Author

admin

Browsing

After-Tax NPV(8%) of $473M and IRR of 49% at USD $1,000/mtu WO3; Fully funded 20,000m Drill Program Underway to Expand Scale of the Borralha Project

Key Highlights:

  • Robust Economics: After-tax NPV(8%)1 of $473.4 million (USD $346.6 million) and IRR2 of 48.8% at USD $1,000/mtu WO₃3.

  • Capital Efficient Development: Initial capital4 of approximately $124.2 million (USD $91 million) with 4.2-year payback5.

  • Strong Base Case: After-tax IRR2 of 27.2% and NPV(8%)1 of $182.7 million (USD $134.0 million) at ~USD $704/mtu WO₃ (Argus long-term forecast).

  • Significant Upside Leverage: After-tax IRR2 of 78.4% and NPV(8%)1 of $963.8 million (USD $706.4 million) at USD $1,500/mtu WO₃.

  • Resource Growth Just Beginning: Fully funded 20,000-metre drill program underway at the Borralha Project targeting resource expansion and potential mine life extension well beyond the initial 11-year mine plan.

All amounts in Canadian dollars unless stated otherwise.

Vancouver, British Columbia–(Newsfile Corp. – March 2, 2026) – Allied Critical Metals Inc. (CSE: ACM,OTC:ACMIF) (OTCQB: ACMIF) (FSE: 0VJ0) (‘Allied‘ or the ‘Company‘) is pleased to announce the results of its initial Preliminary Economic Assessment (‘PEA‘) for its 100%-owned Borralha Tungsten Project (‘Borralha‘ or the ‘Project‘) in northern Portugal.

‘The completion of the PEA marks another important milestone for the Company. In addition to the significant tailwinds provided by the significant increase in the price of tungsten, which has surged to more than USD $1,900/mtu [Source: Fastmarkets], we are very pleased to see have been able to receive support from idD Portugal Defence, the Portuguese public entity overseeing the nation’s Defence Industry, which has endorsed the Borralha Project as a strategic initiative of national importance. We have also received a favourable Environmental Impact Declaration, subject to standard regulatory conditions (Declaração de Impacte Ambiental Favorável Condicionada – ‘DIA’) from the Portuguese Environment Agency (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, I.P. – APA),’ commented Roy Bonnell, CEO and Director of Allied. ‘We could not be more pleased with the considerable advancement of the Borralha Project and look forward to continuing to more progress at the Borralha Project and the Vila Verde Project, which are both strategic critical mineral tungsten assets well positioned within the EU.’

The PEA outlines a technically robust and capital-efficient underground tungsten development project within the European Union, delivering strong economics across a range of pricing assumptions. Importantly, the study reflects only the Santa Helena Breccia deposit and an initial 11-year mine plan. The Company is committed to long term expansion of the current resource estimate and as such has recently commenced a fully funded 20,000-metre drill program designed to expand the current resource and enhance long-term project scale.

Initial PEA Economic Summary (After-Tax) for the Borralha Project

Medium Case – USD $1,000/mtu WO₃
NPV(8%)1 IRR2 Payback3
$473.4 million4 48.8% 4.2 years
(USD$ 346.6 million)
Base Case – Argus Long-Term Forecast (US$677 to $763/mtu WO₃; ~USD $704/mtu WO₃ Average)
NPV(8%)1 IRR2 Payback3
$182.7 million4 27.2% 5.8 years
(USD$ 134.0 million)
High Case – USD $1,500/mtu WO₃
NPV(8%)1 IRR2 Payback3
$963.8 million4 78.4% 3.2 years
(USD$ 706.4 million)

 

Notes:
1. NPV is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding NPV.
2. IRR is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding IRR.
3. Payback is a Non-GAAP measure. see notes below for additional information regarding payback.
4. Canadian dollar (CAD) equivalents calculated used a foreign exchange rate of CAD $1.3658/USD.

Mine design and cut-off grade selection were developed using a conservative USD $659/mtu WO₃ assumption. Recent reported tungsten market prices have reached approximately USD $1,998/mtu [Source: Fastmarkets; February 27, 2026], demonstrating meaningful leverage to current market conditions.

Initial Mine Plan – Strong Base with Expansion Potential

  • Mine life: 11 years

  • Average annual production: ~1,708 tonnes WO₃

  • Peak annual production: 2,388 tonnes WO₃

  • Processing rate: 1.4 million tonnes per annum

  • Average mill feed grade: 0.20% WO₃

  • All-in sustaining cost (AISC)6 estimate: ~USD $303/mtu WO₃ (CAD $413.84/mtu WO₃)

The PEA mine plan incorporates Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources from the Santa Helena Breccia deposit. Mineralization remains open along strike and at depth.

The ongoing 20,000-metre drill program is targeting:

  • Expansion of the current 13.0 Mt Measured & Indicated resource

  • Conversion of Inferred resources into higher-confidence categories

  • Potential extension of mine life beyond 11 years

  • Evaluation of throughput optimization and scale growth

The Company views this initial PEA as a foundational step in what is expected to be a multi-stage growth strategy at the Borralha Project.

Roy Bonnell, CEO & Director commented, ‘This initial PEA confirms the Borralha Project as a high-return, capital-efficient tungsten development project in a Tier-1 European jurisdiction. At USD $1,000 per mtu (significantly below current reported market pricing) the Borralha Project generates a 48.8% after-tax IRR with modest initial capital of approximately USD $91 million.

Importantly, this PEA reflects only the Santa Helena Breccia and an initial 11-year mine plan. With future exploration work and the 20,000 meters of drilling currently underway, we are focused on expanding resources, extending mine life and enhancing overall project scale. We believe we are at the beginning of unlocking the Borralha Project’s full potential.

Combined with a favourable Environmental Impact Declaration, we believe that this PEA opens the door to project level financing for both our industrial scale plant and our pilot plant at the Vila Verde Project.’

Introduction

This initial PEA contemplates development of an underground mining operation at the Santa Helena Breccia deposit within Borralha with a nominal processing capacity of 1.4 million tonnes per annum, utilizing conventional crushing, grinding and gravity concentration to produce a saleable Wolframite concentrate grading approximately 65% WO₃.

The Borralha Project has received a favourable Environmental Impact Declaration (‘DIA’), materially advancing permitting and reducing development risk relative to many global tungsten projects.

Economic Summary

This initial PEA was developed using three pricing frameworks: (i) Low/Base Case: Argus long-term forecast (variable annually) averaging approx. USD $704 per mtu WO₃; (ii) USD $1,000 per mtu WO₃; and (iii) USD $1,500 per mtu WO₃.

Mine design and cut-off grade selection were developed using a conservative price assumption of USD $659 per mtu WO₃.

Table 1 — Economic Results (After-Tax)

Scenario Price1 NPV (8%)2 IRR3 Payback4
Medium $1,365/mtu
(USD $1,000/mtu)
$473.4M
(USD $346.6M)
48.8% 4.2 years
Base $962/mtu
(USD $704/mtu)
$182.7M
(USD $134.0M)
27.2% 5.8 years
High $2,049/mtu
(USD $1,500/mtu)
$963.8M
(USD $706.4M)
78.4% 3.2 years

 
Notes:
1. Prices based on Argus Media Group price forecasts. Canadian dollar (CAD) equivalents calculated used a foreign exchange rate of CAD $1.3658/USD.
2. NPV is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding NPV. M = million.
3. IRR is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding IRR.
4. Payback is a Non-GAAP measure. see notes below for additional information regarding payback.

The results highlight significant sensitivity to tungsten price while maintaining positive economics under conservative long-term assumptions.

For reference, current reported tungsten market prices are materially above the $1,365 per mtu (USD $1,000 per mtu) sensitivity case presented herein, reaching recently $2,729 per mtu (USD $1,998 per mtu) as at February 27, 2026 [Source: Fastmarkets.]

1. Project Overview

The Borralha Tungsten Project is located in the parish of Salto, municipality of Montalegre, district of Vila Real, Portugal. The project comprises a continuous exploitation concession area of approximately 382.48 hectares (3.82 km²).

This initial PEA has been prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (‘NI 43-101‘) and is based on the updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Santa Helena Breccia, effective December 30, 2025. See Company’s current technical report on Borralha (the ‘Technical Report‘) entitled ‘Technical Report on the Borralha Property, Parish of Salto, District of Vila Real, Portugal’, dated effective December 30, 2025, which is published on the Company’s website at www.alliedcritical.com and under its profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Borralha represents one of the largest undeveloped tungsten resources within the European Union and benefits from gravity-dominant processing, reducing metallurgical risk relative to flotation-dependent systems. The project aligns with European critical raw material supply objectives.

2. Mineral Resource Estimate

This initial PEA is based on the updated Mineral Resource Estimate (‘MRE‘ or ‘2025 MRE‘) for the Santa Helena Breccia, which were presented in accordance with NI 43-101 in the Company’s current Technical Report.

Mineral Resources are reported in situ and undiluted and do not incorporate modifying factors such as mining dilution, mining recovery, metallurgical recovery, capital costs, operating costs, or economic analysis. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

MRE Cut-off Grade: 0.09% WO₃

The cut-off grade was selected based on reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction under conceptual underground mining and gravity-dominant processing assumptions, including a very conservative tungsten price of USD$ 550/mtu WO₃ and assumed recovery of approximately 80% (for MRE cut-off determination only). The 2025 MRE reflects a material increase in tonnage and geological confidence relative to the previous mineral resource estimate published in March 2024.

Under the 2025 MRE, the Santa Helena Breccia has been tested by 41 drill holes and surface trenching over approximately 400 meters of strike length and to depths exceeding 350 meters below surface. Mineralization remains open along strike and at depth.

Table 2 — 2025 MRE for Borralha (see also Technical Report for further details)

Classification Tonnes (Mt) Grade (% WO3)
Measured + Indicated 13.0 0.21
Inferred 7.7 0.18

 

3. Mining Method and Production Plan

3.1 Selected Mining Method

The planned mining method for the Santa Helena Breccia involves using mostly long-hole open stoping with cemented paste backfill. This method was selected based on: (i) steeply dipping geometry of the breccia-hosted mineralization; (ii) demonstrated geological continuity; (iii) favorable rock mass conditions; (iv) productivity and operating cost advantages; and (v) reduced surface footprint.

Drift-and-fill mining is incorporated locally in narrower high-grade zones to enhance resource recovery. Open-pit mining and alternative underground methods were evaluated during the conceptual study stage and were not selected due to environmental constraints, scale suitability, and relative operating efficiency.

3.2 Mine Production Schedule

Key operating parameters:

  • Nominal processing rate: 1.4 million tonnes per annum
  • Estimated mine life: approximately 11 years
  • Total life-of-mine processed tonnes: approximately 13.4 million tonnes
  • Average life-of-mine mill feed grade: approximately 0.20% WO₃

The production schedule supports consistent mill feed and stable concentrate production throughout the mine life.

Table 3 — LoM Totals and Averages

Item Amount
Mine life (production years shown) 11 years (2028–2039)
Total ore processed 13,436,040 t
Weighted average WO₃ grade 0.203% WO₃ (≈0.20%)
Total contained WO₃ 27,332 t
Total recovered WO₃ @ 75% 20,499 t
Average annual recovered WO₃ @ 75% ~1,708 t/y

 

Table 4 — Life-of-Mine Schedule Summary

Year Ore Processed (t) Avg. WO₃ Grade (%) Recovered WO₃ (t)
2028 876,304 0.19 1,249
2029 988,042 0.20 1,482
2030 1,387,624 0.18 1,873
2031 1,339,273 0.19 1,908
2032 1,362,177 0.18 1,839
2033 1,373,856 0.23 2,370
2034 1,444,646 0.21 2,275
2035 1,447,061 0.22 2,388
2036 1,236,886 0.20 1,855
2037 1,226,553 0.20 1,840
2038 585,701 0.26 1,142
2039 167,917 0.22 277

 

3.3 Dilution and Recovery Assumptions

The mine plan incorporates Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources within a stope optimization framework consistent with long-hole open stoping methods.

Applied modifying factors include:

  • Mining dilution: approximately 8% (average between primary and secondary stopes)
  • Mining recovery: approximately 89%
    • ~90% for primary stopes
    • ~88% for secondary stopes
  • Drift-and-fill: approximately 7.5% dilution and 95% recovery

After application of these factors, the projected average life-of-mine mill feed grade is approximately 0.20% WO₃.

The PEA includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the results of the PEA will be realized.

Inferred material represents less than approximately 40% of the life-of-mine stope inventory on a volumetric basis and is predominantly located along the margins and outer extents of the deposit.

4. Metallurgy and Processing

4.1 Metallurgical Test Work

Metallurgical test work completed to date indicates that Santa Helena Breccia mineralization is amenable to gravity-dominant processing.

The initial metallurgical program (2023–2024) evaluated crushing, grinding, sulfide flotation, gravimetric concentration, and magnetic separation. Subsequent optimization reduced reliance on flotation by incorporating dense media separation (‘DMS‘) pre-concentration and enhanced gravity recovery.

4.2 Process Flow Sheet

The proposed process plant includes:

  • Three-stage crushing to approximately 6 mm
  • DMS pre-concentration on the 6–2 mm fraction (rejecting approximately 40% of mass)
  • Grinding of DMS product and -2 mm fraction to 1 mm
  • Gravimetric concentration using spirals and shaking tables
  • Magnetic and electrostatic separation for final concentrate upgrading
  • Flotation circuit for copper and tin recovery
  • Filtered tailings with dewatering and partial paste backfill return underground

4.3 Recovery and Concentrate Grades

Preliminary metallurgical recovery estimates:

  • Tungsten: 75%
  • Copper: ~60%
  • Tin: 30%

Expected concentrate specifications:

  • Tungsten concentrate: ~65% WO₃
  • Copper concentrate: ~21% Cu
  • Tin concentrate: ~50% Sn

Silver credits may partially report to the copper concentrate, subject to further test work confirmation.

5. Infrastructure and Site Requirements

The Borralha Project benefits from:

  • Regional road access
  • Grid power availability
  • Underground mining configuration minimizing surface disturbance
  • Filtered dry-stack tailings concept
  • Closed-loop water management system

6. Environmental and Permitting

In January 2026, the Portuguese Environment Agency issued a Favourable Environmental Impact Declaration (‘DIA‘) for the Borralha Project, subject to standard regulatory conditions.

