Friday, July 11, 2025
Home Blog Page 34

Gold rush: Tectonic Metals launches largest-ever drill program at Flat Gold Project in Alaska

It’s the season for drilling core samples. Tectonic Metals officially launched its most ambitious exploration campaign yet at the Flat Gold Project on Monday, starting a multi-rig drill program that could be a turning point for gold development in Alaska.

The 2025 Phase One drill program is deploying three drill rigs — two already on-site and a third en route — to the expansive 99,840-acre project located on predominantly Native-owned land managed by Doyon, Limited, one of Alaska’s largest Native Regional Corporations and Tectonic’s second-largest shareholder.

The Flat Gold Project is 25 miles north of the Donlin Gold Project in southwestern Alaska. On Native-owned land belonging to Doyon, Ltd., it is in the Kuskokwim Mountains, about 290 miles from Anchorage and 350 miles southwest of Fairbanks.

The campaign represents a major step toward unlocking the full potential of what Tectonic says is a “tier-one,” intrusion-hosted, free-milling, and heap-leachable gold system. Located near the Donlin Gold Project, one of the largest undeveloped gold deposits in the world, the Flat Gold Project is positioned to become a significant player in Alaska’s mining future.

The history of placer gold mining at Flat Creek is part of the broader gold mining legacy of the Iditarod region. Flat Creek is tributary that has been a major site for placer gold production, contributing to the area’s notoriety as one of Alaska’s most productive gold regions, with discovery spanning back to 1908 by prospectors John Beaton and William Dikeman along the Iditarod River. Sometimes this gold mining timeframe is referred to as “The Last Great Gold Rush” in Alaska.

The Iditarod District, including Flat Creek, has produced over 1.5 million ounces of placer gold, making it one of Alaska’s most prolific gold-producing regions. Flat Creek alone is credited with contributing a substantial portion of this total, with historical records indicating over 650,000 ounces of placer gold mined from its gravels.

This figure supports Tectonic Metals’ recent exploration, which identifies Flat Creek as one of Alaska’s most prolific placer gold-producing creeks.

Central to the season’s work is the Alpha Bowl, a high-grade, near-surface oxide gold target that was first drilled in 2024 and is interpreted as the bedrock source of over 650,000 ounces of historic placer gold from Flat Creek.

This breakthrough confirmed Alpha Bowl as part of the Chicken Mountain intrusive system and revealed bonanza-grade gold potential.

The company reported that drill hole CMR24-026 returned impressive intercepts.

“This is our strongest indication yet that we are drilling into the heart of a fertile gold system,” said Tony Reda, co-founder, president and chief executive officer of Tectonic Metals. “With two rigs already turning and a third on the way, Phase One is just the beginning.”

The first drill program will generate technical data to support Tectonic’s first mineral resource estimate and a future preliminary economic assessment. Drill targets include deeper structurally controlled feeder zones, oriented core collection, and additional metallurgical sampling.

At Chicken Mountain, which is part of the broader Flat system, mineralization has been confirmed to a depth of 1,066 feet over a 1.86-mile strike length. Metallurgical tests have already shown 96% gold recovery from oxidized material and 91% from non-oxidized samples, confirming the viability of heap leach processing.

Tectonic is also turning its focus to Golden Apex, a smaller intrusion-related gold target with strong placer gold associations and geophysical markers similar to those that led to the Alpha Bowl discovery.

To support the Vancouver, BC-based company’s rapid advancement, Tectonic granted 3.86 million incentive stock options to directors, officers, and staff. The options are priced at $0.75 per share (Canadian) and vest over 18 months.

“The 2025 drill program is designed not just to expand known zones but to lay the foundation for a future mining operation,” said Reda. “From Alpha Bowl to Golden Apex, we are leveraging every tool—technical, financial, and strategic—to transform Flat into one of North America’s great gold stories.”

For maps, drill cross-sections, and additional project details, visit www.tectonicmetals.com.

