Cornish Metals Hosts the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer at South Crofty
This visit follows the UK Government's £28.6 million investment in Q1-2025 via the National Wealth Fund to support the re-opening of South Crofty. The occasion marked the Chancellor's first visit to Cornwall since taking office and comes as part of the Government's broader commitment to unlocking regional growth, with South Crofty highlighted as a flagship example of how investment in critical industries can support job creation and economic renewal.
During the visit, the Chancellor toured the:
Don Turvey, CEO and Director of Cornish Metals, stated: '
We are honoured to have welcomed the Chancellor to South Crofty, where we showcased the significant progress we're making as we move toward production. The UK Government's £28.6 million investment via the National Wealth Fund is a powerful vote of confidence in our project and the future of Cornwall's mining industry.
'Tin is a critical mineral for the clean energy transition, essential to electronics, electric vehicles, and renewable infrastructure. By reviving domestic production at South Crofty, we're not only creating over 300 direct jobs but also supporting many more across local supply chains and regional businesses.
'Our focus remains on delivering long-term, sustainable value safely, responsibly, and with deep roots in the community. We're proud to be playing a role in bringing responsible tin mining back to Cornwall and supporting economic renewal and industrial growth in the region.'
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
'Don Turvey'
Don Turvey
CEO and Director
Engage with us directly at our investor hub. Sign up at:
https://investors.cornishmetals.com/link/y1BBJe
For additional information, please contact:
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release
.
Caution regarding forward looking statements
This news release may contain certain 'forward-looking information' and 'forward-looking statements' (collectively, 'forward-looking statements'). Forward-looking statements include predictions, projections, outlook, guidance, estimates and forecasts and other statements regarding future plans, the realisation, cost, timing and extent of mineral resource or mineral reserve estimates, estimation of commodity prices, currency exchange rate fluctuations, estimated future exploration expenditures, costs and timing of the development of new deposits, success of exploration activities, permitting time lines, requirements for additional capital and the Company's ability to obtain financing when required and on terms acceptable to the Company, future or estimated mine life and other activities or achievements of Cornish Metals. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as 'seek', 'anticipate', 'believe', 'plan', 'estimate', 'forecast', 'expect', 'potential', 'project', 'target', 'schedule', 'budget' and 'intend' and statements that an event or result 'may', 'will', 'should', 'could', 'would' or 'might' occur or be achieved and other similar expressions and includes the negatives thereof. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this news release, are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties and there can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements.
Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to: risks related to receipt of regulatory approvals, risks related to general economic and market conditions; risks related to the availability of financing; the timing and content of upcoming work programmes; actual results of proposed exploration activities; possible variations in Mineral Resources or grade; projected dates to commence mining operations; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; accidents, labour disputes, title disputes, claims and limitations on insurance coverage and other risks of the mining industry; changes in national and local government regulation of mining operations, tax rules and regulations. The list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect Cornish's forward-looking statements.
Cornish Metals' forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management and reflect their current expectations regarding future events and operating performance and speak only as of the date such statements are made. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ from those described in forward- looking statements, there may be other factors that cause such actions, events or results to differ materially from those anticipated. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate and accordingly readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Cornish Metals does not assume any obligation to update forward-looking statements if circumstances or management's beliefs, expectations or opinions should change other than as required by applicable law.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves under pressure to ‘urgently rule out' tax hikes
The Conservatives are urging Chancellor Rachel Reeves to "urgently rule out" increasing share taxes in the upcoming autumn budget, following the leak of a memo from Angela Rayner suggesting a series of tax hikes. The Tories argue that leaving investors "in limbo" could harm the economy. The party claims that scrapping the £500 dividend allowance would pull an estimated 5.22 million more individuals into paying investment levies. This pressure on ministers comes after a document, reportedly sent by the Deputy Prime Minister to Ms Reeves, was leaked to the press. In the memo, Ms Rayner proposed removing the dividend allowance to generate approximately £325 million annually, as well as axing inheritance tax relief for AIM shares and increasing dividend tax rates, according to The Telegraph. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride commented: 'The Government need to urgently rule out these tax hikes on savers and investors before speculation causes further economic harm. 'Labour don't understand how business works and how to create growth. More taxes on investment, entrepreneurship and saving are the last thing our economy needs right now.' The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound black hole to fill, fuelling speculation that she will seek to raise revenue through tax hikes. The Tories claimed axing the dividend allowance would drag 'an estimated 5.22 million more people into paying dividend tax'. This figure appears to be based on an assumption that at least 8.82 million people in the UK hold shares that pay dividends. Some 3.6 million are already subject to dividend tax, according to data obtained by investment platform AJ Bell through a Freedom of Information request. The Chancellor last year said she would not be 'coming back with more borrowing or more taxes' after her first budget but has since refused to rule out raising specific levies, saying it would be 'irresponsible' to do so. A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'The Conservatives have some brass neck. They've still not apologised for the damage caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget, nor the £22 billion black hole they left – which hammered firms and families across the country. 'Labour is doing more to support business than the Tories ever could. 'We've already delivered three historic trade deals and four interest rate cuts – to reduce costs and put money back in people's pockets.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why people on £35K should opt out of winter fuel payment by September deadline to avoid HMRC headache