This milestone confirms environmental acceptability of the proposed development and enables progression to the RECAPE stage and subsequent construction permitting.

The Borralha Project aligns with European Union critical raw material strategy and contributes to regional economic development objectives.

7. Economic Framework

7.1 Pricing Framework

The life-of-mine design, cut-off grade selection and production schedule were developed using a conservative tungsten price assumption of USD $659 per metric tonne unit (‘mtu‘) WO₃, consistent with the Argus long-term base case forecast. The Base Case economic model applies the Argus high-case long-term forecast on a year-by-year basis, ranging from approximately USD $763 per mtu in 2028 and gradually declining toward approximately USD $677 per mtu by 2040, for an average price of approximately USD $704 per mtu. [Source: Argus Media Group.]

This approach maintains a conservative technical design basis while allowing the economic analysis to reflect updated long-term market expectations without re-optimizing mine geometry.

Flat price sensitivity scenarios at USD $1,000/mtu and USD $1,500/mtu WO₃ are presented for comparative purposes.

7.2 Operating Cost Summary

The Borralha Project is based on conventional underground mining and gravity-dominant processing, resulting in a competitive cost structure.

Life-of-mine average operating costs7 are estimated at:

  • US$49 per tonne processed
  • Equivalent to approximately USD $245 per mtu WO₃ produced (based on a 0.20% average mill feed grade and 75% metallurgical recovery)

Operating cost components include:

  • Underground mining
  • Processing and plant operations
  • General and administrative costs
  • Site services and infrastructure support

The cost structure incorporates modifying factors of approximately 8% mining dilution, 89% mining recovery, and 75% metallurgical recovery.

7.3 All-In Sustaining Cost (AISC)

The Project’s estimated all-in sustaining cost8, inclusive of sustaining capital and site-level costs, is approximately: USD $303 per mtu WO₃.

This positions the Borralha Project competitively within the global tungsten cost curve.

7.4 Capital Costs

The PEA estimates capital costs9 as follows:

  • Initial capital cost: approximately USD $91 million (CAD $124.3 million)
  • Sustaining capital: approximately USD $87 million (CAD $118.8 million)
  • Total life-of-mine capital: approximately USD $178 million (CAD $243.1 million)

Capital estimates are preliminary in nature and carry an accuracy range of ±35%, consistent with PEA-level studies.

7.5 Economic Metrics (After-Tax)

Medium Case – USD $1,000/mtu WO₃
NPV(8%)1 IRR2 Payback3
$473.4 million 48.8% 4.2 years
(USD$ 346.6 million)
Base Case – Argus Long-Term Forecast (US$677 to $763/mtu WO₃; ~USD $704/mtu WO₃ Average)
NPV(8%)1 IRR2 Payback3
$182.7 million 27.2% 5.8 years
(USD$ 134.0 million)
High Case – USD $1,500/mtu WO₃
NPV(8%)1 IRR2 Payback3
$963.8 million 78.4% 3.2 years
(USD$ 706.4 million)

 

Notes:
1. NPV is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding NPV.
2. IRR is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding IRR.
3. Payback is a Non-GAAP measure. see notes below for additional information regarding payback.
4. Canadian dollar (CAD) equivalents calculated used a foreign exchange rate of CAD $1.3658/USD.

Mine design and cut-off grade selection were developed using a conservative USD $659/mtu WO₃ assumption. Recent reported tungsten market prices have reached approximately USD $1,998/mtu [Source: Fastmarkets; February 27, 2026], demonstrating meaningful leverage to current market conditions.

7.6 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that Project economics are most sensitive to: (i) tungsten price; (ii) capital costs; (iii) operating costs; and (iv) metallurgical recovery.

The Project retains positive economics across a range of tungsten price assumptions. At the Base Case price assumption, the Project generates robust operating margins, with significant leverage to higher tungsten price scenarios.

The Project demonstrates strong leverage to tungsten price. The following sensitivity analysis illustrates the post-tax IRR and NPV (8%) across a flat tungsten price range of USD $500 to USD $1,700 per mtu WO₃.

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/11632/285820_ede9ceca64ea6a8e_001.jpg

Figure 1 — After-Tax NPV (8%) and IRR Sensitivity to Tungsten Price

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/11632/285820_ede9ceca64ea6a8e_001full.jpg

Notes: IRR is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding IRR. NPV is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding NPV.

8. Growth and Expansion Opportunities

Mineralization at the Santa Helena Breccia remains open along strike and at depth, providing potential for future Mineral Resource expansion through additional drilling. The current underground mine design is based on the defined Mineral Resource; however, further infill and step-out drilling may support resource conversion and potential extension of mine life. The process plant has been designed at a nominal throughput of 1.4 Mtpa. Subject to further engineering studies and market conditions, the plant layout may allow for future throughput expansion. Selective mining and continued geological refinement may enhance grade control and support optimization of the life-of-mine grade profile.

9. Strategic Positioning

The Borralha Project represents one of the largest undeveloped tungsten resources within the European Union and is positioned to contribute to European supply chain security for this designated critical raw material. The combination of underground mining, gravity-dominant processing and significant permitting advancement materially reduces technical and development risk relative to many global tungsten development projects.

The favourable Environmental Impact Declaration (DIA) provides regulatory clarity and supports advancement toward the next stage of engineering and feasibility.

10. Project Risks and Uncertainties

This initial PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the results of the PEA will be realized.

Key risks and uncertainties include:

  • Inclusion of Inferred Mineral Resources within the mine plan
  • Variability in tungsten price and foreign exchange rates
  • Capital cost escalation and schedule risk
  • Metallurgical recovery variability
  • Underground geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions
  • Regulatory and permitting timelines
  • Availability of equipment and human resources

11. Recommended Work Program

The Company intends to advance Borralha toward the next stage of engineering through:

  • Infill drilling to upgrade Inferred Mineral Resources to higher confidence categories
  • Step-out drilling to expand Mineral Resources and potentially extend mine life.
  • Additional metallurgical optimization and variability testing
  • Detailed geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations
  • Engineering advancement toward a Pre-Feasibility Study
  • Ongoing permitting and RECAPE progression

These activities are intended to further de-risk the Borralha Project and support advancement toward a Feasibility Study.

12. Quality Control

The Company has implemented a comprehensive and well-documented quality assurance and quality control (‘QA/QC‘) program consistent with industry best practices. Drill core and reverse circulation samples were prepared at ISO-accredited ALS Global facilities in Seville, Spain, and analyzed at ALS Global’s certified laboratory in Loughrea, Ireland, using XRF methods for tungsten (W-XRF05 and W-XRF10), with routine internal laboratory QA/QC procedures including pulp duplicates. The Company inserted certified reference materials (‘CRMs‘), blank samples, and field duplicates into the sample stream at regular intervals, including one CRM every 20 routine samples and two blanks per analytical batch.

Five independent CRMs covering multiple grade ranges were used. Samples exceeding ±3 standard deviations from expected CRM values, or blanks exceeding three times detection limits, triggered re-assay of the affected batch. Reverse circulation samples were weighed to monitor recovery and reject materials were securely stored. Independent verification sampling by a Qualified Person confirmed the reliability of the analytical database. The Qualified Persons are satisfied that the QA/QC procedures and resulting analytical data are appropriate for use in the Mineral Resource Estimate and the PEA.

13. Qualified Persons

The scientific and technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by the following Qualified Persons, as defined under NI 43-101:

J. Douglas Blanchflower, P.Geo.

Mr. Blanchflower is an independent Qualified Person under NI 43-101 and was retained by Allied Critical Metals Inc. to prepare the NI 43-101 Technical Report dated effective December 30, 2025. He has overall responsibility for the 2025 MRE and the Technical Report. Mr. Blanchflower is a Registered Professional Geoscientist in good standing with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (No. 19086) and has more than five decades of experience in mineral exploration, resource estimation, and technical reporting. Mr. Blanchflower has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information in this news release relating to the mineral resource estimate.

David Castro López, BSc, MIMMM, QMR

Mr. Castro López is a Mining Engineer and a Professional Member (MIMMM #685484) and Qualified for Minerals Reporting (QMR) of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3). He is independent of the Company and the Borralha Project. Mr. Castro López contributed to the metallurgical review and process design considerations supporting the PEA and takes responsibility for the metallurgical and mineral processing information contained herein. Mr. López has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information in this news release relating to the metallurgical and mineral processing information contained herein.

Miguel Cabal, EurGeol, Licensed Geologist

Mr. Cabal is a licensed geologist with the European Federation of Geologists (EuroGeol #1439) with over 28 years of experience in mineral exploration, resource evaluation and mine development. He is Managing Director of Geomates (Spain) and has contributed to multiple NI 43-101 and JORC-compliant technical reports, including PEA, PFS and feasibility studies. Mr. Cabal is independent of Allied Critical Metals Inc. and the Borralha Project and has reviewed and approved the mining and economic components of the PEA. Mr. Cabal has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information in this news release relating to the mining and economic components of this news release.

Vítor Arezes, BSc, MIMMM, QMR

Mr. Arezes is Vice President Exploration of Allied Critical Metals Inc. and a Qualified Person under NI 43-101. He is not independent of the Company due to his role as an officer. Mr. Arezes has extensive experience in tungsten and polymetallic mineral systems and has conducted multiple site visits to the Borralha Project, including during the 2025 drilling campaign. He contributed to geological interpretation, exploration oversight, and technical review supporting the PEA. He is a member of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (MIMMM #703197) and a Qualified Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves Professional (QMR), and by reason of education, professional experience, and accreditation, meets the definition of a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. Mr. Arezes has reviewed and approved all of the scientific and technical information in this news release.

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/11632/285820_ede9ceca64ea6a8e_002.jpg

Figure 2 — South – North longitudinal section on mine design at Sta. Helena Breccia

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/11632/285820_ede9ceca64ea6a8e_002full.jpg

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/11632/285820_ede9ceca64ea6a8e_003.jpg

Figure 3 — East – West transversal section on mine design at Sta. Helena Breccia

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/11632/285820_ede9ceca64ea6a8e_003full.jpg

About Allied Critical Metals Inc.

Allied Critical Metals Inc. is a Canadian-based mining company focused on the advancement and revitalization of its 100%-owned Borralha Tungsten Project and the Vila Verde Tungsten Project in northern Portugal.

The Borralha Project is one of the largest undeveloped tungsten resources within the European Union and benefits from a favourable Environmental Impact Declaration (DIA), positioning the Project for advancement toward feasibility and development. Vila Verde represents additional exploration upside within the same strategic jurisdiction.

Tungsten has been designated a critical raw material by the United States and the European Union due to its strategic importance in defense, aerospace, manufacturing, automotive, electronics and energy applications. Currently, China, Russia and North Korea account for approximately 87% of global tungsten supply and reserves, highlighting the importance of secure western sources.

Further details regarding the Borralha Project are available in the Company’s NI 43-101 Technical Report dated December 30, 2025, filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and on the Company’s website at www.alliedcritical.com.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

‘Roy Bonnell’
CEO and Director

Additional information is also available by contacting the Company:

Dave Burwell
Vice President, Corporate Development
daveb@alliedcritical.com
Tel:403-410-7907
Toll Free: 1-800-221-0915

Please also visit our website at www.alliedcritical.com.

Also visit us at:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allied-critical-metals-inc/
X: https://x.com/@alliedcritical/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/alliedcriticalmetals/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alliedcriticalmetals/

The Canadian Securities Exchange does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This news release contains ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws (‘FLI‘). FLI in this release includes, without limitation, statements regarding: (A) the PEA results and economic indicators (e.g., NPV, IRR, payback and related sensitivities); (B) the conceptual mine plan and operating framework (mining approach, processing rates, production profiles, cost ranges and schedules); (C) the technical basis and process assumptions (cut-off approach, flowsheet concept and anticipated concentrate specifications); (D) the status and trajectory of permitting and approvals, infrastructure access and other site requirements; (E) market-related assumptions and the Project’s sensitivity and leverage to commodity pricing; (F) growth, conversion and expansion opportunities, including planned drilling and other technical programs; (G) the anticipated sequence of future studies, potential financing pathways and indicative timelines; and (H) the Project’s strategic positioning relative to regional and policy objectives. Such FLI is identified by, among other things, words such as ‘plans’, ‘expects’, ‘is expected’, ‘aims’, ‘budget’, ‘scheduled’, ‘estimates’, ‘forecasts’, ‘intends’, ‘anticipates’, ‘potential’, ‘target’, ‘opportunity’, ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘might’, ‘will’ and similar terminology, as well as statements regarding outcomes that ‘will’, ‘should’ or ‘would’ occur.

Material assumptions underlying the FLI include, but are not limited to: the accuracy of the 2025 MRE; geological continuity; the PEA-level capital/operating cost estimates (with typical PEA accuracy ranges); metallurgical recoveries and process performance consistent with test results to date; availability of labour, equipment and consumables at quoted/priced levels; access to grid power and water on contemplated terms; the ability to obtain land access, permits and approvals (including RECAPE) in a timely manner; tungsten pricing consistent with Argus long-term forecasts or stated sensitivity cases; foreign exchange and inflation consistent with study inputs; and availability of financing on acceptable terms. The Company believes these assumptions are reasonable as of the date hereof, but no assurance can be given that they will prove correct.

The PEA is preliminary in nature and 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. There is no certainty that the PEA results will be realized. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. Any reference to potential production, mine life, NPV, IRR, payback, costs, recoveries, or other economic or technical parameters is preliminary and conceptual.