Kevin McCabe: Alaska must reject infringement that is presented as ‘gun safety’

By KEVIN MCCABE

The Second Amendment is not a footnote in our Constitution; it is a promise. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These are deliberate words from our Founders. They meant what they wrote. They understood that the right to bear arms was not granted by government, but a natural right of men that must be recognized by that government. It is a natural, God-given right, fundamental to liberty and self-governance.

Alaskans know this instinctively. We live in a place where self-reliance is not a slogan but a way of life. Firearms are not symbols; they are tools of survival and security. Yet even in Alaska, legislation has emerged that seeks to undercut this right, not through outright bans, but through clever language and incremental encroachment. This year, two bills in the Thirty-Fourth Legislature, HB 134 and HB 89, are nibbling at the edges.

HB 134, introduced by Representative Carrick, is titled the “Alaska Child Access Prevention and Secure Storage of Firearms Act.” While it seems to promote responsible gun storage, it goes further. It amends existing laws and creates a new criminal offense that holds gun owners legally accountable if a minor or prohibited person uses their firearm to commit a crime. Though it stops short of confiscation, it lays the foundation for a legal structure that mirrors so-called “Red Flag” laws. It moves responsibility away from the individual committing the crime and places it on the law-abiding gun owner, a significant and dangerous precedent.

HB 89, introduced by Representative Josephson, creates “gun violence protective orders” that allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court to remove firearms if someone is deemed a threat. These orders can be issued without the gun owner’s presence and require the surrender of firearms within 24 hours. Twenty-four hours, in Alaska? Violations carry stiff penalties, including jail time and heavy fines. This firearm confiscation without due process is not safety, it is big government control.

The Founding Fathers warned us about such measures. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own land.” Patrick Henry declared at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” They did not believe the right to bear arms should be handed out selectively by the state. They believed it was inherent to the dignity and sovereignty of a free citizen.

George Mason, also at the Virginia Convention, stated plainly, “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” John Adams, quoting Cesare Beccaria, considered the father of modern criminal law and criminal justice, warned that laws forbidding arms “disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” He added that such laws “make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.” These are warnings written in blood and experience.

The American Revolution began with British efforts to disarm the colonies. In 1775, General Gage ordered the seizure of weapons in Boston, with thousands of muskets and pistols taken from the people. The Founders never forgot that. They lived the reality that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Their solution was clear: the citizen must be armed, both for self-defense and as a check on government power.

That dual purpose is embedded in the Second Amendment. James Madison, in Federalist No. 46, wrote of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” He understood the link between personal liberty and national sovereignty.

These are the principles that shaped our nation. They should be the same principles that guide Alaska’s Legislature today. Yet HB 134 and HB 89 disregard them. They prioritize theoretical safety over constitutional certainty and open the door to abuse, placing power in the hands of judges and petitioners without the presence or knowledge of the accused. They presume guilt and seize property before any crime has occurred.

In rural Alaska, the implications are even more severe. Law enforcement may be hours or days away. Court systems are distant, and legal representation is scarce. The practical result of these bills is not increased safety; it is the criminalization of responsible firearm ownership and the erosion of liberty for those who live farthest from government services.

History is full of warnings. In the 20th century alone, governments that disarmed their citizens:

Turkey in 1911,
Russia in 1929,
Germany in 1938

All paved the way for atrocities that cost millions of lives. The pattern is always the same: disarm, then dominate. While we often assume that such tragedies cannot happen here, the Founders knew better. Their solution for this eventuality was the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. That ruling, like the Amendment itself, is not subject to Alaska reinterpretation or legislative dilution.

The right to bear arms is not something to be balanced against the whims of political pressure or temporary fears. It is a bedrock of a free society. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to his nephew in 1785, “Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Not because violence is inevitable, but because freedom must be preserved.”

In Alaska, where isolation and wilderness are part of life, that right is essential. HB 134 and HB 89 may appear measured and moderate, but they start us down a path we cannot afford to walk. They represent a retreat from the vision of our Founders, from the realities of our state, and from the rights of our people. 

We must reject them. 
The Constitution is not a suggestion.
The Second Amendment is not conditional.
In Alaska, we will not be disarmed.