People earning £35,000 or more will still receive the benefit in their bank accounts - but will then be forced to pay it back in tax. Millions of pensioners will once again receive the winter fuel payment later this year. After the government sparked uproar last winter by taking the benefit from 10 million people, chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed in June it would be restored to pensioners who have an income of less than £35,000 a year. Those who earn more than the threshold will actually receive the winter fuel payment in their bank accounts as well, though it will be taken back at a later date in tax - prompting experts to urge them to opt out of the scheme before the September deadline to avoid a potential "tax clawback headache". What is the winter fuel payment? It's money from the government to help pensioners pay their heating bills over the winter. The payment is between £100 and £300, depending on each person's circumstances, and will automatically be paid into bank accounts in November or December. People will receive letters before then telling them how much they will get and what account it will be paid into. The winter fuel payment has been one of the most contentious issues for Sir Keir Starmer's government. Last summer, it decided to limit the payment to only those who claimed pension credit in one of its first acts, aimed at balancing what was described as a £22bn 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million: from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. YouGov polling suggested 57% of Britons were against this. Who is eligible? Everyone who was born before 22 September, 1959, and lives in England or Wales, will receive the winter fuel payment. What are the tax implications for people earning £35,000? The approximately two million pensioners whose annual income is above the £35,000 threshold will also receive the payment if they don't opt out - though it will be taken back in tax. The government will take the money back by either changing their 2026/27 tax code or adding the figure to their 2025/26 self-assessment return. John Havard, a consultant at tax advisors Blick Rothenberg, warned on Monday that anyone who doesn't opt out and earns even £1 above £35,000 could face a "tax headache". "A 'wealthier' individual with an income over £35,000 will be subject to a tax 'clawback', where the winter fuel payment they receive is required to be returned to the government," he wrote in a blog. Watch: Reeves on pensioners earning under £35k to get winter fuel payments "Given this will be a complex process, and just £1 of income above the £35,000 limit is enough to trigger a clawback, those in favour of a simple life will need to opt out." He said the clawback process is "potentially complex" and an "administrative headache". Havard also said people near the threshold should watch out for any small increases to their income, such as a pension payment, interest or part-time earnings that could "tip someone over the limit and cause them to fall into the clawback process". Can you opt out of the winter fuel payment? People can choose to opt out of the winter fuel payment by contacting the government. This has to be done before 15 September. Contact details can be found here. Read more Winter fuel allowance: the scammers pounce on government U-turn (The Guardian) Millions to lose up to £18,000 from pension reforms (The Telegraph) What is a wealth tax – and would it work in the UK? (The Independent)
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
When Boards Undermine CEOs: How ‘Help' Turns Into Harm
In times of uncertainty, the relationship between a board and the executive team should be a source of strength. But when performance is under pressure, that relationship quickly becomes a source of strain. Yes, boards have a critical job to do. Their oversight, accountability, and long-term perspective are vital to company health and performance. It's when that oversight tips into overreach that the cost to the business can be significant. Here's what that can look like: Board Engagement Goes Into Overdrive Instead of giving management space to course correct, boards increase the volume of requests and deepen their involvement. Management ends up spending more time preparing decks or responding to board questions than solving problems and addressing issues. You're Pushed To Engage Board-Favored Firms Or Consultants Even well-intentioned referrals can feel politically loaded if those advisors are seen as board proxies rather than true partners to the CEO and management team. The Chair Dominates; Other Board Members Stay Quiet Power can become concentrated in a single board member, especially in crisis or founder-led environments. Without active participation or leadership from the rest of the board, governance suffers, and CEOs are left navigating a one-person approval funnel. Founders Who Sit On Boards Interfere In founder-led or founder-influenced companies, legacy leaders may continue to attend internal meetings or offer informal input. While their insight can be valuable, this often confuses authority and undermines the CEO's role in leading. The Appetite For Detail Becomes Unmanageable Some diligence is essential. But when board members dive too deep or question every metric or data point, it doesn't just slow things down — it sends an implicit message: 'I don't trust you.' Why It's Happening More Often The broader environment is contributing: Tariffs, supply chain volatility, geopolitical instability — these headwinds increase pressure on boards to 'do something.' When numbers dip, so does confidence, and without visible progress, some boards stop believing the leadership team has it under control and start stepping in. This dynamic can be even more pronounced in founder-led, PE-backed, or highly operational boards, where the distinction between governing and managing may not be as clearly defined. Another sensitivity: Many management teams see the breakdown coming before the CEO does. They may want the CEO to push back on the board, but that's no small task. Boards hold power, and speaking up takes political capital and comes with real risk. How To Reset Your Relationship With The Board: First Steps While overreach from the board can become frustrating, exhausting, and disappointing for management teams, the dynamic presents an opportunity to reestablish boundaries, grow trust, and strengthen transparency. Consider these steps:
