Break it Down: Kingston's Misima sale to raise the bar on Mineral Hill gold-copper production
Stockhead's Break it Down brings you today's leading market news in under 90 seconds.
In this episode, host Tylah Tully looks at the Kingston Resources (ASX:KSN) move to bank $95 million from the divestment of its Misima gold project in Papua New Guinea to mining giant Ok Tedi.
The deal returns a doubling of KSN's investment, wipes its debt, and funds a push to lift the bar on Australian gold and copper production as the company moves on transforming itself into a multi-mine producer from the rich Cobar Basin of New South Wales.
Watch the video to learn more.
Originally published as Break it Down: Kingston's Misima sale to raise the bar on Mineral Hill gold-copper production Stockhead
The ASX has bounced back amid rate-cut hopes. Meanwhile Wall Street gained and China had investors wading back into banks and tech plays. Stockhead
ASX climbs 0.75pc out of the gate as markets bet on an even chance of a 50-bp interest rate cut from the RBA's rate decision today.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australia needs a new China strategy: America's promised pivot to Asia is unlikely
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, should it last, is a resoundingly positive development. But regional peace in its current form, after Israeli offensives in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, cannot be sustained in the long run without continuous American involvement. This has serious implications for America's longstanding commitment to disentangle itself from Middle Eastern affairs and shift focus firmly to the Pacific and its only peer superpower competitor: China. Successive Australian governments have staked their plans to navigate the growing superpower rivalry in our region upon promises of an American laser-focus on the Pacific that is unlikely to ever truly materialise. Just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet President Xi Jinping in China this month, the ongoing role of the US in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East in Israel's favour should have leaders and policymakers here questioning the viability of an American 'Pivot to Asia' that never arrives. For Australians, the stakes couldn't be higher. The pivot was first announced in November 2011, when then US president Barack Obama addressed the Australian Parliament. In response to the disastrous Bush-era campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama declared: 'After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.' Loading Obama promised to refocus the US-Australia partnership around maintaining a strategic balance as China's power expanded, while emphasising peaceful and co-operative relations in areas of mutual benefit, such as trade, diplomacy, climate and non-proliferation. Australia has doggedly upheld its end of the bargain, providing bases for American forces, joining new US-centred alliances and security pacts, such as the Quad and AUKUS, and signing onto exorbitant arms-procurement programs. But in the 14 years since a US president addressed our parliament, precious little of America's own commitments to the pivot have come to pass. The economic arm of the pivot was strangled in the cradle when President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the first day of his presidency in 2016. American commitment to diplomacy, multilateral institutionalism and regional trust-building have followed a similar trajectory. But the Trump administration retained a supposedly iron-clad commitment to abandon the neoconservative model of foreign interventions and begin to focus squarely on the challenges posed by a rising China. Trump's consistent stated opposition to these wars was one of the most popular ingredients in his early political success. Arguably the most critical moment in Trump's nascent election campaign occurred a week before the 2016 South Carolina Primary, when he decried the Iraq War as a 'big fat mistake' and called out the Republican establishment for lying about weapons of mass destruction. Trump went on to win South Carolina, and Jeb Bush, once the frontrunner, abandoned his campaign.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Australia needs a new China strategy: America's promised pivot to Asia is unlikely
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, should it last, is a resoundingly positive development. But regional peace in its current form, after Israeli offensives in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, cannot be sustained in the long run without continuous American involvement. This has serious implications for America's longstanding commitment to disentangle itself from Middle Eastern affairs and shift focus firmly to the Pacific and its only peer superpower competitor: China. Successive Australian governments have staked their plans to navigate the growing superpower rivalry in our region upon promises of an American laser-focus on the Pacific that is unlikely to ever truly materialise. Just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet President Xi Jinping in China this month, the ongoing role of the US in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East in Israel's favour should have leaders and policymakers here questioning the viability of an American 'Pivot to Asia' that never arrives. For Australians, the stakes couldn't be higher. The pivot was first announced in November 2011, when then US president Barack Obama addressed the Australian Parliament. In response to the disastrous Bush-era campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama declared: 'After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.' Loading Obama promised to refocus the US-Australia partnership around maintaining a strategic balance as China's power expanded, while emphasising peaceful and co-operative relations in areas of mutual benefit, such as trade, diplomacy, climate and non-proliferation. Australia has doggedly upheld its end of the bargain, providing bases for American forces, joining new US-centred alliances and security pacts, such as the Quad and AUKUS, and signing onto exorbitant arms-procurement programs. But in the 14 years since a US president addressed our parliament, precious little of America's own commitments to the pivot have come to pass. The economic arm of the pivot was strangled in the cradle when President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the first day of his presidency in 2016. American commitment to diplomacy, multilateral institutionalism and regional trust-building have followed a similar trajectory. But the Trump administration retained a supposedly iron-clad commitment to abandon the neoconservative model of foreign interventions and begin to focus squarely on the challenges posed by a rising China. Trump's consistent stated opposition to these wars was one of the most popular ingredients in his early political success. Arguably the most critical moment in Trump's nascent election campaign occurred a week before the 2016 South Carolina Primary, when he decried the Iraq War as a 'big fat mistake' and called out the Republican establishment for lying about weapons of mass destruction. Trump went on to win South Carolina, and Jeb Bush, once the frontrunner, abandoned his campaign.