Despite what you may hear from Alaska Gun Rights, Representative McCabe is an ardent supporter of the second amendment, he is a shooter, a reloader and a hunter. He serves in the Alaska House where he represents District 30.

David Boyle: Anchorage School District wants to promote kids who cannot read

By DAVID BOYLE

What should be done with a student who can’t read at grade level?  

Should that student be retained in the current grade or be promoted even though he/she cannot read at grade level?

The Anchorage School Board knows what the Alaska Reads Act says regarding the retention of elementary students who cannot read at grade level. It just doesn’t seem interested in following the law.  

The district is planning changes to the current policy that states holding back a student in the early elementary grades may be necessary:

“The School Board recognizes that, especially in lower elementary grades, retention may be necessary to ensure student proficiency in reading and mathematics.”

This policy follows the Alaska Reads Act statute and the corresponding Administrative Regulations. The Reads Act states:

“Following that meeting, the parent or guardian shall determine whether the student will progress to the next grade.”

The Reads Act provides many types of interventions to help the student reach grade level reading, including extra tutoring, helping parents with at-home reading lessons, and even summer school for those students falling behind.

The intent of the law is that those students who are deficient in reading in their early grades should be retained in their current grade. Passing them on to the next grade does not help the child learn to read so he/she can be successful in future courses.  

In contrast, the newly revised ASD policy on student retention states:

“The School Board recognizes that research indicates that very few children benefit from being retained during the elementary and middle grades.” 

But no board member could point to the research mentioned. Even board president Jacobs, who approved the policy revision, could not identify that research.

It appears as if the Alaska Association of School Boards has suggested the policy change, but its web page shows none of this student retention research.

Board member Donley said that a study done in the Los Angeles Unified School District showed that retention helped English Language Learner students.

Donley said that the district had a non-retention policy for more than 20 years and the students did poorly on reading and math tests. He stressed that we need to do what is in the best interest of the student.  

Superintendent Bryantt stated, “As someone who has a doctorate in education policy, I would highly recommend that one look at the meta-analyses. I did find one from 2001 that said on the subject of student retention…most studies showed negative impact.”

Dr. Bryantt may also want to look at much more recent research done by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, which showed that test-based retention in third grade improved student performance in Florida. Here are the results: 

  • Students retained in third grade under Florida’s test-based promotion policy experienced substantial short-term gains in both math and reading achievement. They were less likely to be retained in a later grade and better prepared when they entered high school.
  • Being retained in third grade led students to take fewer remedial courses in high school and improved their grade point averages.
  • There was no negative impact on graduation. Being held back did delay students’ graduation from high school by 0.63 years, but being older for their grade did not reduce their probability of graduating or receiving a regular diploma.

I have an Air Force friend who is stationed in Florida and whose daughter has had a difficult time with her reading. Guess what?  Her mother took her under her wing and worked hard to bring her daughter up to speed on her reading skills. Look at the proud mom’s Facebook post:

“Proud mom post!! Madison has struggled this year with her ELA and reading scores. The state of Florida requires a level 2 (below grade level) or higher scored to pass the 3rd grade specifically. It’s been a stressful few weeks of preparing, taking a week off of ball to spend time in her room studying to prepare for these hard tests. She has struggled all year to pass them and had one last chance this week for the end of year testing, or she would be retained and have to retake 3rd grade next year. She scored a LEVEL 4, ABOVE GRADE LEVEL!”

It seems as if Florida law was successful in assisting this child to stay with her classmates.  Her mom was informed that Madison needed help and needed focus time to study.  Her mom provided her with that environment. And Madison was successful in meeting the goal.  She even exceeded that goal.

So, a child can be brought up to speed in reading with parent’s help.

In Anchorage we would just push her on to the next grade, doing her a disservice in the long run. 

But it would make it much easier to manage and be less work for the school staff.

The Alaska Reads Act was modeled after the very successful Florida law.  It is working.  

As board member Donley said, “What is in the best interest of the child?”

As the Harvard research stated, “Retention is not an academic death sentence.”

It’s no wonder Alaska high school graduates going to college need remedial reading skills and math skills.   

Finally, we need to ask, “Will your child be able to read his/her diploma?”

David Boyle is the education writer at Must Read Alaska.

Pedro Gonzalez: With HB 57, more funding is less

By PEDRO GONZALEZ

It didn’t take long for Alaska superintendents to go from celebrating a proposed school funding increase to insisting that more would still not be enough.

On May 19, Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a former superintendent and school board president himself, vetoed House Bill 57, which would, among other things, raise base student allocation by $700 per head. Most of his reservations stemmed from the ways in which the money would be spent and how it would manifest. 

In a column, Dunleavy called out what he called the “education cabal,” an “entrenched coalition of special interests, lobbyists and status quo defenders,” for caring more about dollar signs than student outcomes.

But the Alaska Legislature had other plans. Following what was Dunleavy’s third veto of an education bill in two years, it overrode him, eliciting cheers from Clayton Holland, a school official.

“All of our communities are really wanting public education funding to be increased and to support their communities,” he told YourAlaskaLink. “And so it is wonderful to have the legislature in the same space.” 

In a statement, the Anchorage School District echoed Holland, but added a word of caution. 

“We applaud the Legislature’s override of the Governor’s veto,” the district said. “But even as we celebrate that progress, uncertainty still remains.”

Suddenly, the idea of an additional $184 billion per year increase to the base student allocation seemed a lot smaller. Superintendents warned that it would quickly prove insufficient against the backdrop of rising inflation and costs. 

Even HB 57 wouldn’t save positions that are on the chopping block in the Kenai Peninsula. Indeed, some superintendents characterized the funding increase as a step backward.

In a prepared statement, Juneau Superintendent Frank Hauser said that although “the $700 increase does not fully keep pace with inflation or the rising costs of delivering quality public education across our vast and diverse state, it represents the most substantial investment in our students and schools in many years and introduces new, bipartisan-supported policies.” 

Hauser, in other words, means that the schools need more, much more.

Apart from disagreements over policy items, Dunleavy’s central point of opposition against HB 57 has been that more funding has not translated into better outcomes. The governor has reiterated that he does not oppose allocating more dollars for education but rather wants to ensure that the state is “investing strategically, with every dollar tied to outcomes” as Alaska faces a variety of economic and demographic headwinds, including declining oil revenues and demographic stagnation. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, too.

Alaska schools have become so hard up for teachers that they are turning to the Philippines, where they are going to find fresh recruits. It’s an expensive and complex process that involves immigration lawyers and visa fees. It has naturally drawn a lot of criticism. School districts say that this route allows them to cut out the agencies that serve as the middlemen and charge as much as $27,000 per teacher. 

But what happens to those who cannot afford or do not want to hire foreign teachers but are also unable to attract domestic ones? The Alaska Council of School Administrators has relied on grant funding from the US Department of Education to enhance recruitment and retention efforts. It’s a desperate measure with uncertain fruit.

The irony of the override, then, is that it more or less leaves the debate more or less where it started amid a darkening picture for education in Alaska. 

Egyptian national charged in terror fire-bomb attack on pro-Israel rally in Boulder

The Federal Bureau of Investigation says an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa has been arrested and charged in a violent terror attack that left six people injured during a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder on Saturday.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, was taken into custody at the scene after allegedly launching Molotov cocktails into a crowd gathered near the Pearl Street Mall for a “Run for Their Lives” event. The demonstration was held in solidarity with Israeli hostages still being held by Hamas in Gaza.

Witnesses reported that Soliman shouted “Free Palestine” and other anti-Israel slogans as the firebombs ignited, setting multiple elderly participants ablaze. The victims, ranging in age from 67 to 88, sustained serious injuries. Emergency responders were quick to arrive and began treating the wounded while securing the area.

The FBI has labeled the incident a “targeted terror attack.” FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed in a statement posted to X (formerly Twitter) that agents were “fully investigating” the matter. “Our agents and local law enforcement are on the scene already, and we will share updates as more information becomes available,” Patel wrote.

Prior to this terror attack, two Israeli diplomats were fatally shot in May outside the Capital Jewish Museum. 

