Latest news with #Arnold
Cision Canada
2 days ago
- Business
- Cision Canada
Arizona Metals Corp Announces Results of 2025 Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders
TORONTO, June 26, 2025 /CNW/ - Arizona Metals Corp. (TSX: AMC) (OTCQX: AZMCF) (the "Company" or "Arizona Metals") today announced the voting results of the annual and special meeting of shareholders of the Company convened and adjourned on June 18, 2025 and concluded today (the "Meeting"). The results of the vote in respect of the election of directors of the Company is set out below. Although they did not receive a majority of votes cast for their respective re-elections, Mr. Pilmer, Ms. Arnold and Ms. Rojas Espinoza have each graciously agreed to continue to act as members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"), and Mr. Pilmer has agreed to continue in his role as Chair of the Audit Committee of the Board, in order to facilitate a seamless and orderly transition, in accordance with the Canada Business Corporations Act. In addition to voting on the election of directors, at the Meeting shareholders also re-appointed McGovern Hurley LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, as auditors of the Company, and approved the resolution adopting the Company's new omnibus equity incentive plan. A total of 70,196,756 shares were voted at the Meeting, representing 51.18% of the common shares that were issued and outstanding as at the record date for the Meeting. Further disclosure on the matters approved at the Meeting can be found in the notice of meeting and accompanying management information circular filed in respect of the Meeting and available on SEDAR+ at About Arizona Metals Corp Arizona Metals Corp owns 100% of the Kay Project in Yavapai County, which is located on 1669 acres of patented and BLM mining claims and 193 acres of private land that are not subject to any royalties. An historic estimate by Exxon Minerals in 1982 reported a "proven and probable reserve of 6.4 million short tons at a grade of 2.2% copper, 2.8 g/t gold, 3.03% zinc, and 55 g/t silver." The historic estimate at the Kay Mine Project was reported by Exxon Minerals in 1982. (Fellows, M.L., 1982, Kay Mine massive sulphide deposit: Internal report prepared for Exxon Minerals Company) The Kay Project's historic estimate has not been verified as a current mineral resource. None of the key assumptions, parameters, and methods used to prepare the historic estimate were reported, and no resource categories were used. Significant data compilation, re-drilling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic estimate can be verified and upgraded to be a current mineral resource. A Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify it as a current mineral resource, and Arizona Metals is not treating the historic estimate as a current mineral resource. The Kay Project is a steeply dipping VMS deposit that has been defined from a depth of 60 m to at least 900 m. It is open for expansion on strike and at depth. The Company also owns 100% of the Sugarloaf Peak Project, in La Paz County, which is located on 4,400 acres of BLM claims. The Sugarloaf Peak Project is a heap-leach, open-pit target and has a historic estimate of "100 million tons containing 1.5 million ounces gold" at a grade of 0.5 g/t (Dausinger, N.E., 1983, Phase 1 Drill Program and Evaluation of Gold-Silver Potential, Sugarloaf Peak Project, Quartzsite, Arizona: Report for Westworld Inc.) The historic estimate at the Sugarloaf Peak Project was reported by Westworld Resources in 1983. The historic estimate has not been verified as a current mineral resource. None of the key assumptions, parameters, and methods used to prepare the historic estimate were reported, and no resource categories were used. Significant data compilation, re-drilling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic estimate can be verified and upgraded to a current mineral resource. A Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify it as a current mineral resource, and Arizona Metals is not treating the historic estimate as a current mineral resource. Qualified Person and Quality Assurance/Quality Control The qualified person who reviewed and approved the technical disclosure in this news release is David Smith, CPG, VP of Exploration of the Company and a qualified person as defined in National Instrument43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Disclaimer This press release contains statements that constitute "forward-looking information" (collectively, "forward-looking statements") within the meaning of the applicable Canadian securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements and are based on expectations, estimates and projections as at the date of this news release. Any statement that discusses predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, future events or performance (often but not always using phrases such as "expects", or "does not expect", "is expected", "anticipates" or "does not anticipate", "plans", "budget", "scheduled", "forecasts", "estimates", "believes" or "intends" or variations of such words and phrases or stating that certain actions, events or results "may" or "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken to occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained in this press release include, without limitation, statements regarding directors remaining on the Board for a transitionary period and the appointment of one or more successor directors prior to the next annual meeting of shareholders. In making the forward- looking statements contained in this press release, the Company has made certain assumptions. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that the expectations of any forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. Known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements and information contained in this press release. Except as required by law, the Company disclaims any intention and assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, whether as a result of new information, future events, changes in assumptions, changes in factors affecting such forward- looking statements or otherwise.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Arnold Schwarzenegger laments end of son's romance with Miley Cyrus
Arnold Schwarzenegger has reflected on the collapse of his son's romance with Miley Cyrus. The Terminator star, 77, is a proud father of five, and his eldest son, Patrick Schwarzenegger, 31, dated pop singer Cyrus, 27, from November 2014 until April 2015. The Party In The USA singer made quite the impression on the Schwarzenegger family - and Arnold had high praise for her while appearing on Watch What Happens Live on Monday. He told host Andy Cohen, "She's a wonderful, wonderful girl and human being. She came up to Sun Valley when we were skiing up there, and she was just a wonderful house guest. We just all loved her." Arnold added, "She was just a really good, good person and fun to hang out with. I'm sorry it didn't work out. "But Patrick, in the meantime, found another girl that he got engaged with and he's getting married to in September." Patrick has been in a relationship with model Abby Champion, 28, since 2015 and they have been engaged since December 2023. The couple had planned to marry sooner, but work forced a delay in plans. Patrick previously told People, "We got engaged. And it was our moment, it was this great thing. "A few days later, I booked White Lotus, and I was like, 'Abby, I know we're in this high of engagement, and we're gonna get married this year. But we're going to have to push it. I got White Lotus, and I'm going to film for the next seven months in Thailand.'" His future wife was thrilled, however, with the actor revealing, "She was ecstatic because she was a huge fan."
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Activists in court action over aerial koala cull
Animal rights campaigners are seeking to overturn a decision to authorise an unprecedented aerial shooting program after more than 1000 koalas were shot dead from helicopters. After a bushfire burnt through 2200 hectares of the Budj Bim National Park in Victoria's west in March, the environment department authorised an aerial operation to humanely euthanise suffering fire-impacted koalas in areas of the park not accessible by foot. The department said the decision to shoot from helicopters was not taken lightly and had consulted animal welfare experts and experienced veterinarians. But rights group Australians for Animals NSW said the action, which killed over 1000 koalas, was inhumane as it was "impossible" to kill koalas 30 metres from a helicopter with a clean shot and they didn't check if the animals had died or for any orphaned and injured joeys afterwards. "This was a precedent because there has been no one who shoots koalas from helicopters in the entire country," the group's coordinator Sue Arnold told AAP. She said the department's decision to euthanise the koalas was made at a stakeholder meeting on the basis of one vet's approval and would have been conducted in secrecy if not for the local animal shelters and carers who heard helicopter noises and gunshots. The charity on Thursday announced they are taking the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to the Victorian Supreme Court, seeking to quash the conservation regulator's authorisation made on behalf of the department's secretary to permit the aerial culling. The lawsuit handled by Bleyer Lawyers argues the department's decision was made in error because the Wildlife Act does not allow for that type of authorisation. "We are dealing with a government that really comes from the Dark Ages ... and if the court rules in favour of government, Australia, in terms of animal cruelty, is completely f*****," Ms Arnold said. In correspondence with the charity, DEECA secretary John Bradley said koalas were individually assessed by trained and accredited wildlife assessors as physically close to the animal as operationally viable. He noted an aerial assessment by a vet at the time said dependent joeys were unlikely to be present during that period and if