Key risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the FLI include, but are not limited to: (i) exploration, geological, modelling and grade-continuity risks, including the risk that further work does not confirm Inferred material or resource extensions; (ii) risks that metallurgical performance, WO₃ recoveries, concentrate quality or processing costs differ from test work and assumptions; (iii) capital cost escalation, schedule delays, contractor availability and supply-chain constraints; (iv) operating cost inflation (power, reagents, labour, transportation); (v) commodity price and FX volatility (including sustained periods below the Argus long-term or sensitivity prices assumed); (vi) permitting, environmental, social, community, land access and regulatory risks in Portugal (including RECAPE outcomes and permit conditions); (vii) water, tailings and geotechnical/hydrogeological risks inherent in underground operations; (viii) offtake, marketing and market-access risks for tungsten concentrates; (ix) availability and cost of equity, debt or project finance on acceptable terms; (x) changes in laws, regulations, taxes, royalties, or government policies; and (xi) other risks described under ‘Business Risks’ in the Company’s most recent MD&A and in other continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+. Readers are urged to carefully review those risk factors, which are expressly incorporated by reference into this cautionary note.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

The Company has included certain non-GAAP financial measures in this press release. These financial measures are not defined under International Financial Reporting Standards (‘IFRS‘) and should not be considered in isolation. The Company believes that these financial measures, together with financial measures determined in accordance with IFRS, provide investors with an improved ability to evaluate the underlying performance of the Company. The inclusion of these financial measures is meant to provide additional information and should not be used as a substitute for performance measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. These financial measures are not necessarily standard and therefore may not be comparable to other issuers.

Net Present Value (NPV) – is the present value calculation of net profit from operations determined using a particular discount rate. All NPV values stated herein are on an after tax basis.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – is a financial metric used to assess an investment’s profitability by calculating the annual rate of return that makes the NPV of all cash flows (both positive and negative) equal to zero.

Payback – is calculated in years as the length of time that it takes to pay off the capital costs from annual net profit expected from operations at the Borralha Project.

Initial capital – is the initial capital cost amount required to be expended to construct the mine and tungsten concentrator process equipment and buildings to begin processing mineralized material into saleable tungsten concentrate at commercial quantities according to the life of mine plan at the Borralha Project. This is an estimate accurate to +/-35%.

Sustaining capital – is a supplementary financial measure which reflects cash basis expenditures which are expected to maintain operations and sustain production levels at the Borralha Project.

Capital costs – include the Initial capital and the sustaining capital.

Operating costs – are the costs required to process mineralized material into saleable tungsten concentrate at the Borralha Project. This includes: underground mining; processing and plant operations; general and administrative costs; and site services and infrastructure support. This can be calculated on the unit basis per mtu WO3 produced.

All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC) – are comprised of sustaining capital expenditures and site level costs to support ongoing operations and closure costs. All-in sustaining costs per mtu WO3 is calculated as AISC divided by the amount of mtu WO3 produced during the period that the costs are incurred. All-in sustaining costs capture the important components of the Company’s production and related costs and are used by the Company and investors to understand projected cost performance at the Borralha Project.

1 NPV(8%) = net present value at a 8% discount rate. NPV is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding NPV. USD = United States dollars. Canadian dollar (CAD) equivalents calculated used a foreign exchange rate of CAD $1.3658/USD.
2 IRR = internal rate of return. IRR is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding IRR.
3 mtu/WO3 = metric tonne unit of tungsten; WO3 is tungsten trioxide.
4 Initial capital is a Non-GAAP measure. see notes below for additional information regarding initial capital.
5 Payback is a Non-GAAP measure. see notes below for additional information regarding payback.
6 All-in sustaining cost (AISC); AISC is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding AISC.
7 Operating costs are a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding operating costs.
8 All-in sustaining costs (AISC) is a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding AISC.
9 Capital costs are a Non-GAAP measure; see notes below for additional information regarding capital costs.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/285820

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Most congressional precedents emanate from Capitol Hill.

Most presidential precedents emerge from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But a precedent which may echo around the halls of Congress and the White House for years materialized in recent days in the snow-covered, wooded village of Chappaqua, New York.

That’s where former President Bill Clinton testified under subpoena to the House Oversight Committee as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Lawmakers said the panel’s ability to compel testimony from a former president could establish a new precedent going forward — including in matters involving President Trump and the Epstein files.

According to congressional historians, never before has a congressional committee deposed a former president. It was rare enough to have former First Lady and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testify the day before. Republicans noted that former President Clinton had previously acknowledged knowing Epstein and traveling on trips that included him.

‘I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices,’ said Hillary Clinton after nearly six hours of closed-door testimony before the panel.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said Hillary Clinton declared ‘‘You’ll have to ask my husband,’’ more than ‘a dozen’ times during her deposition ahead of Bill Clinton’s the following day.

There are no accusations of wrongdoing against either of the Clintons in connection with Epstein. But the former president’s past ties to Jeffrey Epstein have spurred questions from lawmakers.

‘It’s very difficult to get people in for these depositions of great power and great wealth,’ said Comer. ‘It took seven months, seven months to get the Clintons in here. But we’ve got them in here.’

‘Here’ was Chappaqua, about an hour north of New York City. The Clintons have resided in Chappaqua since President Clinton left office in 2001 and when Hillary Clinton ran for Senate from New York in 2000. Hillary Clinton served as a senator from New York from 2001 until 2009, when she became President Obama’s first Secretary of State.

More specifically, the ‘here’ for the Clintons’ testimony was not a bland office in the Rayburn House Office Building. House members questioned the Clintons at the Chappaqua Performing Arts Center, known locally as ‘ChappPAC,’ a white structure with simple arcades and Greek columns atop a hillside above the Saw Mill River.

The Epstein inquiry is serious, and the unusual venue underscored the extraordinary nature of the proceeding.

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., appeared to snap a photo of Hillary Clinton during the deposition, then shared it with conservative media outlets.

‘I admire (Hillary Clinton’s) blue suit. So I wanted to capture that for everyone,’ said Boebert outside the venue.

‘Why did you send the picture?’ asked a reporter.

‘Why not?’ retorted Boebert.

‘We are sitting through an incredibly unserious, clown show of a deposition, where Members of Congress and the Republican Party are more concerned about getting their photo op of Secretary Clinton than actually getting to the truth and actually holding anyone accountable,’ charged Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz.

After concluding her testimony, Hillary Clinton told reporters she found the ‘end’ of the deposition to be ‘quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet.’

That is a reference to a conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and President Trump. Proponents falsely claimed Democrats operated a child sex trafficking ring out of the Comet Ping Pong pizza shop in Washington. A North Carolina man later drove to Washington, D.C., and fired shots inside the restaurant, telling authorities he was there to rescue children.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-N.C., asserted that Hillary Clinton was ‘screaming’ at lawmakers during the deposition.

‘She was unhinged,’ said Mace. ‘And I hope that President Clinton is less unhinged today than his wife was yesterday.’

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., emerged from the Chappaqua Performing Arts Center about 90 minutes into former President Clinton’s deposition to speculate about what may have been behind Epstein and his sex trafficking operation. Luna noted she was speaking only for herself and not other members of the committee.

‘It has become very evident even in the last 24 hours in lines of questioning that Jeffrey Epstein was running an intelligence gathering operation,’ said Luna. ‘I do believe it was a honey pot operation.’

Luna added that it was possible a U.S. intelligence ally was involved, though she provided no evidence for the claim.

One of the five agreed-upon areas of questioning for the Clintons was how Epstein used his connections with powerful figures to hide his crimes. That is why individuals such as former President Clinton and President Trump have surfaced in previously released Epstein-related documents.

The presidency is a unique office, and even President Trump expressed some sympathy for Bill Clinton’s appearance before the Oversight Committee.

‘I don’t like seeing him deposed. But they certainly went after me a lot more than that,’ said the president.

When pressed on Friday, President Trump said he was unfamiliar with the Epstein files.

‘I don’t know anything about the Epstein files. I’ve been totally exonerated,’ said President Trump.

Oversight Committee Republicans were asked whether they agreed with that claim.

‘From all the evidence I’ve seen he’s been exonerated for a long time,’ replied Comer.

‘The Epstein victims have exonerated President Trump. This is a trope that you guys are — a rabbit hole you guys are going down. But he’s been exonerated over and over again by Epstein victims,’ said Mace.

But Democrats questioned why the committee sought testimony from former President Clinton and not President Trump.

‘There is a lot of email correspondence that included President Clinton,’ said Comer.

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, argued the move set a broader standard.

‘There’s a precedent now,’ said Garcia. ‘We now want President Trump to come in and to testify under oath in front of the Oversight Committee. We want the First Lady, who we know had a relationship as well with Jeffrey Epstein, to come under oath and testify to the Oversight Committee. That is the new precedent that Republicans wanted to set here.’

Garcia added that President Trump ‘has not been exonerated, and we have serious questions for President Trump.’

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., argued that the committee spoke ‘to the wrong president.’

It is unclear whether the panel will seek testimony from President Trump. Democrats have indicated they would consider doing so if they gain control of the House in the fall midterm elections.

Separation of powers is a key component of America’s constitutional system. Only a handful of presidents have ever testified before Congress — and none had previously been deposed as a former president.

The nation’s history includes small communities that have taken on outsized political significance. Lawmakers and legal observers say Chappaqua could now join that list if presidential testimony before Congress becomes more common.

Related Article

Why keeping lawmakers in DC during shutdown may have caused more harm than good
Why keeping lawmakers in DC during shutdown may have caused more harm than good
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

U.S. forces launched a sweeping military assault on Iranian targets on Saturday, unleashing overwhelming air, sea and missile power in a coordinated operation with Israel.

The mission — dubbed ‘Operation Epic Fury’ — began at 1:15 a.m. and struck more than 1,000 sites across Iran within its first 24 hours, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and dozens of senior regime officials were eliminated in the strikes.

The barrage featured B-2 stealth bombers, F-22 and F-16 fighter jets, A-10 attack aircraft, EA-18G electronic warfare planes, and an array of airborne early warning and communications platforms, CENTCOM said.

Missile defense systems, including Patriot interceptors and THAAD anti-ballistic missile defenses, were deployed as part of the operation.

Other assets included RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft, MQ-9 Reaper drones, HIMARS rocket systems, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, guided-missile destroyers, refueling tankers, and C-17 and C-130 transport aircraft, CENTCOM said.

The command also released images of Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as F-18 and F-35 fighter jets roaring into combat, according to Reuters.

CENTCOM additionally confirmed it deployed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.

The Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System — known as LUCAS — is modeled after Iran’s Shahed drones.

‘CENTCOM’s Task Force Scorpion Strike — for the first time in history — is using one-way attack drones in combat during Operation Epic Fury,’ CENTCOM wrote on X. ‘These low-cost drones, modeled after Iran’s Shahed drones, are now delivering American-made retribution.’

Developed by Arizona-based engineering firm SpektreWorks, the LUCAS drone can be launched from catapults, vehicles or mobile ground platforms, according to Business Insider. 

The drones cost roughly $35,000 each, Reuters reported.

The strikes targeted command and control centers, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Joint Headquarters and Aerospace Forces Headquarters, integrated air defense systems, ballistic missile sites, Iranian Navy ships and submarines, anti-ship missile sites and military communications infrastructure, according to CENTCOM.

Iran retaliated by launching waves of missiles across the Middle East, targeting major U.S. bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, Business Insider reported.

Three U.S. service members were killed and five others were ‘seriously wounded’ as part of Operation Epic Fury, CENTCOM said Sunday morning. The joint military operation is expected to carry on for days.

CENTCOM did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Reuters and Fox News Digital’s Michael Dorgan contributed to this report.

Related Article

Sustained war with Iran could drain US missile stockpiles, test escalation control
Sustained war with Iran could drain US missile stockpiles, test escalation control
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Several House Republicans are pushing Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to go to war with the Senate GOP over an election security bill that has little chance of passing the upper chamber under current circumstances.

House GOP leaders convened a lawmaker-only call on Sunday in the wake of a massive military operation against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel.

After leaders briefed House Republicans on how the chamber would respond to the ongoing conflict — including a vote on ending Democrats’ weeks-long government shutdown targeting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — Fox News Digital was told that several lawmakers raised concerns about the Senate not yet taking up the Safeguarding American Voter Eligiblity (SAVE America) Act. Among other provisions, the act would require voters in federal elections to produce valid ID and proof of citizenship.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., was among those pushing the House to reject any bills from the Senate until the measure was taken up, telling Johnson according to multiple sources on the call, ‘If we don’t get this done, or at least show that we’ve got some backbone, we’re done. The midterms are over.’

At least three other House Republicans shared similar concerns. Sources on the call said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, argued that GOP voters were ‘not enthused’ heading into November and that ‘the single biggest thing’ to turn that around would be forcing the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act.

The SAVE America Act passed the House last month with support from all Republicans and just one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

Republicans have pointed out on multiple occasions that voter ID measures have bipartisan support across multiple public polls and surveys. But Democrats have dismissed the legislation as an attempt at voter suppression ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate to break filibuster, which it’s likely not to get given Democrats’ near-uniform opposition. But House Republicans have pressured Senate Majority Leader John Thune to use a mechanism known as a standing filibuster to circumvent that — which Thune has signaled opposition to, given the vast amount of time it would take up in the Senate and potential unintended consequences in the amendment process.

It also comes as Congress grapples with the fallout from the strikes on Iran and the need to ensure safety for the U.S. domestically and for service members abroad, both of which will require close coordination between the two chambers.

Johnson told Republicans several times on the Sunday call that he was privately pressuring Thune on the bill but was wary of creating a public rift with his fellow GOP leader, sources said.

‘If we’re going to go to war against our own party in the Senate, there may be implications to that,’ Johnson said at one point, according to people on the call. ‘So we want to be thoughtful and careful.’

At another point in the call, sources said Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., suggested pairing a coming vote on DHS funding with the SAVE America Act in order to force the Senate to take it up.

But both Johnson and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., were hesitant about such a move given the enhanced threat environment in the wake of the U.S. operation in Iran.

Both spoke out in favor of the SAVE America Act, people told Fox News Digital, but warned the current situation merited leaving the DHS funding bill on its own in a bid to end the partial shutdown, so the department could fully function as a national security shield.

Related Article

Sen Lee dares Democrats to revive talking filibuster over SAVE Act, slamming criticism as ‘paranoid fantasy
Sen Lee dares Democrats to revive talking filibuster over SAVE Act, slamming criticism as ‘paranoid fantasy’
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Cygnus Metals Limited (ASX:CY5) advises, in accordance with ASX Listing Rule 3.13.1, that the Annual General Meeting of the Company (‘Meeting’) will be held in West Perth, Western Australia on Friday, 1 May 2026. Further details in respect of the Meeting will be provided in the Notice of Meeting to be dispatched to shareholders prior to the Meeting.