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said the agency is dedicating its full resources to the investigation and made it clear that authorities intend to pursue anyone who may have played a role in the planning or execution of the assault.

“This was a deliberate act of terrorism,” Bongino said. “We are treating it with the utmost seriousness. Anyone who aided or abetted this attacker in any way will be found and held accountable.”

Federal immigration records show Soliman entered the United States legally two years ago when granted a visa by the Biden Administration but failed to depart after his visa expired. In response, the Biden Administration gave him a work permit. It is not yet known whether he had any prior criminal history or connections to extremist groups. Authorities are reviewing his digital footprint, travel records, and potential contacts within the US.

The attack sent shockwaves through the Boulder community, which has seen a growing number of politically motivated demonstrations in recent months. Organizers of the “Run for Their Lives” event expressed sorrow over the violence but reaffirmed their commitment to peaceful advocacy.

The victims’ names have not been publicly released, and local hospitals report that several remain in serious condition. Law enforcement was asking the public to come forward with any video or photographic evidence from the scene that may assist in the investigation.

Federal charges against Soliman are expected in the coming days.

Linda Boyle: Medical establishment melts down after RFK Jr. limits Covid jab guidance

By LINDA BOYLE

It’s been known for some time that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. would be making changes to Covid jab recommendations .  

When he announced that on May 27, the media and medical organizations went into a frenzy to decry this decision. No longer would Covid jabs be recommended to children, infants, and pregnant women. The only people who would be recommended for Covid-19 jabs are those over 65 and people with existing health problems.

In the five days since this announcement, a flurry of articles has appeared. Let’s recap.

  1. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that the organization is “concerned about and extremely disappointed” by the new recommendations. Dr. Steven J. Fleischman, ACOC President, stated, “As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen first hand how dangerous COVID-19 infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection.”  
  2. The American Academy of Pediatrics also was upset with this ruling and stated that removal of recommended Covid jabs from the schedule “ignores independent medical experts and leaves children at risk.” While this organization has routinely depended on the CDC for recommended childhood vaccines, it told MedPage Today that it “may have to rethink how we harmonize with the federal government.”
  3. The New York Times conceded there isn’t scientific evidence to support vaccination among healthy children. However, the Times felt this move by RFK Jr. of “dismantling decades of vaccine safety policies” troubling. 
  4. The FDA announced plans to limit approvals for updated COVID-19 vaccines to people over age 65 and people with one or more health conditions that put them at high risk for the virus. Based on these criteria, the FDA said between 100-200 million Americans would still be eligible for the shots because “so many people have conditions that are considered comorbidities”.  
  5. Others called out the process behind the decision for not following the “normal process” through the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 
  6. ACIP met in April and discussed this issue extensively.  A poll of members at that time showed 76% of the members supported changing the recommendations from all people under 65 to only high risk individuals.  
  7. Others were concerned that if the jab were no longer routinely recommended, the insurance companies may not pay for it. The shot runs about $200.    
  8.  Daily, the MSM checked the CDC web page to see if the recommended changes were made with articles being written to say the changes had not occurred.  The changes occurred on 29 May—two days after the announcement, but fell short of what RFK Jr. had hoped.   
  9. The CDC issued new immunization schedules that changed the language on its recommendation. No longer is it routinely recommended; instead, it states that healthy children “may” still get the jab. This was the same language used for women who are pregnant. The decision to get or not get the jab should be based on “shared clinical decision-making,” between the parent(s)and the provider.

It is thought the language in the new guidance will allow parents to get their children the jab and have insurance companies pay for it.  

I doubt the food fight is over. There is too much financially at stake. Big Pharma’s stocks are dropping. Those who have pushed these jabs for years aren’t willing to give up the fight.  

Always follow the money. Big Pharma has been vaccinated with billions of dollars. Consequently, its resistance to change has high immunity.

RFK, Jr. and his team have an uphill battle. Yet it is for the good of the American citizen. I pray they are successful. 

Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance/Alaskans 4 Personal Freedom.

