capital flows. Inflation statistics and central bank dynamics have introduced caution, while stablecoin activity and institutional appetite are hinting at a redistribution into altcoins.

    Bitcoin price performance, August 13, 2025.

    Chart via TradingView.

    Meanwhile, Ethereum (ETH) continued to rally, up by 4.5 percent to US$4,716.60. The cryptocurrency’s lowest valuation on Wednesday was US$4,638.43, and its highest was US$4,738.59.

    Glassnode notes that ETH is a bellwether for altcoins, and its current move as capital continues to flow into exchange-traded funds suggests further upside. In an X post on Wednesday, Charles Edwards, founder of crypto quantitative digital asset fund Capriole Investments, shared data showing that 75 percent of Coinbase Global’s (NASDAQ:COIN) volume came from institutional players on Tuesday (August 12).

    He pointed to the outlook for interest rates following the release of July inflation data.

    Altcoin price update

    • Solana (SOL) was priced at US$200.74, up by 6.1 percent over 24 hours, and its highest valuation of the day. Its lowest valuation was US$195.81.
    • XRP was trading for US$3.27, up 0.1 percent in the past 24 hours and at its highest valuation of the day. Its lowest was US$3.24.
    • Sui (SUI) was trading at US$3.99, up by 2.3 percent over the past 24 hours, and its highest valuation of the day. Its lowest level was US$3.93.
    • Cardano (ADA) was trading at US$0.8827, up by 4.6 percent over 24 hours, and its highest valuation on Wednesday. Its lowest was US$0.8660.

    Today’s crypto news to know

    World Liberty Financial sets up US$1.5 billion crypto treasury

    World Liberty Financial, a digital asset venture backed by US President Donald Trump and his sons, has announced plans to establish a US$1.5 billion “crypto treasury” in partnership with ALT5 Sigma (NASDAQ:ALTS).

    Under the deal, ALT5 will raise US$1.5 billion through the sale of its own shares. The funds will go toward the purchase of World Liberty’s in-house token, $WLFI, and will also be used to set up a crypto treasury, settle litigation, pay down debt and for other corporate uses. It will ultimately hold about 7.5 percent of $WLFI tokens.

    Unnamed institutional investors and venture capital firms participated in the share sale. Crypto treasury models have grown in popularity this year amid a friendlier US regulatory stance under the Trump administration.

    The project’s leadership is heavily tied to the Trump family, with Trump himself listed as “co-founder emeritus,” and Eric, Donald Jr. and Barron Trump holding co-founder titles.

    As part of the arrangement, Eric Trump will join ALT5’s board and Zach Witkoff will serve as its chair.

    Bullish shares surge on NYSE debut

    Bullish (NYSE:BLSH), the parent company of Bullish Exchange and CoinDesk, began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday. Shares were priced at US$37 each, an increase from an earlier target of US$33, with 30 million on offer to raise US$1.1 billion and value the company at nearly US$5.4 billion.

    Shares surged as much as 218 percent to reach US$118 on trading volume of roughly 38 million shares, before pulling back to close at US$70.65. The initial public offering pushed the company’s market cap above US$10 billion.

    Banking groups push for stablecoin loophole closure

    US banking groups, led by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), are urging Congress to close a loophole that allows stablecoin issuers to indirectly offer yields through affiliates. They argue that while new stablecoin laws prevent issuers from directly offering yield, they don’t prohibit crypto exchanges or affiliated businesses from doing so.

    The groups contend that this circumvents the law and could lead to a US$6.6 trillion outflow of deposits from traditional banks, potentially disrupting credit flow to American businesses and families.

    Banks are concerned that yield-bearing stablecoins undermine their ability to attract deposits, which are crucial for backing loans. The offering of yield is a significant marketing draw for stablecoins, with some, like USDC, already rewarding holders on exchanges such as Kraken and Coinbase (NASDAQ:COIN).

    Safe harbor programs proposed for DeFi

    In a Wednesday letter, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) and the DeFi Education Fund asked the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Hester Peirce, head of the commission’s Crypto Task Force, to set up a safe harbor program from broker-dealer registration requirements for non-fungible token (NFT) and DeFi applications.

    The group said the letter was a follow up to Trump’s Working Group on Digital Assets, which called on the SEC to give certain DeFi service providers relief from registration provisions under the Exchange Act, specifically those related to broker-dealers, exchanges and clearing agencies. SEC Chair Paul Atkins also directed staff to update “antiquated agency rules and regulations” for certain crypto and blockchain applications in July.

    To avoid enforcement actions, a safe harbor provision would exempt some companies that offer crypto-related products and services from enforcement actions. a16z has sent two previous letters to the commission this year recommending safe harbors for NFTs, airdrops and network tokens.

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

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    The price of zinc was on the rise in 2024, but this year has been a different story. The metal’s value has trended down for most of 2025 on the back of increased supply and weakening demand.

    Many base metals have taken hit from lagging demand in recent years due to sticky inflation and higher interest rates, and zinc is no exception. Zinc supply has also faced pressure from higher mining and refining costs, causing some major zinc mines and smelters to suspend operations, with more possible if the current economic situation continues.

    With its important role in the steel manufacturing process, the zinc market is heavily influenced by international trade. One area of support in the last few months has been turmoil caused by the US-China trade war and tariff threats .

    Data was gathered on July 30, 2025, using TradingView’s stock screener, and only zinc stocks with market caps greater than C$50 million at that time were considered. Read on to learn more about their operations and plans.

    1. Teck Resources (TSX:TECK.A,TSX:TECK.B)

    Market cap: C$22.01 billion
    Share price: C$45.04

    Teck Resources is a major global polymetallic miner, as well as one of the world’s top zinc producers.

    The Vancouver-headquartered company produced 615,900 metric tons (MT) of zinc in concentrate in 2024, with 555,600 MT coming from its Red Dog zinc mine in Alaska. The remaining 60,300 MT came from Teck’s 22.5 percent share of zinc production from the Peru-based Antamina copper-zinc mine.

    Teck’s total 2025 production guidance for the base metal is set in a range of 525,000 to 575,000 MT. As of June 30, the company’s zinc production for the year totaled 384,000 MT.

    In addition to the sites mentioned, Teck owns the Trail operations, which it describes as ‘one of the world’s largest fully integrated zinc and lead smelting and refining complexes.’ Located in BC, Canada, the Trail operations produced 256,000 MT of refined zinc in 2024, with 190,000 to 230,000 MT of the material expected in 2025.

    Teck pays a quarterly dividend. On September 29, it will pay out a dividend of C$0.125 per share.

    2. Fireweed Metals (TSXV:FWZ)

    Market cap: C$485.11 million
    Share price: C$2.32

    Fireweed Metals is a critical metals company whose flagship Macmillan Pass zinc project is located in Canada’s Yukon. In 2023, the company acquired the Gayna River zinc project in the Northwest Territories, as well as the Mactung tungsten project, which is adjacent to Macmillan Pass and straddles the border between Yukon and the Northwest Territories. According to Fireweed, Mactung ‘hosts the world’s largest high-grade tungsten deposit.’

    Even with these new assets, the company still has a strong focus on Macmillan Pass. In fact, in November 2023, the Fireweed team, led by Dr. Jack Milton, the firm’s vice president of geology, received the Association for Mineral Exploration’s H.H. “Spud” Huestis Award for its work at the Macmillan Pass property.

    Fireweed’s best drill intersection to date from Macmillan Pass’ Boundary zone includes 143.95 meters true width at 14.45 percent zinc, including 28.71 meters at 25.52 percent zinc. In September 2024, after its largest regional exploration campaign ever at Macmillan Pass, the company released an updated resource estimate for the Tom and Jason deposits, as well as inaugural resource estimates for the Boundary zone and End zone deposits.

    Fireweed launched its 2025 field program in early June, saying it will include 12,000 meters of diamond drilling at Macmillan Pass. The work will target ‘both high-priority regional prospects and step-outs around known zinc-lead-silver-gallium-germanium deposits,’ according to a press release.

    3. Trilogy Metals (TSX:TMQ)

    Market cap: C$405.68 million
    Share price: C$2.47

    Trilogy Metals is focused primarily on copper, zinc and cobalt at its Alaskan Upper Kobuk projects, which are held by Ambler Metals, a joint venture operating company owned equally by Trilogy and South32 (ASX:S32,OTC Pink:SHTLF).

    Its most advanced zinc project is the Arctic copper-zinc-lead-gold-silver volcanogenic massive sulfide project, which is in the feasibility stage and has proven and probable reserves of 43.44 million MT grading 3.12 percent zinc.

    In addition, early stage 2023 field work at the company’s wholly owned Helpmejack project in Alaska’s Ambler schist belt outlined two target areas prospective for volcanogenic massive sulfide and shale-hosted zinc deposits.

    Trilogy had been focusing on improving access to the region with its Amber Access project, but it was rejected by the US Bureau of Land Management under the Biden administration in June 2024 due to the impact the proposed road could have on the environment and communities in the region, which have seen little development.

    However, under the Trump administration, a series of executive and secretarial orders focusing on developing Alaska’s natural resources have been enacted that could reverse this decision.

    “Recent actions taken by President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum signal a positive path forward for the Ambler Road,’ Trilogy Metals President and CEO Tony Giardini said. ‘This transportation corridor is crucial not only for providing access to the minerals that are vital to U.S. national security and prosperity, but also for much-needed economic growth and job creation in Alaska. Trilogy Metals is committed to working with all stakeholders on progressing the road, to unlock the vast natural resource potential of the Ambler Mining District.”

    4. Emerita Resources (TSXV:EMO)

    Market cap: C$317.02 million
    Share price: C$1.20

    Emerita Resources has a portfolio of high-grade, large-scale polymetallic projects covering more than 26,000 combined hectares in Spain’s Iberian Pyrite Belt. The company’s flagship asset is the Iberian Belt West project, which hosts three massive sulfide deposits: La Infanta, La Romanera and El Cura.

    Emerita released a resource estimate for Iberian Belt West in May 2023. It finished environmental baseline studies the following month, and completed supporting documentation for its mining license application in December 2023.

    In July 2024, the Andalusian government granted Iberian Belt West a declaration of strategic interest, which will streamline the process of moving the project through development.

    Phase 2 metallurgical testing results for the La Romanera and La Infanta deposits released in late 2024 show that commercial-grade copper, lead and zinc concentrates can be obtained from both deposits.

    In March of this year, Emerita announced an updated resource estimate for Iberian Belt West, showing a 35 percent increase to the total indicated mineral resource tonnage and a 44 percent increase in total inferred mineral resource tonnage. Also this year, Emerita made the cut for the latest TSX Venture 50 list.

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Graphite prices have experienced volatility recently due to bottlenecks in demand for electric vehicles.

    One major factor experts are watching right now is the trade war between China and the US.

    China introduced export restrictions on certain graphite products on December 1, 2023, making it a requirement for Chinese exporters to apply for special permits to ship the material to global markets. In July 2024, the Trump administration in the US announced it would raise tariffs on battery-grade graphite imports from China to 93.5 percent.

    Another trend shaping the graphite market in 2025 has been increasing substitution of natural graphite with synthetic in battery anode production; this comes in response to Chinese exports restrictions and US tariffs on natural graphite.

    This has led to much lower prices for natural graphite, and against that backdrop, many Canadian graphite stocks have trended down. However, several graphite-focused companies have seen strong performances this year.

    Below is a look at the year’s best-performing graphite stocks on the TSXV and CSE; TSX companies were considered, but none made the cut this time. Data was obtained on July 29, 2025, using TradingView’s stock screener, and all companies listed had market caps above C$10 million at that time. Read on to learn more about their work this year.

    1. HydroGraph Clean Power (CSE:HG)

    Year-to-date gain: 384.21 percent
    Market cap: C$282.81 million
    Share price: C$0.99

    HydroGraph Clean Power produces cost-effective, high-purity graphene, hydrogen and other strategic nanomaterials.

    Graphene, a pure carbon material extracted from graphite, has myriad potential applications in industries such as transport, solar cells, medicine, electronics, energy, defense and desalination. HydroGraph has an exclusive license from Kansas State University to produce graphene and hydrogen through the organization’s patented detonation process.

    Much of HydroGraph’s news flow in 2025 has centered on strategic partnerships.

    Results from a research study conducted with Arizona State University were released in January, demonstrating that the company’s HydroGraph’s Fractal Graphene is well suited for ultra-high-performance concretes and 3D-printed structures. In February, HydroGraph announced a technical collaboration with an unnamed global leader in synthetic fiber manufacturing to assess the potential of its graphene technology in high-performance fiber applications.

    The following month, HydroGraph shared the launch of a line of advanced graphene dispersions developed in collaboration with battery materials and testing services company NEI. The products have the potential to be used to produce high-performance electrodes for use in energy storage solutions.

    The company signed a letter of intent in April that could lead to a leading North American industrial gas supplier providing it with access to large volumes of high-purity acetylene. This is an essential material in HydroGraph’s patented detonation synthesis process. Acquiring this feedstock will help the firm advance its plans to build a new graphene production facility in Texas with the capacity to produce over 350 metric tons of graphene annually.

    HydroGraph launched its Compounding Partner Program in July with the goal of attaining commercial-scale production of its high-performance Fractal Graphene in thermoplastics. According to the company, initial certified partners are testing new formulations in the automotive and packaging sectors.

    After trading in a range of C$0.22 to C$0.35 for much of the year, shares of HydroGraph jumped nearly 300 percent in a matter of days to reach a year-to-date high of C$0.99 on July 29.

    2. Black Swan Graphene (TSXV:SWAN)

    Year-to-date gain: 107.35 percent
    Market cap: C$60.02 million
    Share price: C$1.41

    Black Swan Graphene describes itself as an emerging powerhouse in the bulk graphene business.

    The company is a spinout of Mason Resources (TSXV:LLG,OTCQX:MGPHF), which owns the Uatnan graphite project in Québec and holds a 39 percent stake in Black Swan. Graphite from Uatnan is used to supply Black Swan.

    UK-based global chemicals manufacturer Thomas Swan & Co. holds a 15 percent interest in Black Swan, and brings a portfolio of patents and intellectual property related to graphene production. Through this partnership, Black Swan is building out a fully integrated supply chain of mine-to-graphene products.

    Black Swan’s share price traded sideways for much of the year before benefiting greatly from a summer surge. Shares of Black Swan reached their highest year-to-date price of C$1.52 on July 23.

    This followed a series of positive news items concerning progress on increasing commercial output. On June 3, Black Swan announced the installation of an additional production unit at its operational facility in the UK. It is working to more than triple its annual production capacity from 40 metric tons of high-quality graphene to 140 metric tons.

    Later in the month, the company signed a non-exclusive distribution and sales agreement with Indian specialty materials and polymers supplier METCO Resources. The agreement will allow METCO to “distribute and promote Black Swan’s graphene nanoplatelets and GEM advanced masterbatch products to customers across India’s industrial, packaging, automotive, and construction sectors,” as per a press release.

    Black Swan made another key announcement in the following month. On July 9, the market learned the company had secured a US patent for its breakthrough continuous graphene production process.

    3. Focus Graphite Advanced Materials (TSXV:FMS)

    Year-to-date gain: 100 percent
    Market cap: C$12.26 million
    Share price: C$0.135

    Focus Graphite Advanced Materials is both a graphite miner and a battery technology company. Its wholly owned flagship Lac Knife high-grade crystalline flake graphite project is located in Northeastern Québec.

    With a completed feasibility study, Lac Knife is one of North America’s most advanced graphite deposits. The company also holds Lac Tétépisca, the highest-purity graphite project in Québec.

    In terms of battery technologies, Focus Graphite has a patent-pending proprietary silicone-enhanced spheroidized graphite technology that is designed to enhance battery performance and efficiency.

    In late May, definition drilling at Lac Tétépisca led to an extension of the strike length of the mineralized zone to over 6 kilometers, while preliminary metallurgical testing confirmed the quality of the project’s flake graphite.

    In mid-June, the company said thermal purification testing on Lac Knife flake graphite completed by American Energy Technologies Company had resulted in refined concentrate to a purity level of 99.999 percent carbon.

    “This milestone underscores Focus Graphite’s potential to supply ultra-high-purity graphite material for nuclear energy applications, a market historically dominated by synthetic graphite and limited to a small cohort of qualifying producers,” states the company’s press release.

    Shares of Focus Graphite hit their highest year-to-date value of C$0.17 on June 17.