An item of business at the Meeting will be the election and re-election of certain directors. In accordance with rule 6.1(p)(i) of the Company’s Constitution, the closing date for the receipt of nominations from persons wishing to be considered for election as a director is Monday, 9 March 2026.

Any nominations must be received at the Company’s registered office no later than 5.00pm (Perth time) on Monday, 9 March 2026.

This announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of Directors of Cygnus.

David Southam
Executive Chairman
T: +61 8 6118 1627
E: info@cygnusmetals.com

About Cygnus Metals

Cygnus Metals Limited (ASX: CY5, TSXV: CYG,OTC:CYGGF, OTCQB: CYGGF) is a diversified critical minerals exploration and development company with projects in Quebec, Canada and Western Australia. The Company is dedicated to advancing its Chibougamau Copper-Gold Project in Quebec with an aggressive exploration program to drive resource growth and develop a hub-and-spoke operation model with its centralised processing facility. In addition, Cygnus has quality lithium assets with significant exploration upside in the world-class James Bay district in Quebec, and REE and base metal projects in Western Australia. The Cygnus team has a proven track record of turning exploration success into production enterprises and creating shareholder value.

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

Primary Logo

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The Strait of Hormuz region became a flashpoint Sunday after U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran under Operation Epic Fury triggered electronic warfare activity and multiple ‘attacks’ on vessels along one of the world’s most critical energy waterways, according to reports.

The sudden escalation followed a Feb. 28 warning from U.S. maritime authorities urging commercial vessels to avoid strategic waterways if possible, including the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea, citing heightened security risks.

‘It is recommended that vessels keep clear of this area if possible,’ the advisory warned.

‘The Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and adjacent waters are the most dangerous place right now for commercial shipping,’ Jakob P. Larsen, head of maritime security at BIMCO, told Fox News Digital.

‘Ships in the Persian Gulf are under threat from Iranian attacks,’ Larsen said.

‘To protect themselves, most ships stay as far away from Iran as they can,’ he added before describing how ships are ‘trying to depart from the Persian Gulf to get away from the threat.’

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) and regional authorities reported multiple maritime incidents listed as ‘attacks’ Sunday.

One vessel west of Sharjah, UAE, was rocked by an explosion from an unknown projectile that detonated close alongside, and another tanker north of Muscat, Oman, was struck above the waterline, sparking a fire that was later brought under control, according to data.

A third vessel northwest of Mina Saqr, UAE, was also hit by a projectile that ignited a blaze aboard, the organization reported.

Compounding the physical threats is a surge in electronic warfare with maritime intelligence firm Windward reporting widespread GPS and Automatic Identification System (AIS) interference, impacting 1,000-plus ships.

Windward cited widespread navigation disruption near Iran’s Bandar Abbas port, with ships falsely appearing at airports, a nuclear power plant and inland locations.

Several new AIS jamming clusters were also identified across Emirati, Qatari, Omani and Iranian waters, Windward said.

Major shipping company Maersk announced it would reroute some services away from the region, citing crew and cargo safety.

Roughly 20% of global oil and gas exports pass through the Strait, and traffic has already thinned, with some tankers reversing course or switching off AIS signals.

Industry groups also warned of Houthi retaliation in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, while analysts cautioned that Iran could seize vessels tied to U.S. or Israeli interests.

‘The Houthis have threatened to resume attacks on ships in the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb Strait and Gulf of Aden,’ Larsen explained.

Ships with business connections to U.S. or Israeli interests are considered more likely targets, though others could be struck deliberately or in error, he said.

Tanker owners’ association Intertanko also warned members that ‘the expectation is that the Houthis may respond and recommence attacks on shipping,’ although immediate intelligence remained unclear.

‘There are no signs of Iranian attempts to close the Strait with sea mines or naval mines, although this can change at short notice,’ Larsen added before confirming that GPS interference has ‘increased significantly following the initiation of hostilities.’

Related Article

Historic US-Israel strikes on Iran underway as Tehran faces regime survival test
Historic US-Israel strikes on Iran underway as Tehran faces regime survival test
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump vowed Sunday to ‘avenge’ the deaths of three U.S. service members killed in action as the conflict involving Iran deepens across the Middle East.

‘As one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation,’ Trump said in a video statement posted on Truth Social. 

‘Even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives, we pray for the full recovery of the wounded and send our immense love and eternal gratitude to the families of the fallen.’

The president struck a somber note, warning that ‘sadly, there will likely be more before it ends.’

‘America will avenge their deaths and deliver the most punishing blow to the terrorists who have waged war,’ Trump said. ‘Our resolve and likewise that of Israel has never been stronger.’

Trump’s remarks, his first public statement since the U.S.-Israel strikes that led to the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian officials, signaled a potentially prolonged confrontation.

‘This wretched and vile man had the blood of hundreds and even thousands of Americans on his hands and was responsible for the slaughter of countless thousands of innocent people all across many countries,’ Trump said.

He said U.S. forces had struck ‘hundreds of targets’ inside Iran, including key Revolutionary Guard facilities, air defense systems and naval assets. Trump said the U.S. ‘knocked out nine Iranian ships ‘in a matter of literally minutes.’ Military operations, he added, would continue ‘until all of our objectives are achieved.’

He went on to issue a direct warning to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and military leadership, urging them to surrender in exchange for immunity or face ‘certain death.’ 

Ahead of the strikes, the U.S. military amassed what Trump previously called an ‘armada’ in Iran’s backyard. Mapped out across the Persian Gulf and beyond, the deployment tells its own story, one of calculated pressure backed by credible capability.

At the center of the U.S. presence are two aircraft carrier strike groups — the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford — each supported by guided-missile destroyers and cruisers and capable of sustained air and missile operations.

More than a dozen additional U.S. warships are also operating in the region in support roles, according to defense officials.

Meanwhile, Tehran has vowed retaliation for the strikes. 

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian declared that avenging Khamenei’s killing is both a ‘legitimate duty and right,’ and added that Tehran ‘will forcefully crush the enemy’s bases.’

The confrontation has already included missile and drone strikes launched by Iran against U.S. bases in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq, though U.S. Central Command has denied Tehran’s claims of successfully targeting American carriers.

The unfolding conflict has ignited reactions far beyond the Middle East, including anti-war protests in U.S. cities and heightened diplomatic tensions near American embassies, underscoring how quickly the crisis has expanded beyond the region.

In Austin, authorities are investigating a recent shooting as potentially an act of terrorism, further heightening concerns about spillover effects at home.

Meanwhile, federal and local law enforcement have boosted security as a precaution, though officials say no specific, credible threats have been identified. 

 

Related Article

Enemy within: Counterterrorism experts fear sleeper cells could be poised inside US
Enemy within: Counterterrorism experts fear sleeper cells could be poised inside US
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

When missiles fly, we expect explosions. We expect smoke, sirens and satellite images. What we do not expect is silence. 

On February 28, 2026, as fighter jets and cruise missiles struck Iranian Revolutionary Guard command centers during Operation Roar of the Lion, a parallel assault reportedly unfolded in cyberspace. 

Official news sites and key media platforms went offline, government digital services and local apps failed across major cities, and security communications systems reportedly stopped functioning, plunging Iran into a near-total digital blackout.

According to NetBlocks, a global internet monitoring organization that tracks connectivity disruptions, nationwide internet traffic in Iran plunged to just 4 percent of normal levels. 

That level of collapse suggests either a deliberate state-ordered shutdown or a large-scale cyberattack designed to paralyze critical infrastructure. Western intelligence sources later indicated the digital offensive aimed to disrupt IRGC command and control systems and limit coordination of counterattacks. 

For the United States and its allies, the episode offers a stark reminder that modern conflict now blends airstrikes with digital warfare in ways that can ripple far beyond the battlefield.

In a matter of hours, modern conflict looked less like tanks and more like a blinking cursor.

 

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter    

Iran internet shutdown: A country offline in real time

Reports described widespread outages across Iran. Official news sites stopped functioning. IRNA, Iran’s state-run news agency, went offline. 

Tasnim, a semi-official news outlet closely aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reportedly displayed subversive messages targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. 

The IRGC, Iran’s powerful military and intelligence force, plays a central role in national security and regional operations. At the same time, local apps and government digital services failed in cities like Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz.

This was not one website defaced for headlines. It appeared systemic. Electronic warfare reportedly disrupted navigation and communications systems. 

Distributed denial of service attacks, often called DDoS attacks, flooded networks with traffic to overwhelm and disable them. 

Deep intrusions targeted energy and aviation systems. Even Iran’s isolated national internet struggled under pressure. 

For a regime that tightly controls information, losing digital command creates both operational and political risk.

Why cyber warfare matters in the Iran conflict

Cyber operations offer something missiles cannot. They disrupt without always killing. They send a signal without immediately triggering full-scale war. That matters in a region where escalation can spiral fast. 

History shows Iran understands this logic. Between 2012 and 2014, Iranian actors targeted U.S. financial institutions in Operation Ababil. Saudi Aramco also suffered a major cyberattack. 

After Israeli strikes in 2025, cyberattacks targeting Israel surged dramatically within days.

Cyber retaliation lets leaders respond while limiting direct military confrontation. It buys leverage in negotiations. It creates pressure without necessarily crossing a red line.

But there is a catch. Every cyber strike risks miscalculation. And digital damage can spill into the real world fast if critical infrastructure is hit.

If the blackout and strikes mark a turning point, Tehran has options. None are simple.

1) Cyberattacks against U.S. or allied infrastructure

Cyber retaliation remains one of Iran’s most flexible tools. It can range from disruptive attacks and influence campaigns to more targeted intrusions that pressure critical services. Recent expert commentary warns that U.S. cyber defenses and the private sector could face sustained testing.

2) Targeting U.S. drones and unmanned systems

Iran has used drones and electronic interference as signals before. Analysts continue to flag jamming, spoofing and harassment of unmanned systems as a way to raise costs without immediately striking large numbers of personnel.

3) Maritime attacks in the Strait of Hormuz

This risk is rising fast. An EU naval mission official reportedly said IRGC radio transmissions warned ships that passage through Hormuz was ‘not allowed’. Greece has also urged ships to avoid high-risk routes and warned about electronic interference that can disrupt navigation. Insurers are already repricing the danger, with reports of war-risk policies being canceled or sharply increased.

4) Support for allied or informal armed groups

Iran has long worked with allied forces and militias in the region, and some of those groups could step up attacks on U.S. interests or allied partners in retaliation, widening the clash without direct state-to-state engagement.

5) Limited ballistic missile strikes

Missile strikes remain a high-impact option, but they raise the odds of rapid escalation. Recent expert analysis continues to frame them as a tool Iran may use for signaling, especially if leadership feels cornered.

The escalation risk between the U.S. and Iran

Here is the uncomfortable truth. Neither Washington nor Tehran likely wants a full-scale regional war. In moments like this, military strikes rarely stand alone. 

They often move alongside diplomacy. Leaders send signals. They apply pressure. At the same time, they try to leave room for talks.

But escalation has momentum. Each missile changes the equation. Each casualty raises the stakes. The more damage done, the harder it becomes to step back. 

Fear plays a role. So does pride. Domestic audiences demand strength. Leaders feel pressure to respond in kind. That is how limited strikes can spiral into something much larger.

What the Iran cyberattack blackout means for global cybersecurity

This episode highlights something bigger than regional tension. Nation-states now pair kinetic strikes with digital offensives. 

Cyberattacks can blind communications, freeze infrastructure and disrupt financial systems before the world even processes the first explosion.

For businesses and individuals, that reality matters. Modern conflict no longer stays confined to battlefields. 

Supply chains, energy grids and online platforms can feel the ripple effects. The blackout in Iran serves as a reminder that digital resilience is now a national security issue. 

How to stay safe during rising cyber tensions

When a country’s internet can plunge to just 4 percent of normal traffic in hours, it is a reminder that cyber conflict can escalate quickly. 

Even if the disruption happens overseas, global networks are interconnected. Financial systems, supply chains and online platforms can feel the ripple effects.

You cannot control geopolitics. You can control your digital hygiene. Here are practical steps to reduce your personal risk during periods of heightened cyber activity:

Install strong antivirus software to guard against state-linked phishing and malware campaigns that often spike during geopolitical conflicts. 

Nation-state actors frequently exploit breaking news and global instability to spread malicious links and ransomware. Get my picks for the best 2026 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at Cyberguy.com

Keep devices updated so security patches close vulnerabilities that attackers often exploit during global cyber spikes.

Use strong, unique passwords stored in a reputable password manager to protect your accounts if cyber retaliation campaigns expand beyond government targets. Check out the best expert-reviewed password managers of 2026 at Cyberguy.com

Enable two-factor authentication (2FA) on financial, email and social accounts to safeguard access in case stolen credentials circulate during heightened cyber conflict.

Be cautious with urgent headlines or alerts about international conflict, since attackers frequently mimic breaking news.

Monitor financial accounts for unusual activity in case broader disruptions spill into banking systems.

When tensions rise, phishing campaigns often rise with them. Threat actors exploit fear and confusion. Staying disciplined with basic security habits makes you a harder target if malicious traffic increases.

Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com        

Kurt’s key takeaways

The reported cyber blackout inside Iran may signal a new chapter in modern conflict. Jets and missiles still matter. But so do servers, satellites and code. Leaders may try to contain the damage while showing strength. 

Still, history shows how quickly careful plans can unravel once pressure builds. War today runs on electricity and bandwidth as much as fuel and ammunition. 

When networks go dark, the impact does not stay on a battlefield. It spills into banking systems, airports, hospitals and the phones in our pockets. That is what makes this moment different.

If an entire nation’s digital systems can be disrupted in hours, how prepared is your community if something similar ever hits closer to home?  Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter 

Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved. 

Related Article

149 million passwords exposed in massive credential leak
149 million passwords exposed in massive credential leak
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As the White House confirmed on Sunday, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s leadership has contacted the U.S. asking for talks. The list of potential successors to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed on Saturday by an Israeli airstrike, includes his son and former advisers. 

Since the establishment in 1979 of the Islamic Republic, led by the fiery anti-American Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, this will be only the second time that a new supreme leader has been selected. 

The potential successors to Khamenei include a list of hard-line anti-Western extremists who, like Khamenei, are set on the destruction of Israel and the continued export of the Islamic revolution.

Ali Larijani

One possible successor is regime loyalist Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, who reportedly implemented Khamenei’s plan to massacre over 30,000 Iranians who protested against his regime in January.

On Saturday, he threatened a response in a statement on X on Saturday, writing, ‘We will make the Zionist criminals and the vile Americans regret it,’ adding, ‘The brave soldiers and the great nation of Iran will deliver an unforgettable lesson to the hell-bound oppressors of the international order.’

In January, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Larijani as one of ‘the architects of the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators.’ The statement added, ‘Larijani was one of the first Iranian leaders to call for violence in response to the legitimate demands of the Iranian people.’

Larijani was the president of the Islamic Republic’s parliament and, like Khamenei, has engaged in Holocaust denial. Larijani was also a commander for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a U.S. and EU-designated terrorist organization.

Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at the Institute of National Security Studies in Israel, questioned reports claiming that Larijani is favorite to be the next supreme leader. He told Fox News Digital, ‘Larijani is not a cleric, but he can help some of the candidates who are clerics behind the curtains, such as his brother, Mohammad-Javad Larijani, who was head of the judiciary.’ 

Mohammad-Javad Larijani

Mohammad-Javad Larijani has called for the destruction of Israel and denied the Holocaust. He was previously secretary general of Iran’s high council for human rights. 

As a close adviser to the late supreme leader, he has defended stoning for adultery, declaring it protects ‘family values’ as part of Islamic law. 

Mojataba Khamenei

Another replacement for Khamenei might be his second son, Mojtaba, who works closely with IRGC. The first Trump administration sanctioned him in 2019. 

According to the Treasury Department sanction designation, ‘The Supreme Leader has delegated a part of his leadership responsibilities to Mojataba Khamenei, who worked closely with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and also the Basij Resistance Force (Basij) to advance his father’s destabilizing regional ambitions and oppressive domestic objectives.’ 

Iran International reported that the IRGC seeks a rapid-fire replacement for Khamenei. The Islamic system in Iran prescribes an elected body of 88 senior clerics—the Assembly of Experts—to select the next leader.

Alireza Arafi

The cleric and jurist Alireza Arafi, 67, who is part of a three-person temporary leadership council to run Iran might also be the successor to Khamenei.

According to the U.S.group United Against a Nuclear Iran, Arafi promised ‘death’ to protesters who knock over the turbans of Iranian Islamic clerics. ‘Those who attack the turbans of the clergy should know that the turban will become their shroud,’ Arafi said. 

Ayatollah Mohammad-Mehdi Mirbagheri 

The extremist Ayatollah Mohammad-Mehdi Mirbagheri is also a contender to replace Khamenei. Mirbagheri argues for fighting and overcoming ‘infidels.’ 

Mirbagheri has quoted Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, declaring that a ‘new culture based on Islam in the world’ would mean ‘hardship, martyrdom and hunger’ and that Iranian people had ‘voluntarily chosen’ to embrace this activity, according to Iran International. Mirbagheri’s theological credentials position him as a natural replacement for Khamenei.

Other names

Another clerical successor to Khamenei being discussed is Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He is the custodian of the Khomeini mausoleum and, at 53 is young by the Islamic Republic’s standards for leadership.

United Against a Nuclear Iran ranked Ayatollah Seyyed Hashem Hosseini Bushehri, who was born in 1956 in Bardkhun, Bushehr, a second tier candidate to replace Khamenei.

‘Bushehr, is a powerful figure in Iran’s religious and academic spheres. He embarked on his theological education in Bushehr before moving to Qom to further his studies. 

According to UANI, In 2024, Bushehri urged Iranian women to ‘address issues such as the status of women’s rights in Western societies and the flaws that exist in this area in the West,’ which would prevent the ‘enemy [the West]’ to ‘not even have a chance to challenges us [Iran].’

Iran analyst, Sabti, who was born in Tehran, said, ‘I don’t think that Israel and the U.S. should allow them to choose the next leader.’ He compared the successor system to Hamas when Israel eliminates a Hamas terrorist leader, and he is swiftly replaced with a new leader. 

‘There is a need to ‘prevent the next leader from being chosen,’ he said. ‘Maybe we can eliminate the next one even before he is chosen.’ 

He said it is important to ‘break the system’ to prevent the continuation of terrorism. ‘It is bad for Arab countries and Israel if the regime remains the same’ in Iran.  

Sabti said the regime can continue to build its illicit nuclear weapons program, ballistic missiles and sponsor terrorism, adding it is better to dissolve the regime and ‘bring in a new system. 

He concluded that regime change requires ‘talking to the people,’ and, ‘maybe it is time for them to come out and make the good revolution.’ 

Related Article

Iran
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dead after IDF strike hits Tehran compound, Israeli source confirms
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

71.8 g/t Au over 31.95 m and 76.6 g/t Au over 16.00 m at Iceberg 51.3 g/t Au over 3.40 m and 11.8 g/t Au over 9.95 m at Keats

New Found Gold Corp. (TSXV: NFG) (NYSE American: NFGC) (‘New Found Gold’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the final results of the Company’s 2025 grade control drill program on its 100%-owned Queensway Gold Project (‘Queensway’ or the ‘Project’) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, including results from the Keats zone (‘Keats’) and Iceberg zone (‘Iceberg’) excavations in the AFZ Core (‘AFZC’), completed as part of the Company’s 2025 drill program.

Iceberg excavation highlights include:

  • 71.8 g/t Au over 31.95 m from 37.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-069)[1]
  • 76.6 g/t Au over 16.00 m from 51.45 m (NFGC-25-GC-055)
  • 44.4 g/t Au over 21.55 m from 13.40 m (NFGC-25-GC-072)
  • 35.4 g/t Au over 21.20 m from 34.95 m (NFGC-25-GC-061)
  • 31.6 g/t Au over 18.65 m from 3.60 m (NFGC-25-GC-106)
  • 40.6 g/t Au over 12.70 m from 40.35 m (NFGC-25-GC-118)
  • 41.1 g/t Au over 11.40 m from 40.40 m (NFGC-25-GC-079)
  • 55.4 g/t Au over 8.30 m from 21.75 m (NFGC-25-GC-107)
  • 43.2 g/t Au over 19.85 m from 16.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-082)

 

Keats excavation highlights include:

  • 51.3 g/t Au over 3.40 m from 54.60 m (NFGC-25-GC-115)
  • 11.8 g/t Au over 9.95 m from 13.20 m (NFGC-25-GC-065)
  • 9.73 g/t Au over 11.30 m from 9.75 m (NFGC-25-GC-063)
  • 15.9 g/t Au over 5.85 m from 4.90 m (NFGC-25-GC-115)
  • 40.3 g/t Au over 2.25 m from 23.95 m (NFGC-25-GC-068)
  • 16.9 g/t Au over 3.90 m from 1.00 m (NFGC-25-GC-071)

 

Melissa Render, President of New Found Gold stated: ‘These final results from our highly successful 2025 grade control drill program at the Keats and Iceberg excavations continue to deliver consistently high gold grades over broad widths, returning some of the best intercepts we have drilled to date at Queensway. We continue to systematically de-risk Queensway, as demonstrated by the continuity of high-grade gold mineralization in these at-surface zones targeted for early open pit mining in our 2025 PEA Phase 1 mine plan.’

Work Summary

The results presented in this release include the final 907 m of drilling in 32 diamond drill holes (‘DDH‘) from the Keats excavation (‘KEGCDP‘) and the entirety of the 2,390 m of drilling in 40 DDH from the Iceberg excavation (‘IEGCDP‘) 2025 grade control drill program (Figures 1 to 4). The KEGCDP and IEGCDP were designed to improve confidence in the distribution of high-grade, near- to at-surface gold mineralization and support mine planning as outlined in the 2025 Preliminary Economic Assessment (‘PEA‘) Phase 1 open pits (see the New Found Gold press release dated July 21 2025). Drill highlights, along with detailed results for these 72 DDH, are provided in Tables 1 to 3 below.

The full KEGCDP comprises 2,773 m in 84 DDH; for the previously reported KEGCDP results see the New Found Gold press releases dated December 1, 2025 and February 2, 2026 and highlights below. The full IEGCDP comprises 2,390 m of drilling in 40 DDH and all results are reported in this press release.

The KEGCDP tested a volume that is approximately 65 m long by 30 m deep by 40 m wide and the IEGCDP a volume that is approximately 60 m long by 35 m deep by 40 m wide with a drill spacing of 5 m by 5 m and includes the near- to at-surface high-grade portions of Keats and Iceberg that were exposed as part of the Company’s excavation programs (see the New Found Gold press releases dated September 23, 2024, December 2, 2024, September 25, 2025, December 1, 2025 and February 2, 2026).

Results released to date correlate well with the initial mineral resource estimate (‘MRE‘) block model and indicate strong continuity of -high grade mineralized shoots at both Keats and Iceberg, providing improved definition of their geometry, with most intervals occurring at or within a few meters of surface. The detailed geostatistical data from this phase of work will further validate the resource models, specifically by increasing confidence in grade-capping and influence-limiting parameters applied to high-grade intersections in advance of a MRE update and subsequent mine planning.

The Keats and Iceberg zones are hosted within the Keats-Baseline Fault Zone (‘KBFZ‘), a high-grade gold-bearing structure that has been defined over a current strike length of 1.9 kilometres (‘km‘). This corridor consists of a broad mineralized fault zone with limited deep drill testing to date. Drilling completed in 2024 confirms that the system extends to vertical depths of up to 1.1 km (see the New Found Gold press releases dated July 11, 2024, October 31, 2024, and April 29, 2025).

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_001.jpg

Figure 1:
 Plan view map of the AFZC with location of Keats and Iceberg excavation grade control drill programs.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_001full.jpg

  • Iceberg excavation grade control drill program (this press release):
    • 71.8 g/t Au over 31.95 m from 37.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-069)
    • 76.6 g/t Au over 16.00 m from 51.45 m (NFGC-25-GC-055)
    • 44.4 g/t Au over 21.55 m from 13.40 m (NFGC-25-GC-072)
    • 35.4 g/t Au over 21.20 m from 34.95 m (NFGC-25-GC-061)
    • 31.6 g/t Au over 18.65 m from 3.60 m (NFGC-25-GC-106)
    • 40.6 g/t Au over 12.70 m from 40.35 m (NFGC-25-GC-118)
    • 41.1 g/t Au over 11.40 m from 40.40 m (NFGC-25-GC-079)
    • 55.4 g/t Au over 8.30 m from 21.75 m (NFGC-25-GC-107)
    • 43.2 g/t Au over 19.85 m from 16.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-082)
    • 22.6 g/t Au over 17.55 m from 50.45 m (NFGC-25-GC-050)
    • 30.4 g/t Au over 12.90 m from 8.00 m (NFGC-25-GC-112)
    • 11.9 g/t Au over 27.55 m from 27.65 m (NFGC-25-GC-097)
    • 27.3 g/t Au over 11.70 m from 48.90 m (NFGC-25-GC-084)
    • 27.8 g/t Au over 11.45 m from 38.85 m (NFGC-25-GC-067)
    • 120 g/t Au over 2.60 m from 17.15 m (NFGC-25-GC-109)
    • 11.6 g/t Au over 26.15 m from 31.30 m (NFGC-25-GC-058)
    • 30.9 g/t Au over 9.00 m from 32.30 m (NFGC-25-GC-064)
    • 28.1 g/t Au over 9.15 m from 45.15 m (NFGC-25-GC-048)
    • 18.4 g/t Au over 12.85 m from 38.45 m (NFGC-25-GC-076)
    • 26.7 g/t Au over 8.05 m from 16.45 m (NFGC-25-GC-119)
    • 7.56 g/t Au over 23.85 m from 48.15 m (NFGC-25-GC-052)
    • 6.77 g/t Au over 20.05 m from 54.70 m (NFGC-25-GC-046)
    • 12.0 g/t Au over 11.05 m from 33.30 m (NFGC-25-GC-059)
    • 8.55 g/t Au over 15.40 m from 25.40 m (NFGC-25-GC-109)
    • 12.8 g/t Au over 10.10 m from 28.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-113)
    • 13.0 g/t Au over 9.90 m from 13.45 m (NFGC-25-GC-122)
    • 8.26 g/t Au over 12.55 m from 63.00 m (NFGC-25-GC-087)
    • 11.1 g/t Au over 9.05 m from 14.40 m (NFGC-25-GC-123)
    • 16.9 g/t Au over 4.15 m from 29.60 m (NFGC-25-GC-121)
    • 5.17 g/t Au over 12.40 m from 17.00 m (NFGC-25-GC-124)
    • 6.70 g/t Au over 9.20 m from 42.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-087)
    • 8.38 g/t Au over 6.85 m from 15.35 m (NFGC-25-GC-074)
    • 15.5 g/t Au over 3.65 m from 71.95 m (NFGC-25-GC-043)
    • 3.88 g/t Au over 13.10 m from 31.15 m (NFGC-25-GC-074)
    • 17.5 g/t Au over 2.80 m from 40.95 m (NFGC-25-GC-084)
    • 20.1 g/t Au over 2.35 m from 69.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-085)
    • 18.0 g/t Au over 2.30 m from 41.80 m (NFGC-25-GC-085)
    • 15.0 g/t Au over 2.70 m from 23.75 m (NFGC-25-GC-058)
    • 19.7 g/t Au over 2.05 m from 4.35 m (NFGC-25-GC-122)
    • 13.3 g/t Au over 2.85 m from 69.15 m (NFGC-25-GC-048)
    • 14.3 g/t Au over 2.60 m from 12.60 m (NFGC-25-GC-107)
    • 11.9 g/t Au over 2.80 m from 65.20 m (NFGC-25-GC-079)
    • 2.21 g/t Au over 11.55 m from 14.10 m (NFGC-25-GC-079)
    • 11.7 g/t Au over 2.20 m from 57.35 m (NFGC-25-GC-079)
  • Keats excavation grade control drill program (this press release):
    • 51.3 g/t Au over 3.40 m from 54.60 m (NFGC-25-GC-115)
    • 11.8 g/t Au over 9.95 m from 13.20 m (NFGC-25-GC-065)
    • 9.73 g/t Au over 11.30 m from 9.75 m (NFGC-25-GC-063)
    • 15.9 g/t Au over 5.85 m from 4.90 m (NFGC-25-GC-115)
    • 40.3 g/t Au over 2.25 m from 23.95 m (NFGC-25-GC-068)
    • 16.9 g/t Au over 3.90 m from 1.00 m (NFGC-25-GC-071)
    • 4.22 g/t Au over 10.35 m from 5.65 m (NFGC-25-GC-066)
    • 2.56 g/t Au over 15.95 m from 0.00 m (NFGC-25-GC-100)
    • 14.5 g/t Au over 2.45 m from 10.00 m (NFGC-25-GC-096)
    • 1.41 g/t Au over 20.25 m from 20.45 m (NFGC-25-GC-102)
    • 1.73 g/t Au over 15.45 m from 4.20 m (NFGC-25-GC-062)
    • 2.37 g/t Au over 10.60 m from 23.70 m (NFGC-25-GC-111)

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_002.jpg

Figure 2: 
Keats and Iceberg excavations with grade control drill hole highlights.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_002full.jpg

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_003.jpg

Figure 3: 
Keats longitudinal section view of grade control drill hole traces (looking northwest, +/- 12.5 m).