Top Trump officials visit Alaska to push energy projects; Murkowski ducks press questions

In a show of federal support for expanding energy development in Alaska, three Cabinet-level officials from the Trump administration visited Anchorage this week to advance drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and revive the long-dormant Alaska LNG project.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin arrived in Alaska as part of a broader initiative tied to President Donald Trump’s recent executive order prioritizing oil, gas, mining, and timber development on federal lands in Alaska.

Their visit included high-level meetings on Sunday with resource development advocates, energy industry leaders, and Alaska’s two US Senators — Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski — and Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

During a closed-door roundtable with industry leaders, the cabinet members reiterated the administration’s commitment to reducing permitting barriers and restarting long-stalled energy projects, such as the Alaska LNG project that would help Alaska commercialize its extraordinary supply of natural gas.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, long known as a critic of all-things Trump, participated in the roundtable, but left the event before members of the press were allowed to ask questions.

In contrast, Sen. Dan Sullivan remained engaged through the full session and fielded questions from the media alongside Burgum, Wright, and Zeldin.

Following their Anchorage meetings, the delegation members are traveling to Prudhoe Bay for a firsthand look at the state’s energy infrastructure and to hear directly from North Slope operators.

The renewed focus on ANWR drilling and LNG export infrastructure comes as the Trump administration signals a rollback of what it describes as “regulatory overreach” under prior administrations.

US GoldMining advances exploration at Whistler gold-copper project in West Susitna Mineral District

US GoldMining Inc. released an update last week regarding its exploration activities in the northern part of its Whistler Gold-Copper Project, 105 miles west of Anchorage in the West Susitna Mineral District.

Spanning 53,700 acres of state mining claims, the Whistler Project hosts the Whistler-Raintree mineral system, also known as the “Whistler Orbit,” a 5×5 km porphyry cluster containing multiple mapped and interpreted intrusions, including the established Whistler and Raintree West mineral resource deposits.

The mining project has indicated resources of 6.5 million gold equivalent ounces and inferred resources of 4.2 million gold equivalent ounces. 

Porphyry deposits, a primary global source of copper, often contain significant gold, silver, and other metals like molybdenum. The Whistler Project is a gold-rich variant, with over 25 individual exploration targets identified within the Whistler Orbit.

These targets, a mix of mapped diorite porphyry rocks, surface geochemical anomalies, and interpreted intrusions from 3D magnetic modeling, highlight the area’s potential for new discoveries, the company said. Recent drilling results, announced Feb. 10, underscore this potential.

Tim Smith, CEO of US GoldMining, emphasized the project’s strategic importance: “The Whistler Gold-Copper Project is located within the West Susitna Mineral District, which contains established gold, copper, and silver mineral resources, plus potential for other critical metals such as antimony and tungsten. The Whistler-Raintree Mineral System already contains two of the three deposits delineated to date and over 25 additional potential exploration targets identified over an area of approximately 5 x 5 km.”

The Whistler Orbit is underlain by a large causative batholith, fostering a cluster of high-level intrusive bodies prospective for porphyry-style gold-copper-silver mineralization. Exploration leverages advanced techniques, including 3D inversion modeling of airborne magnetic survey data, which maps magnetic minerals in the upper crust. This method has identified dozens of pipe-like porphyry intrusions, some comparable in scale to the Whistler Deposit’s host diorite-porphyry, while others represent smaller “pencil” porphyries or dyke swarms.

Key targets include Mammoth, a magnetically similar intrusion to the Whistler Deposit with elevated gold, copper, and silver values in 2024 surface till sampling, suggesting a nearby source. Big White and Sunbowl are interpreted as extensions of the Whistler Deposit’s magnetic and chargeability anomalies, potentially offset by faulting or post-mineral intrusions.

Historic drilling at Raintree North and East has intersected encouraging results, such as 120.66 meters at 0.73 g/t gold equivalent in 2011, indicating potential for additional porphyry mineralization. The Hotfoot target, 0.75 km south of Raintree West, features a large pipe-shaped magnetic anomaly and alteration suggestive of nearby porphyry mineralization.

The company’s exploration strategy builds on two successful field seasons in 2023 and 2024, integrating drilling, historical core relogging, surface mapping, sampling, and geophysical data, the company said. Despite challenges from till and gravel cover obscuring direct surface mapping, remote sensing and drilling are enabling targeted exploration. U.S. GoldMining is currently prioritizing targets for future programs, potentially commencing this summer, to expand resources while advancing an initial economic assessment announced April 15, 2025.

The Whistler Project, with existing deposits occupying less than 1% of the total land package, represents an unusual opportunity for resource growth and potential large-scale mining development in the future for Alaska. Start dates are yet to be confirmed as geological analysis and planning continue, the company noted.

Seattle lawsuit blames oil companies for heat wave death

A Washington woman is suing several major oil companies, claiming their products contributed to the death of her mother during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave.

Misti Leon has filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court in Seattle against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and Olympic Pipeline Company. She alleges the companies played a role in driving climate change, which intensified the record-breaking heat that caused her mother, Juliana Leon, to die of hyperthermia.

On June 28, 2021, temperatures in the region reached 108 degrees — the highest ever recorded. Juliana Leon, 65, was in her car without a functioning air conditioner when she pulled over and was later found unconscious. Her core body temperature had reached 110 degrees, and she died of overheating.

The Washington State Department of Health and King County medical examiner reported that year that there were at least 25 direct heat-related deaths in King County between June 26 and July 6, 2021. The deaths were primarily attributed to hyperthermia or heatstroke, and the decedents tended to be older individuals or those who lacked air conditioning. The New York Times did an analysis and said there were 600 excess deaths in Washington and Oregon during that heat wave week, with about 450 excess deaths in Washington alone. The University of Washington pegged it at 159.

“Defendants knew that their fossil fuel products were already altering the earth’s atmosphere,” the new lawsuit claims. It also states that by 1968, oil companies “understood that the fossil fuel-dependent economy they were creating and perpetuating would intensify those atmospheric changes, resulting in more frequent and destructive weather disasters and foreseeable loss of human life.” The filing, Leon v. ExxonMobil et al., argues that “the extreme heat that killed Julie was directly linked to fossil fuel-driven alteration of the climate.”

Chevron Corporation counsel Theodore Boutrous Jr. responded in a statement to media: “Exploiting a personal tragedy to promote politicized climate tort litigation is contrary to law, science, and common sense. The court should add this far-fetched claim to the growing list of meritless climate lawsuits that state and federal courts have already dismissed.”

King County Superior Court is a progressive venue in the heart of Seattle, a known bastion of both the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party and its subsets. Seattle voters in 2020 voted 75% for Joe Biden and 22% for Donald Trump. In 2024, Seattle voters awarded Kamala Harris 87% of the vote, and Donald Trump only 8.95%, indicating that the city has gone even more left.

While no other case exactly mirrors this wrongful death claim, several lawsuits have similarly sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate-related impacts, alleging deception or failure to mitigate emissions.

In 2024, the city and county of Honolulu sued major oil companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, seeking damages for climate change-related impacts such as sea level rise, flooding, and heatwaves. That suit alleges the companies concealed the dangers of fossil fuels and used deceptive marketing. It remains ongoing.

In 2020, the Delaware Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute, accusing them of misleading consumers about climate impacts for over 50 years. The case cites violations of consumer protection laws and alleges harms such as sea level rise and extreme weather. It is still in litigation.

Also in 2020, Connecticut’s Attorney General sued ExxonMobil under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging the company concealed the consequences of fossil fuel use, leading to climate-related damages like sea level rise and property loss. That case is ongoing.

In 2019, Massachusetts filed a similar lawsuit against ExxonMobil, accusing the company of misleading investors and consumers about the risks of fossil fuel-driven climate change. That case also remains unresolved.

Many of these lawsuits have been brought by Democratic-led states or environmental litigation firms. The Seattle case is reportedly the first to assert wrongful death liability against oil companies based on a single individual’s death from extreme heat.

Earlier this year, the State of Washington sued President Donald Trump over his declaration of a national energy emergency. Get caught up on lawsuit that at the following link.