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    • Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau died on Aug. 29, 2024, when hit by a suspected drunk driver while they were bicycling in New Jersey.
    • Meredith and Madeline Gaudreau went on ABC to discuss their grief and a foundation to honor their late husbands.
    • The John and Matthew Gaudreau Foundation will help youth hockey initiatives and support hockey families that have faced tragedy.

    The widows of Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau used the occasion of what would have been Johnny’s 32nd birthday to formally launch a foundation to honor the late hockey players.

    But most of the interview with Meredith, Johnny’s wife, and Madeline on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ dealt with the grief they have experienced in the nearly one year since their husbands died on Aug. 29, 2024. The brothers were hit by a suspected drunk driver while they were bicycling in New Jersey. Sean Higgins has pleaded not guilty to charges in the case.

    ‘Half of me, the best part of me, died that day, too,’ Meredith said. ‘I’m trying to be double now for my kids, even though I’m half of who I was.’

    Both women were expecting at the time of their husbands’ deaths. Madeline gave birth to her first child, Tripp, and Meredith her third, Carter.

    ‘Tripp’s now hitting milestones, so that’s heartbreaking because Matt was super excited to be a dad,’ Madeline said.

    The John and Matthew Gaudreau Foundation, first announced in March, will help youth hockey initiatives, support hockey families that have faced tragedy and help other families that have been affected by drunk driving.

    ‘It was never lost on John and Matty about how expensive it is to maintain hockey as a hobby,’ Meredith said.

    The brothers played at Boston College. Older brother Johnny became a seven-time All-Star with the Calgary Flames and Columbus Blue Jackets. Matthew played in the American Hockey League and ECHL and retired to coach youth hockey.

    The hockey community has kept the players’ names in the forefront. USA Hockey had Johnny Gaudreau’s jersey in the locker rooms at the 4 Nations Face-Off. Columbus fans sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to Johnny Gaudreau Jr. at a game in February. The Blue Jackets and Detroit Red Wings honored the brothers with their outfits as they walked into their Stadium Series game. Meredith announced Blue Jackets first-round selections at the 2025 NHL Draft.

    ‘My daughter (Noa) is catching on,’ Meredith told ABC. ‘She’s 2 and she asks for him a lot. She says, ‘Daddy’s in heaven’ and I’m starting to explain to her what heaven is really because she wants to go to heaven and she says, ‘I want him to come back’ or ‘let’s call him.”

    Madeline said she has been writing notes to Matthew since a couple days after the accident.

    ‘Lately it’s been like, oh, you know, ‘Tripp has two teeth now, but I know you know this.’ Because it’s hard for me to write and think that Matt isn’t seeing this,’ she said.

    This post appeared first on USA TODAY

    • The 2025-26 English Premier League season begins Friday, Aug. 15.
    • Liverpool begins its title defense against Bournemouth.
    • Arsenal, Chelsea, and Manchester City are expected to challenge Liverpool.

    The 2025-26 Premier League season kicks off Friday, Aug. 15, when the defending league winners Liverpool host Bournemouth at Anfield.

    Liverpool now faces the daunting challenge of a title repeat quest and must do so after a tragic summer during which forward Diogo Jota died in a car crash on July 3.

    On the pitch, Liverpool will have a number of worthy challengers. The clubs that finished in the three spots below Liverpool on last season’s table – Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester City – all spent (and will continue to spend until the transfer window closes on Sept. 1) in hopes of catching the Reds. The high-priced arms race should make for a thrilling season ahead.

    It should be no surprise that the reigning champions sit atop USA TODAY Sports’ first EPL power rankings. However, where do the other 19 squads stand? Here are our rankings:

    1. Liverpool

    • The Reds will need to overcome the tragic death of Diogo Jota in their title defense.

    2. Arsenal

    • Is Viktor Gyökeres the missing piece after three consecutive second-place finishes?

    3. Manchester City

    • Anything short of the Premier League title will be a failure for Pep Guardiola’s squad.

    4. Chelsea

    • Can Chelsea ride a wave of momentum from their Club World Cup win into the new season?

    5. Aston Villa

    • After an inspired run to the Champions League quarterfinals last season, the Villans must settle for the Europa League this season.

    6. Newcastle United

    • Will Alexander Isak still be with the team come September?

    7. Tottenham Hotspur

    • Adding Mohammed Kudus is a big boost for new manager Thomas Frank.

    8. Manchester United

    • Was last season’s 15th-place finish an outlier, or a sign of what’s to come at Old Trafford?

    9. Brighton & Hove Albion

    • Barely missing out on European competition will have the Seagulls hungry for more in 2025-26.

    10. Bournemouth

    • The Cherries have steadily improved their station in the table in each of their past three seasons in the Premier League.

    11. Nottingham Forest

    • With its Europa League spot, Nottingham Forest enters European competition for the first time since 1996.

    12. Fulham

    • Consistent middle-of-the-table finishers since Premier League return expected to finish mid-table again.

    13. Everton

    • After calling Goodison Park home since the 1800s, the Toffees will break in a fancy new stadium this season.

    14. Crystal Palace

    • The reigning FA Cup champions have to settle for the UEFA Conference League after losing an appeal.

    15. West Ham United

    • The Hammers have been in the Premier League since the 2012-13 season, but that run could be in jeopardy.

    16. Wolverhampton Wanderers

    • Wolverhampton has been on a steady drop in the table the previous four seasons.

    17. Brentford

    • Former Liverpool backup ‘keeper Caoimhín Kelleher finally gets his opportunity to be a No. 1.

    18. Leeds United

    • Leeds has spent just three seasons in the Premier League since 2004.

    19. Burnley

    • Staying in the Premier League will be a challenge, made even more daunting by the loss of goalkeeper James Trafford, who had 29 clean sheets last season.

    20. Sunderland

    • The Black Cats are in the Premier League for the first time since 2017, climbing back up from the third division over the past four seasons.

    USA TODAY Sports’ 48-page special edition commemorates 30 years of Major League Soccer, from its best players to key milestones and championship dynasties to what exciting steps are next with the World Cup ahead. Order your copy today!

    This post appeared first on USA TODAY

    Shohei Ohtani returned to the mound for the Los Angeles Dodgers on Wednesday.

    While it was a road game for the Dodgers, Ohtani was back in a familiar setting: Angel Stadium.

    Wednesday marked his first time pitching in the stadium as an opponent. Before Wednesday’s game, he was 21-8 with a 2.22 ERA in 47 career starts at Angel Stadium, according to MLB Network.

    Ohtani played for the Los Angeles Angels from 2018 to 2023.

    The Japanese star continues to progress on the mound and isn’t expected to pitch more than five innings per start during the regular season. He did not pitch during his first season with the Dodgers in 2024 as he continued to recover from Tommy John surgery on his right elbow.

    Shohei Ohtani pitching performance

    Ohtani allowed five hits and four earned runs, while striking out seven in 4.1 innings pitched on Wednesday against the Angels. He threw a season-high 80 pitches and had at least two wild pitches near the end of the fourth inning.

    He came out in the fifth inning after Zach Neto hit a two-run double. Dodgers manager Dave Roberts went to the bullpen and called on Anthony Banda to replace Othani with just one out recorded in the inning.

    Ohtani was not expected to pitch more than five innings and had not thrown more than 55 pitches in a single game before Wednesday.

    Ohtani had impacted the game before he even took the mound, recording a leadoff triple before Mookie Betts hit an RBI single to bring him in to give the Dodgers a 1-0 lead. The Dodgers extended their lead to 3-0 in the top of the first inning.

    But Ohtani the pitcher had a rough start to the second inning, with Taylor Ward hitting a solo home run 375 feet to right-center field. The Angels scored two runs in the inning.

    Ohtani, the reigning National League MVP, struck out former teammate Mike Trout twice, however.

    The two-way star’s performance followed up his last outing against the St. Louis Cardinals on Aug. 6, in which he produced a season-high eight strikeouts. He pitched four innings, allowing just one run on two hits in a 5-3 loss.

    During his seventh start of the season, Ohtani left the game during the middle of an at-bat after throwing six consecutive balls against the Cincinnati Reds. While the situation appeared concerning, he was not injured and was dealing with a cramp in his right hip.

    Ohtani finished 1-for-4 at the plate and drew a walk on Wednesday. He had three strikeouts.

    The Angels rallied to win the game 6-5.

    This post appeared first on USA TODAY