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_003full.jpg

      Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_004.jpg

      Figure 4: 
      Iceberg longitudinal section view of grade control drill hole traces (looking northwest, +/- 12.5 m).

      To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
      https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7337/285803_de2d97bbf46729b2_004full.jpg

      Looking Ahead

      The 2025 Queensway drill program included 74,377 m of drilling in 614 DDH, with approximately 75% of the drilling focused on the AFZC to support advancement of the Phase 1 mine plan as outlined in the PEA and 25% focused on exploration targets such as the Dropkick zone (‘Dropkick‘). To date, approximately 45% of the results from 2025 drilling remain outstanding, in addition to channel sampling results from the Lotto excavation. These results will be reported once available.

      The 2026 Queensway drill program is underway, with four drill rigs currently active (see the New Found Gold press release dated January 21, 2026). Initial 2026 infill drilling is planned to first target PEA Phase 2 open pit resource conversion, transitioning later in the year to PEA Phase 3 underground resource conversion.

      The Company plans to expand its grade control drilling beginning in Q2/26. The next phase of work will leverage results from the 2025 program to optimize drill hole spacing and program scope. This will include completing grade-control drilling at the Iceberg excavation, commencing grade-control drilling at the Lotto excavation and potentially expanding the grade-control drilling at the Keats and Iceberg excavations. The objective of this work is to improve confidence in the distribution of gold mineralization and support mine planning as outlined for the PEA Phase 1 open pits.

      Exploration drilling will focus on AFZC resource expansion including an initial grid-based program targeting the prospective corridor adjacent to the AFZ at Bullseye, continued step-outs at Dropkick, located 11 km north of the AFZC, and targeted segments of the AFZ at AFZ Peripheral. A regional drilling program testing advanced targets at Queensway South is in the planning phase and expected to commence in H2/26.

      The Company plans to file an updated Technical Report for Queensway, which will include an updated mineral resource estimate, in Q3/26

      Table 1: Drill Result Highlights.

      KEATS MAIN EXCAVATION
      Hole No. From (m) To (m) Interval (m) Au (g/t) True Width (%) Zone
      NFGC-25-GC-062 4.20 19.65 15.45 1.73 70-95 Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-063 9.75 21.05 11.30 9.73 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 14.50 15.50 1.00 92.27 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-065 13.20 23.15 9.95 11.81 55-85 Keats Excavation
      Including 13.20 14.10 0.90 111.64 55-85
      NFGC-25-GC-066 5.65 16.00 10.35 4.22 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 5.65 6.20 0.55 23.75 70-95
      Including 10.10 11.10 1.00 24.78 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-068 23.95 26.20 2.25 40.34 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 24.40 24.80 0.40 167.68 70-95
      Including 25.20 25.50 0.30 70.49 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-071 1.00 4.90 3.90 16.91 35-65 Keats Excavation
      Including 1.85 3.40 1.55 38.19 35-65
      NFGC-25-GC-096 10.00 12.45 2.45 14.45 65-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 11.40 11.75 0.35 91.40 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-100 0.00 15.95 15.95 2.56 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 9.40 9.85 0.45 20.86 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-102 20.45 40.70 20.25 1.41 30-60 Keats Excavation
      Including 29.65 30.30 0.65 14.98 30-60
      NFGC-25-GC-111 23.70 34.30 10.60 2.37 65-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 29.40 30.15 0.75 11.27 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-115 4.90 10.75 5.85 15.85 60-90 Keats Excavation
      Including 4.90 5.35 0.45 199.16 60-90
      And 54.60 58.00 3.40 51.30 70-95
      Including 54.60 55.20 0.60 31.18 70-95
      Including 55.55 56.10 0.55 278.07 70-95
       
      ICEBERG EXCAVATION
      Hole No. From (m) To (m) Interval (m)* Au (g/t) True Width (%) Zone
      NFGC-25-GC-043 71.95 75.60 3.65 15.51 25-55 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 73.85 75.60 1.75 28.81 25-55
      NFGC-25-GC-046 54.70 74.75 20.05 6.77 40-70 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 72.50 73.30 0.80 87.06 40-70
      Including 74.00 74.75 0.75 44.69 40-70
      NFGC-25-GC-048 45.15 54.30 9.15 28.07 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 50.70 53.20 2.50 97.72 70-95
      And 69.15 72.00 2.85 13.31 70-95
      Including 69.15 70.00 0.85 11.37 70-95
      Including 71.00 72.00 1.00 20.37 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-050 50.45 68.00 17.55 22.63 55-85 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 51.20 53.10 1.90 65.51 55-85
      Including 53.60 54.40 0.80 27.50 55-85
      Including 56.80 57.20 0.40 162.33 55-85
      Including 57.80 58.70 0.90 36.99 55-85
      Including 63.90 66.40 2.50 31.79 70-95
      Including 66.80 68.00 1.20 45.11 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-052 48.15 72.00 23.85 7.56 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 48.60 49.20 0.60 12.26 70-95
      Including 61.15 63.70 2.55 17.00 70-95
      Including 64.40 65.20 0.80 74.21 70-95
      Including 68.05 69.80 1.75 12.94 70-95
      Including 71.50 72.00 0.50 38.44 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-055 51.45 67.45 16.00 76.58 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 51.45 52.85 1.40 12.54 70-95
      Including 55.40 55.70 0.30 63.77 70-95
      Including 61.30 61.90 0.60 49.84 70-95
      Including 63.50 67.45 3.95 288.48 70-95
      And Including 63.50 64.25 0.75 656.59 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-058 23.75 26.45 2.70 14.99 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 24.40 25.35 0.95 43.11 70-95
      And 31.30 57.45 26.15 11.62 70-95
      Including 37.75 38.65 0.90 16.38 70-95
      Including 40.35 42.30 1.95 53.55 70-95
      Including 43.15 44.65 1.50 28.64 70-95
      Including 49.80 51.00 1.20 28.67 70-95
      Including 55.85 56.65 0.80 86.44 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-059 33.30 44.35 11.05 11.97 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 35.00 35.45 0.45 12.52 70-95
      Including 35.95 37.45 1.50 29.60 70-95
      Including 38.90 39.55 0.65 68.85 70-95
      Including 42.65 43.10 0.45 54.16 50-80
      NFGC-25-GC-061 34.95 56.15 21.20 35.41 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 37.80 38.25 0.45 65.62 70-95
      Including 42.70 44.00 1.30 77.08 70-95
      Including 45.10 46.15 1.05 67.24 70-95
      Including 48.95 49.75 0.80 76.23 70-95
      Including 50.65 51.35 0.70 107.85 60-90
      Including 52.35 55.60 3.25 118.45 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-064 32.30 41.30 9.00 30.85 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 32.30 32.75 0.45 61.96 70-95
      Including 33.30 34.10 0.80 223.22 70-95
      Including 38.90 40.45 1.55 30.62 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-067 38.85 50.30 11.45 27.84 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 39.85 40.80 0.95 16.17 70-95
      Including 41.60 42.85 1.25 38.25 70-95
      Including 45.20 46.55 1.35 125.72 70-95
      Including 49.70 50.30 0.60 119.07 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-069 37.80 69.75 31.95 71.81 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 39.10 42.65 3.55 80.55 70-95
      Including 47.95 48.90 0.95 28.97 70-95
      Including 51.35 53.45 2.10 154.03 70-95
      And Including 51.35 51.90 0.55 512.64 70-95
      Including 56.80 57.40 0.60 50.45 70-95
      Including 59.45 60.20 0.75 90.53 70-95
      Including 63.15 69.75 6.60 230.17 70-95
      And Including 66.20 67.80 1.60 595.58 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-072 13.40 34.95 21.55 44.44 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 13.40 14.10 0.70 75.07 65-95
      Including 22.60 23.10 0.50 116.62 70-95
      Including 24.20 25.85 1.65 22.27 70-95
      Including 27.70 28.50 0.80 14.00 70-95
      Including 29.35 31.40 2.05 215.32 70-95
      Including 32.35 32.90 0.55 632.87 55-85
      NFGC-25-GC-074 15.35 22.20 6.85 8.38 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 15.35 16.00 0.65 16.06 70-95
      Including 16.70 17.90 1.20 30.26 70-95
      And 31.15 44.25 13.10 3.88 70-95
      Including 35.60 37.10 1.50 22.24 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-076 38.45 51.30 12.85 18.43 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 39.30 39.75 0.45 10.23 70-95
      Including 48.40 48.85 0.45 81.00 40-70
      Including 50.50 51.30 0.80 199.19 40-70
      NFGC-25-GC-079 14.10 25.65 11.55 2.21 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 25.35 25.65 0.30 61.54 70-95
      And 40.40 51.80 11.40 41.12 70-95
      Including 40.40 40.70 0.30 10.76 70-95
      Including 41.35 42.35 1.00 37.25 70-95
      Including 43.00 43.70 0.70 14.36 70-95
      Including 47.90 48.40 0.50 629.44 70-95
      Including 48.70 50.30 1.60 55.71 50-80
      And 57.35 59.55 2.20 11.74 50-80
      Including 57.90 59.55 1.65 15.56 50-80
      And 65.20 68.00 2.80 11.87 25-55
      Including 65.20 66.80 1.60 18.64 25-55
      NFGC-25-GC-082 16.80 36.65 19.85 43.18 65-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 17.50 19.40 1.90 221.81 65-95
      Including 24.65 25.00 0.35 14.10 70-95
      Including 31.00 34.00 3.00 122.53 70-95
      Including 34.55 35.20 0.65 35.33 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-084 40.95 43.75 2.80 17.51 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 41.40 43.00 1.60 27.24 70-95
      And 48.90 60.60 11.70 27.31 70-95
      Including 48.90 51.65 2.75 77.18 70-95
      Including 57.90 60.60 2.70 38.29 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-085 41.80 44.10 2.30 17.99 65-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 42.55 42.90 0.35 114.28 65-95
      And 69.80 72.15 2.35 20.05 70-95
      Including 70.80 71.50 0.70 65.13 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-087 42.80 52.00 9.20 6.70 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 50.90 51.25 0.35 138.45 70-95
      And 63.00 75.55 12.55 8.26 70-95
      Including 63.80 65.20 1.40 19.78 70-95
      Including 66.05 67.75 1.70 36.86 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-097 27.65 55.20 27.55 11.88 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 31.35 33.90 2.55 27.91 70-95
      Including 34.45 35.95 1.50 36.04 70-95
      Including 43.40 43.80 0.40 20.09 70-95
      Including 54.75 55.20 0.45 321.59 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-101 40.00 53.90 13.90 1.53 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 41.15 41.55 0.40 12.16 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-106 3.60 22.25 18.65 31.61 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 3.60 4.55 0.95 239.28 60-90
      Including 10.25 10.90 0.65 15.83 70-95
      Including 14.30 15.05 0.75 44.82 70-95
      Including 17.60 22.25 4.65 65.59 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-107 12.60 15.20 2.60 14.30 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 12.60 14.35 1.75 17.81 70-95
      And 21.75 30.05 8.30 55.43 70-95
      Including 21.75 22.60 0.85 53.65 70-95
      Including 23.60 24.15 0.55 141.09 70-95
      Including 24.45 24.90 0.45 750.76 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-109 17.15 19.75 2.60 120.13 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 17.80 18.95 1.15 304.86 70-95
      And 25.40 40.80 15.40 8.55 70-95
      Including 25.40 25.75 0.35 22.77 70-95
      Including 27.45 28.00 0.55 13.75 70-95
      Including 31.35 32.30 0.95 88.66 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-112 8.00 20.90 12.90 30.43 65-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 8.00 10.55 2.55 18.90 70-95
      Including 15.60 16.10 0.50 27.20 65-95
      Including 16.40 17.90 1.50 118.75 65-95
      Including 19.40 20.50 1.10 133.35 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-113 28.80 38.90 10.10 12.82 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 28.80 29.30 0.50 18.48 70-95
      Including 30.25 31.30 1.05 25.09 70-95
      Including 31.80 32.70 0.90 83.17 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-118 40.35 53.05 12.70 40.56 40-70 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 50.35 53.05 2.70 186.54 40-70
      And Including 52.55 53.05 0.50 807.23 40-70
      NFGC-25-GC-119 16.45 24.50 8.05 26.71 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 17.90 19.90 2.00 97.22 70-95
      Including 20.90 21.80 0.90 12.15 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-121 29.60 33.75 4.15 16.92 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 32.35 33.25 0.90 74.82 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-122 4.35 6.40 2.05 19.72 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 4.70 6.40 1.70 23.64 70-95
      And 13.45 23.35 9.90 12.98 60-90
      Including 14.40 17.20 2.80 34.57 60-90
      Including 18.00 18.50 0.50 32.38 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-123 14.40 23.45 9.05 11.06 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 17.60 19.20 1.60 52.51 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-124 17.00 29.40 12.40 5.17 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 18.80 20.30 1.50 30.32 70-95

       

      Note that the host structures are interpreted to be moderately to steeply dipping. Infill veining in secondary structures with multiple orientations crosscutting the primary host structures are commonly observed in drill core which could result in additional uncertainty in true width. Composite intervals reported carry a minimum weighted average of 1 g/t Au diluted over a minimum core length of 2 m with a maximum of 4 m consecutive dilution when above 200 m vertical depth and 2 m consecutive dilution when below 200 m vertical depth. Included high-grade intercepts are reported as any consecutive interval with grades greater than 10 g/t Au. Grades have not been capped in the averaging and intervals are reported as drill thickness. Details of all drill holes reported in this press release are included in Table 2 and Table 3 below.