7NEWS
3 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Where does Australia stand if WWIII begins?
In the event of a third global conflict, experts warn Australia would not be able to remain neutral. We would be automatically drawn into war by virtue of our strengthening military ties with America, two defence experts say. International security expert Dr Thomas Wilkins at the University of Sydney and Senior Research Associate at Nautilus Institute Richard Tanter agree that Australia's close strategic and technological bond with the US has effectively removed the option of neutrality from the table. 'If a third world war occurred, it would be reasonable to assume Canberra would live up to its presumed obligations under the ANZUS Treaty alliance and go to war with America,' Wilkins said. Australian involvement is no longer a question of if, but 'automatically' so, Tanter said. The experts also noted Australia hosts a series of major US military and intelligence bases, including Pine Gap joint defence station outside Alice Springs and the Tindal Air Base within the Northern Territory. 'The US has so many bases here — command and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — they would be used on the first day of the war unless there was a very active Australian government move to deny use of these facilities, which won't happen,' Tanter said. Pine Gap's function goes beyond conventional military action, he said. 'Pine Gap is involved in nuclear command, control and communications, and warning.' 'In that sense, we are highly involved in the nuclear policy of the United States.' Hosting B-52 Bombers raises risk profile Australia has just signed an agreement to host US nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at the RAAF Tindal air base, further inserting Australia into US strategic thinking. While the aircraft won't deploy nuclear weapons while based here, Tanter warned that this action was a shift in Australia's role. 'This is a step from communications and control to deployment,' he said. 'Refuelling tankers will be based here, and Australian fighter jets will be providing escort cover.' 'We are part of the deployment system.' 'You don't necessarily need to have the bomb here to be in the nuclear command structure.' Strategic target in world war Inclusion of Australia within US military bases also makes it a potential target in a global war. 'China will understandably interpret Australia's deepening defence ties with the US as a threat to its own interests, will not approve of this position, and seek to consistently denounce it as destabilising,' Wilkins said. On the other hand, Tanter said we are not likely to face a threat from Iran. 'China has the missile capability and numbers to realistically target Pine Gap, and Australian governments have acknowledged this risk since the Cold War,' he said. 'However, despite having political tensions with Australia, Iran lacks both the long-range missile technology and the resources to reach targets 10,000km away, like Australia.' 'It does not possess intercontinental ballistic missiles, so a direct attack is highly unlikely under current circumstances.' Lessons from history Wilkins made comparisons with Australia's position during World War II. 'Australia put its faith in a weakening 'great power ally' to defend it (the UK), whilst not doing nearly enough to prepare its national military capabilities should this strategy fail, as it did with the fall of Singapore in February 1942,' he said. He warned that Australia is not prepared to face a third global war. 'The lack of psychological and material preparation for a major conflict in Australia at the present time ensures that war will be more costly to the nation than otherwise, again mirroring the experience of the Allies in the first part of the Pacific War.' Conscription technically possible Tanter believes that conscription could be reinstated in the event of a large war, although politically it is impossible. 'It's just a matter of decision and law,' he said. 'But the way the conscription worked back in the Vietnam War, it was highly unpopular, and conscripts were not particularly suited for most combat opportunities.' Room for independent policy shrinking Australia has some room for independent decision-making in conflicts involving the US, but this would come at significant political cost. 'In the event of a US-China war, Australia could act independently, but probably only at the cost of the alliance,' Tanter said. Australia has already locked itself into a subordinate role, he said. 'We've chosen to be technologically tied to the Americans, which restricts our options.' Moral questions remain Australia's alliances raise tough moral questions as tensions escalate. Tanter was critical of the Australian role in global conflicts and the broader narrative about defending a 'rules-based order'. 'There are no clean hands here,' he said, referencing recent conflicts such as the war in Gaza. 'The US and Israel are engaged in what I regard as ethnic cleansing or genocide.' 'In those circumstances, I think we need to have a policy like the Whitlam government had in 1973 — that we don't take sides.' As tensions rise globally, Australia's path may already be set — not by choice, but by alliance.