      Table 2: Summary of composite drill hole results reported in this press release for Keats and Iceberg.

      KEATS MAIN EXCAVATION
      Hole No. From (m) To (m) Interval (m) Au (g/t) True Width (%) Zone
      NFGC-25-GC-056 2.65 6.15 3.50 4.41 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 2.65 3.30 0.65 17.64 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-060 No Significant Values Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-062 4.20 19.65 15.45 1.73 70-95 Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-063 9.75 21.05 11.30 9.73 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 14.50 15.50 1.00 92.27 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-065 13.20 23.15 9.95 11.81 55-85 Keats Excavation
      Including 13.20 14.10 0.90 111.64 55-85
      NFGC-25-GC-066 5.65 16.00 10.35 4.22 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 5.65 6.20 0.55 23.75 70-95
      Including 10.10 11.10 1.00 24.78 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-068 23.95 26.20 2.25 40.34 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 24.40 24.80 0.40 167.68 70-95
      Including 25.20 25.50 0.30 70.49 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-070 No Significant Values Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-071 1.00 4.90 3.90 16.91 35-65 Keats Excavation
      Including 1.85 3.40 1.55 38.19 35-65
      And 10.65 13.55 2.90 1.42 35-65
      NFGC-25-GC-073 1.70 7.05 5.35 3.47 65-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 4.85 5.30 0.45 29.03 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-075 0.25 3.00 2.75 2.31 70-95 Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-078 7.95 14.15 6.20 3.82 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 9.85 10.45 0.60 11.66 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-080 0.00 2.25 2.25 1.65 70-95 Keats Excavation
      And 7.10 9.40 2.30 1.69 70-95
      And 17.60 23.05 5.45 3.72 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-081 1.90 4.65 2.75 8.37 45-75 Keats Excavation
      Including 2.90 3.90 1.00 19.70 45-75
      And 14.45 19.85 5.40 3.86 70-95
      Including 19.40 19.85 0.45 13.57 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-083 48.70 51.30 2.60 1.04 70-95 Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-086 15.60 19.00 3.40 1.01 15-45 Keats Excavation
      And 26.15 34.85 8.70 1.28 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-088 No Significant Values Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-089 No Significant Values Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-091 No Significant Values Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-092 0.00 2.20 2.20 1.97 65-95 Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-094 11.90 15.30 3.40 2.73 65-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 12.90 13.35 0.45 12.88 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-095 31.20 34.00 2.80 1.54 70-95 Keats Excavation
      And 37.00 39.15 2.15 4.87 70-95
      Including 38.15 38.60 0.45 18.78 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-096 10.00 12.45 2.45 14.45 65-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 11.40 11.75 0.35 91.40 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-098 18.40 28.00 9.60 2.35 60-90 Keats Excavation
      Including 26.40 27.10 0.70 12.97 60-90
      And 32.60 41.10 8.50 2.02 60-90
      Including 33.60 34.00 0.40 11.28 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-100 0.00 15.95 15.95 2.56 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 9.40 9.85 0.45 20.86 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-102 20.45 40.70 20.25 1.41 30-60 Keats Excavation
      Including 29.65 30.30 0.65 14.98 30-60
      NFGC-25-GC-103 1.25 10.85 9.60 2.17 70-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 10.15 10.85 0.70 11.95 70-95
      And 14.15 16.75 2.60 1.11 70-95
      And 25.40 28.05 2.65 1.04 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-105 0.00 2.30 2.30 3.85 Unknown Keats Excavation
      Including 0.00 0.40 0.40 21.96 Unknown
      And 16.15 18.50 2.35 1.50 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-108 8.15 14.25 6.10 1.72 70-95 Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-110 No Significant Values Keats Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-111 23.70 34.30 10.60 2.37 65-95 Keats Excavation
      Including 29.40 30.15 0.75 11.27 65-95
      And 37.80 40.70 2.90 6.29 50-80
      Including 40.25 40.70 0.45 32.18 50-80
      NFGC-25-GC-115 4.90 10.75 5.85 15.85 60-90 Keats Excavation
      Including 4.90 5.35 0.45 199.16 60-90
      And 42.60 45.35 2.75 1.55 70-95
      And 54.60 58.00 3.40 51.30 70-95
      Including 54.60 55.20 0.60 31.18 70-95
      Including 55.55 56.10 0.55 278.07 70-95
       
      ICEBERG EXCAVATION
      Hole No. From (m) To (m) Interval (m) Au (g/t) True Width (%) Zone
      NFGC-25-GC-043 58.70 62.60 3.90 2.44 55-85 Iceberg Excavation
      And 71.95 75.60 3.65 15.51 25-55
      Including 73.85 75.60 1.75 28.81 25-55
      NFGC-25-GC-046 54.70 74.75 20.05 6.77 40-70 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 72.50 73.30 0.80 87.06 40-70
      Including 74.00 74.75 0.75 44.69 40-70
      NFGC-25-GC-048 19.50 21.55 2.05 1.39 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 24.00 26.55 2.55 1.06 70-95
      And 45.15 54.30 9.15 28.07 70-95
      Including 50.70 53.20 2.50 97.72 70-95
      And 58.70 61.00 2.30 1.07 70-95
      And 69.15 72.00 2.85 13.31 70-95
      Including 69.15 70.00 0.85 11.37 70-95
      Including 71.00 72.00 1.00 20.37 70-95
      And 78.00 80.00 2.00 1.15 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-050 40.00 46.35 6.35 1.54 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 50.45 68.00 17.55 22.63 55-85
      Including 51.20 53.10 1.90 65.51 55-85
      Including 53.60 54.40 0.80 27.50 55-85
      Including 56.80 57.20 0.40 162.33 55-85
      Including 57.80 58.70 0.90 36.99 55-85
      Including 63.90 66.40 2.50 31.79 70-95
      Including 66.80 68.00 1.20 45.11 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-052 36.80 42.75 5.95 1.60 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 48.15 72.00 23.85 7.56 70-95
      Including 48.60 49.20 0.60 12.26 70-95
      Including 61.15 63.70 2.55 17.00 70-95
      Including 64.40 65.20 0.80 74.21 70-95
      Including 68.05 69.80 1.75 12.94 70-95
      Including 71.50 72.00 0.50 38.44 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-055 39.50 47.40 7.90 3.35 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 46.20 47.10 0.90 18.55 70-95
      And 51.45 67.45 16.00 76.58 70-95
      Including 51.45 52.85 1.40 12.54 70-95
      Including 55.40 55.70 0.30 63.77 70-95
      Including 61.30 61.90 0.60 49.84 70-95
      Including 63.50 67.45 3.95 288.48 70-95
      And Including 63.50 64.25 0.75 656.59 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-058 23.75 26.45 2.70 14.99 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 24.40 25.35 0.95 43.11 70-95
      And 31.30 57.45 26.15 11.62 70-95
      Including 37.75 38.65 0.90 16.38 70-95
      Including 40.35 42.30 1.95 53.55 70-95
      Including 43.15 44.65 1.50 28.64 70-95
      Including 49.80 51.00 1.20 28.67 70-95
      Including 55.85 56.65 0.80 86.44 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-059 18.70 26.10 7.40 1.96 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 33.30 44.35 11.05 11.97 70-95
      Including 35.00 35.45 0.45 12.52 70-95
      Including 35.95 37.45 1.50 29.60 70-95
      Including 38.90 39.55 0.65 68.85 70-95
      Including 42.65 43.10 0.45 54.16 50-80
      NFGC-25-GC-061 34.95 56.15 21.20 35.41 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 37.80 38.25 0.45 65.62 70-95
      Including 42.70 44.00 1.30 77.08 70-95
      Including 45.10 46.15 1.05 67.24 70-95
      Including 48.95 49.75 0.80 76.23 70-95
      Including 50.65 51.35 0.70 107.85 60-90
      Including 52.35 55.60 3.25 118.45 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-064 20.00 22.20 2.20 1.25 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 32.30 41.30 9.00 30.85 70-95
      Including 32.30 32.75 0.45 61.96 70-95
      Including 33.30 34.10 0.80 223.22 70-95
      Including 38.90 40.45 1.55 30.62 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-067 18.25 21.45 3.20 1.26 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 38.85 50.30 11.45 27.84 70-95
      Including 39.85 40.80 0.95 16.17 70-95
      Including 41.60 42.85 1.25 38.25 70-95
      Including 45.20 46.55 1.35 125.72 70-95
      Including 49.70 50.30 0.60 119.07 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-069 37.80 69.75 31.95 71.81 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 39.10 42.65 3.55 80.55 70-95
      Including 47.95 48.90 0.95 28.97 70-95
      Including 51.35 53.45 2.10 154.03 70-95
      And Including 51.35 51.90 0.55 512.64 70-95
      Including 56.80 57.40 0.60 50.45 70-95
      Including 59.45 60.20 0.75 90.53 70-95
      Including 63.15 69.75 6.60 230.17 70-95
      And Including 66.20 67.80 1.60 595.58 70-95
      And 79.00 81.15 2.15 2.69 Unknown
      Including 80.65 81.15 0.50 10.78 Unknown
      NFGC-25-GC-072 13.40 34.95 21.55 44.44 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 13.40 14.10 0.70 75.07 65-95
      Including 22.60 23.10 0.50 116.62 70-95
      Including 24.20 25.85 1.65 22.27 70-95
      Including 27.70 28.50 0.80 14.00 70-95
      Including 29.35 31.40 2.05 215.32 70-95
      Including 32.35 32.90 0.55 632.87 55-85
      NFGC-25-GC-074 15.35 22.20 6.85 8.38 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 15.35 16.00 0.65 16.06 70-95
      Including 16.70 17.90 1.20 30.26 70-95
      And 31.15 44.25 13.10 3.88 70-95
      Including 35.60 37.10 1.50 22.24 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-076 19.85 26.20 6.35 1.01 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 38.45 51.30 12.85 18.43 70-95
      Including 39.30 39.75 0.45 10.23 70-95
      Including 48.40 48.85 0.45 81.00 40-70
      Including 50.50 51.30 0.80 199.19 40-70
      NFGC-25-GC-079 14.10 25.65 11.55 2.21 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 25.35 25.65 0.30 61.54 70-95
      And 40.40 51.80 11.40 41.12 70-95
      Including 40.40 40.70 0.30 10.76 70-95
      Including 41.35 42.35 1.00 37.25 70-95
      Including 43.00 43.70 0.70 14.36 70-95
      Including 47.90 48.40 0.50 629.44 70-95
      Including 48.70 50.30 1.60 55.71 50-80
      And 57.35 59.55 2.20 11.74 50-80
      Including 57.90 59.55 1.65 15.56 50-80
      And 65.20 68.00 2.80 11.87 25-55
      Including 65.20 66.80 1.60 18.64 25-55
      NFGC-25-GC-082 16.80 36.65 19.85 43.18 65-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 17.50 19.40 1.90 221.81 65-95
      Including 24.65 25.00 0.35 14.10 70-95
      Including 31.00 34.00 3.00 122.53 70-95
      Including 34.55 35.20 0.65 35.33 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-084 16.80 19.75 2.95 5.23 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 40.95 43.75 2.80 17.51 70-95
      Including 41.40 43.00 1.60 27.24 70-95
      And 48.90 60.60 11.70 27.31 70-95
      Including 48.90 51.65 2.75 77.18 70-95
      Including 57.90 60.60 2.70 38.29 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-085 19.30 22.20 2.90 2.63 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 41.80 44.10 2.30 17.99 65-95
      Including 42.55 42.90 0.35 114.28 65-95
      And 57.65 62.60 4.95 8.16 70-95
      Including 62.15 62.60 0.45 51.19 70-95
      And 69.80 72.15 2.35 20.05 70-95
      Including 70.80 71.50 0.70 65.13 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-087 6.00 8.20 2.20 1.73 Unknown Iceberg Excavation
      And 18.15 20.70 2.55 1.78 70-95
      And 42.80 52.00 9.20 6.70 70-95
      Including 50.90 51.25 0.35 138.45 70-95
      And 63.00 75.55 12.55 8.26 70-95
      Including 63.80 65.20 1.40 19.78 70-95
      Including 66.05 67.75 1.70 36.86 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-090 58.00 66.55 8.55 2.48 65-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 61.50 62.00 0.50 11.23 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-093 56.35 62.40 6.05 6.74 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 57.00 58.00 1.00 15.35 70-95
      Including 60.70 61.70 1.00 17.92 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-097 21.30 24.15 2.85 1.07 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 27.65 55.20 27.55 11.88 70-95
      Including 31.35 33.90 2.55 27.91 70-95
      Including 34.45 35.95 1.50 36.04 70-95
      Including 43.40 43.80 0.40 20.09 70-95
      Including 54.75 55.20 0.45 321.59 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-099 2.00 4.10 2.10 1.02 Unknown Iceberg Excavation
      And 43.00 45.20 2.20 2.40 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-101 15.65 20.50 4.85 1.15 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 40.00 53.90 13.90 1.53 70-95
      Including 41.15 41.55 0.40 12.16 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-104 42.15 44.45 2.30 1.23 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      NFGC-25-GC-106 3.60 22.25 18.65 31.61 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 3.60 4.55 0.95 239.28 60-90
      Including 10.25 10.90 0.65 15.83 70-95
      Including 14.30 15.05 0.75 44.82 70-95
      Including 17.60 22.25 4.65 65.59 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-107 12.60 15.20 2.60 14.30 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 12.60 14.35 1.75 17.81 70-95
      And 21.75 30.05 8.30 55.43 70-95
      Including 21.75 22.60 0.85 53.65 70-95
      Including 23.60 24.15 0.55 141.09 70-95
      Including 24.45 24.90 0.45 750.76 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-109 11.00 13.00 2.00 2.31 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 17.15 19.75 2.60 120.13 70-95
      Including 17.80 18.95 1.15 304.86 70-95
      And 25.40 40.80 15.40 8.55 70-95
      Including 25.40 25.75 0.35 22.77 70-95
      Including 27.45 28.00 0.55 13.75 70-95
      Including 31.35 32.30 0.95 88.66 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-112 0.00 2.35 2.35 1.03 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 8.00 20.90 12.90 30.43 65-95
      Including 8.00 10.55 2.55 18.90 70-95
      Including 15.60 16.10 0.50 27.20 65-95
      Including 16.40 17.90 1.50 118.75 65-95
      Including 19.40 20.50 1.10 133.35 65-95
      NFGC-25-GC-113 28.80 38.90 10.10 12.82 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 28.80 29.30 0.50 18.48 70-95
      Including 30.25 31.30 1.05 25.09 70-95
      Including 31.80 32.70 0.90 83.17 70-95
      And 44.50 47.15 2.65 8.17 50-80
      Including 46.30 46.60 0.30 56.91 50-80
      NFGC-25-GC-116 8.00 11.70 3.70 1.10 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 28.40 38.30 9.90 3.74 70-95
      Including 28.85 30.05 1.20 23.28 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-117 24.30 29.50 5.20 5.24 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 24.30 25.70 1.40 16.38 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-118 3.75 9.15 5.40 1.16 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 27.40 34.25 6.85 4.43 70-95
      And 40.35 53.05 12.70 40.56 40-70
      Including 50.35 53.05 2.70 186.54 40-70
      And Including 52.55 53.05 0.50 807.23 40-70
      NFGC-25-GC-119 3.40 8.00 4.60 8.81 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 6.10 8.00 1.90 19.32 70-95
      And 16.45 24.50 8.05 26.71 70-95
      Including 17.90 19.90 2.00 97.22 70-95
      Including 20.90 21.80 0.90 12.15 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-120 21.70 24.20 2.50 1.09 60-90 Iceberg Excavation
      And 31.00 37.00 6.00 3.08 60-90
      Including 31.00 32.45 1.45 12.53 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-121 6.35 10.20 3.85 1.35 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 29.60 33.75 4.15 16.92 70-95
      Including 32.35 33.25 0.90 74.82 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-122 4.35 6.40 2.05 19.72 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 4.70 6.40 1.70 23.64 70-95
      And 13.45 23.35 9.90 12.98 60-90
      Including 14.40 17.20 2.80 34.57 60-90
      Including 18.00 18.50 0.50 32.38 60-90
      NFGC-25-GC-123 14.40 23.45 9.05 11.06 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      Including 17.60 19.20 1.60 52.51 70-95
      NFGC-25-GC-124 9.40 11.65 2.25 1.09 70-95 Iceberg Excavation
      And 17.00 29.40 12.40 5.17 70-95
      Including 18.80 20.30 1.50 30.32 70-95

       

      Note that the host structures are interpreted to be moderately to steeply dipping. Infill veining in secondary structures with multiple orientations crosscutting the primary host structures are commonly observed in drill core which could result in additional uncertainty in true width. Composite intervals reported carry a minimum weighted average of 1 g/t Au diluted over a minimum core length of 2 m with a maximum of 4 m consecutive dilution when above 200 m vertical depth and 2 m consecutive dilution when below 200 m vertical depth. Included high-grade intercepts are reported as any consecutive interval with grades greater than 10 g/t Au. Grades have not been capped in the averaging and intervals are reported as drill thickness.

      Table 3 Details of drill holes reported in this press release.

      Hole No. Azimuth (°) Dip (°) Length (m) UTM E UTM N Zone
      NFGC-25-GC-043 300 -45 108 658419 5427780 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-046 300 -45 99 658422 5427785 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-048 300 -45 84 658427 5427793 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-050 300 -45 76 658429 5427797 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-052 300 -45 76 658432 5427802 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-055 299 -45.2 75 658437 5427805 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-056 300 -45 13 658181 5427527 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-058 300 -45 63 658437 5427810 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-059 299 -45.5 51 658436 5427817 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-060 300 -45 11 658248 5427541 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-061 300 -45 61 658442 5427814 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-062 298 -45.2 21 658182 5427521 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-063 299 -45 26 658177 5427512 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-064 299 -45.5 59 658441 5427819 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-065 299 -45 36 658186 5427516 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-066 299 -45 21 658171 5427516 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-067 299 -45.5 67 658449 5427815 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-068 300 -45 34 658228 5427546 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-069 300 -45 83 658444 5427807 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-070 300 -45 18 658213 5427555 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-071 300 -45 23 658172 5427521 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-072 300 -45 42 658434 5427824 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-073 300 -45 15 658166 5427519 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-074 300 -45 67 658430 5427815 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-075 300 -45 13 658176 5427525 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-076 300 -45 63 658425 5427806 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-078 300 -45 21 658179 5427516 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-079 299 -45 84 658426 5427806 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-080 300 -45 31 658231 5427550 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-081 300 -45 27 658223 5427549 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-082 300 -45 42 658429 5427821 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-083 300 -45 54 658248 5427535 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-084 299 -45 85 658420 5427797 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-085 300 -45 79 658417 5427793 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-086 300 -45 39 658237 5427547 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-087 299 -45 78 658415 5427789 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-088 299 -45 19 658246 5427530 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-089 299 -45 25 658225 5427554 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-090 299 -45 71 658414 5427772 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-091 299 -45 15 658216 5427559 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-092 299 -45 16 658243 5427526 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-093 299 -45 69 658417 5427776 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-094 299 -45 21 658218 5427552 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-095 299 -45 52 658240 5427533 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-096 299 -45 23 658221 5427556 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-097 300 -45 60 658431 5427808 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-098 298 -45 48 658239 5427540 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-099 300 -45 58 658412 5427785 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-100 300 -45 23 658190 5427533 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-101 300 -45 58 658410 5427780 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-102 300 -45 47 658235 5427536 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-103 300 -45 31 658198 5427529 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-104 300 -45 61 658407 5427776 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-105 300 -45 26 658217 5427547 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-106 300 -45 28 658427 5427827 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-107 300 -45 38 658423 5427819 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-108 300 -45 24 658187 5427524 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-109 300 -45.5 48 658423 5427814 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-110 300 -45 24 658252 5427527 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-111 300 -45 48 658238 5427529 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-112 300 -45 27 658422 5427825 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-113 300 -45 50 658415 5427806 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-115 300 -45 59 658242 5427521 Keats
      NFGC-25-GC-116 300 -45 51 658411 5427802 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-117 300 -45 56 658408 5427798 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-118 300 -45 59 658406 5427794 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-119 300 -45 32 658413 5427817 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-120 300 -45 44 658401 5427785 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-121 300 -45 50 658399 5427781 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-122 300 -45 25 658414 5427824 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-123 300 -45 30 658408 5427816 Iceberg
      NFGC-25-GC-124 300 -45 37 658406 5427811 Iceberg

       

      Sampling, Sub-sampling, and Laboratory

      All drilling recovers HQ core. For deep holes, the core size may be reduced to NQ at depth. The drill core is split in half using a diamond saw or a hydraulic splitter for rare intersections with incompetent core.

      A geologist examines the drill core and marks out the intervals to be sampled and the cutting line. Sample lengths are mostly 1.0 meter and adjusted to respect lithological and/or mineralogical contacts and isolate narrow (<1.0m) veins or other structures that may yield higher grades.

      Technicians saw the core along the defined cutting line. One half of the core is kept as a witness sample and the other half is submitted for analysis. Individual sample bags are sealed and placed into totes, which are then sealed and marked with the contents.

      New Found Gold has submitted samples for gold determination by PhotonAssay™ to ALS Canada Ltd. (‘ALS‘) since February 2024. ALS operates under a commercial contract with New Found Gold.

      Drill core samples are shipped to ALS for sample preparation in Thunder Bay, Ontario. ALS does not currently have accreditation for the PhotonAssay™ method at their Thunder Bay, ON laboratory. They do however have ISO/IEC 17025 (2017) accreditation for gamma ray analysis of samples for gold at their Australian labs with this method, including the Canning Vale lab in Perth, WA.

      Samples submitted to ALS beginning in February 2024 received gold analysis by photon assay whereby the entire sample is crushed to approximately 70% passing 2 mm mesh. The sample is then riffle split and transferred into jars. For ‘routine’ samples that do not have VG identified and are not within a mineralized zone, one (300-500g) jar is analyzed by photon assay. If the jar assays greater than 0.8 g/t, the remaining crushed material is weighed into multiple jars and submitted for photon assay.

      For samples that have VG identified, the entire crushed sample is riffle split and weighed into multiple jars that are submitted for photon assay. The assays from all jars are combined on a weight-averaged basis.

      Select samples prepared at ALS are also analyzed for a multi-element ICP package (ALS method code ME-ICP61) at ALS Vancouver.

      Drill program design, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, and interpretation of results are performed by qualified persons employing a rigorous Quality Assurance/Quality Control program consistent with industry best practices. Standards and blanks account for a minimum of 10% of the samples in addition to the laboratory’s internal quality assurance programs.

      Quality Control data are evaluated on receipt from the laboratories for failures. Appropriate action is taken if assay results for standards and blanks fall outside allowed tolerances. All results stated have passed New Found Gold’s quality control protocols.

      New Found Gold’s quality control program also includes submission of the second half of the core for approximately 2% of the drilled intervals. In addition, approximately 1% of sample pulps for mineralized samples are submitted for re-analysis to a second ISO-accredited laboratory for check assays.

      The Company does not recognize any factors of drilling, sampling, or recovery that could materially affect the accuracy or reliability of the assay data disclosed.

      The assay data disclosed in this press release have been verified by the Company’s Qualified Person against the original assay certificates.

      Qualified Person

      The scientific and technical information disclosed in this press release was reviewed and approved by Melissa Render, P. Geo., President, and a Qualified Person as defined under National Instrument 43-101. Ms. Render consents to the publication of this press release by New Found Gold. Ms. Render certifies that this press release fairly and accurately represents the scientific and technical information that forms the basis for this press release.

      About New Found Gold Corp.

      New Found Gold is an emerging Canadian gold producer with assets in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The Company holds a 100% interest in Queensway and the Hammerdown Gold Project, which includes fully permitted milling and tailings facilities. The Company is currently focused on advancing its flagship Queensway to production and bringing the Hammerdown deposit into commercial gold production.

      In July 2025, the Company completed a PEA at Queensway (see New Found Gold press release dated July 21, 2025). Recent drilling continues to yield new discoveries along strike and down dip of known gold zones, pointing to the district-scale potential that covers a +110 km strike extent along two prospective fault zones at Queensway.

      Through 2025 New Found Gold built a new board of directors and management team and has a solid shareholder base which includes cornerstone investor Eric Sprott. The Company is focused on growth and value creation.

      Keith Boyle, P.Eng.
      Chief Executive Officer
      New Found Gold Corp.

      Contact

      For further information on New Found Gold, please visit the Company’s website at www.newfoundgold.ca, contact us through our investor inquiry form at https://newfoundgold.ca/contact/contact-us/ or contact:

      Fiona Childe, Ph.D., P.Geo.
      Vice President, Communications and Corporate Development
      Phone: +1 (416) 910-4653
      Email: contact@newfoundgold.ca

      Follow us on social media at
      https://www.linkedin.com/company/newfound-gold-corp
      https://x.com/newfoundgold

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

      Forward-Looking Statement Cautions

      This press release contains certain ‘forward-looking statements’ within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation, including relating to the Company’s 2025 drill program on its Queensway Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and the timing, results, and interpretation and use of the results; planned reporting of the remaining results from 2025 drilling and channel sampling from the Lotto excavation; the excavation program and the timing and results thereof; future drill and excavation programs and the timing and focus thereof; exploration, drilling and mineralization at Queensway; the extent of mineralization and the continuity of high-grade gold mineralization; the potential conversion of mineral resources; the potential resource expansion; planned filing of an updated Technical Report for Queensway, including a mineral resource update, and the timing thereof; focus on growth and value creation; and the merits of Queensway. Although the Company believes that such statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts; they are generally, but not always, identified by the words ‘expects’, ‘plans’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘interpreted’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘projects’, ‘aims’, ‘suggests’, ‘indicate’, ‘often’, ‘target’, ‘future’, ‘likely’, ‘pending’, ‘potential’, ‘encouraging’, ‘goal’, ‘objective’, ‘prospective’, ‘possibly’, ‘preliminary’, and similar expressions, or that events or conditions ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘may’, ‘can’, ‘could’ or ‘should’ occur, or are those statements, which, by their nature, refer to future events. The Company cautions that forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management on the date the statements are made, and they involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Consequently, there can be no assurances that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Except to the extent required by applicable securities laws and the policies of the TSXV, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements if management’s beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change. Factors that could cause future results to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements include risks associated with the Company’s ability to complete exploration and drilling programs as expected, possible accidents and other risks associated with mineral exploration operations, the risk that the Company will encounter unanticipated geological factors, risks associated with the interpretation of exploration results and the results of the metallurgical testing program, the possibility that the Company may not be able to secure permitting and other governmental clearances necessary to carry out the Company’s exploration plans, the risk that the Company will not be able to raise sufficient funds to carry out its business plans, and the risk of political uncertainties and regulatory or legal changes that might interfere with the Company’s business and prospects. The reader is urged to refer to the Company’s Annual Information Form and Management’s Discussion and Analysis, publicly available through the Canadian Securities Administrators’ System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR+) at www.sedarplus.ca for a more complete discussion of such risk factors and their potential effects.

      1 g/t Au = grams of gold per tonne, m = metres.

      Corporate Logo

      To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/285803

      News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com