present, they were likely to already be compromised due an injured mother's inability to provide milk. Mr Bradley said the operation, which lasted under two months, was to achieve better welfare outcomes during an emergency bushfire response. Animal rights campaigners are seeking to overturn a decision to authorise an unprecedented aerial shooting program after more than 1000 koalas were shot dead from helicopters. After a bushfire burnt through 2200 hectares of the Budj Bim National Park in Victoria's west in March, the environment department authorised an aerial operation to humanely euthanise suffering fire-impacted koalas in areas of the park not accessible by foot. The department said the decision to shoot from helicopters was not taken lightly and had consulted animal welfare experts and experienced veterinarians. But rights group Australians for Animals NSW said the action, which killed over 1000 koalas, was inhumane as it was "impossible" to kill koalas 30 metres from a helicopter with a clean shot and they didn't check if the animals had died or for any orphaned and injured joeys afterwards. "This was a precedent because there has been no one who shoots koalas from helicopters in the entire country," the group's coordinator Sue Arnold told AAP. She said the department's decision to euthanise the koalas was made at a stakeholder meeting on the basis of one vet's approval and would have been conducted in secrecy if not for the local animal shelters and carers who heard helicopter noises and gunshots. The charity on Thursday announced they are taking the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to the Victorian Supreme Court, seeking to quash the conservation regulator's authorisation made on behalf of the department's secretary to permit the aerial culling. The lawsuit handled by Bleyer Lawyers argues the department's decision was made in error because the Wildlife Act does not allow for that type of authorisation. "We are dealing with a government that really comes from the Dark Ages ... and if the court rules in favour of government, Australia, in terms of animal cruelty, is completely f*****," Ms Arnold said. In correspondence with the charity, DEECA secretary John Bradley said koalas were individually assessed by trained and accredited wildlife assessors as physically close to the animal as operationally viable. He noted an aerial assessment by a vet at the time said dependent joeys were unlikely to be present during that period and if present, they were likely to already be compromised due an injured mother's inability to provide milk. Mr Bradley said the operation, which lasted under two months, was to achieve better welfare outcomes during an emergency bushfire response. Animal rights campaigners are seeking to overturn a decision to authorise an unprecedented aerial shooting program after more than 1000 koalas were shot dead from helicopters. After a bushfire burnt through 2200 hectares of the Budj Bim National Park in Victoria's west in March, the environment department authorised an aerial operation to humanely euthanise suffering fire-impacted koalas in areas of the park not accessible by foot. The department said the decision to shoot from helicopters was not taken lightly and had consulted animal welfare experts and experienced veterinarians. But rights group Australians for Animals NSW said the action, which killed over 1000 koalas, was inhumane as it was "impossible" to kill koalas 30 metres from a helicopter with a clean shot and they didn't check if the animals had died or for any orphaned and injured joeys afterwards. "This was a precedent because there has been no one who shoots koalas from helicopters in the entire country," the group's coordinator Sue Arnold told AAP. She said the department's decision to euthanise the koalas was made at a stakeholder meeting on the basis of one vet's approval and would have been conducted in secrecy if not for the local animal shelters and carers who heard helicopter noises and gunshots. The charity on Thursday announced they are taking the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to the Victorian Supreme Court, seeking to quash the conservation regulator's authorisation made on behalf of the department's secretary to permit the aerial culling. The lawsuit handled by Bleyer Lawyers argues the department's decision was made in error because the Wildlife Act does not allow for that type of authorisation. "We are dealing with a government that really comes from the Dark Ages ... and if the court rules in favour of government, Australia, in terms of animal cruelty, is completely f*****," Ms Arnold said. In correspondence with the charity, DEECA secretary John Bradley said koalas were individually assessed by trained and accredited wildlife assessors as physically close to the animal as operationally viable. He noted an aerial assessment by a vet at the time said dependent joeys were unlikely to be present during that period and if present, they were likely to already be compromised due an injured mother's inability to provide milk. Mr Bradley said the operation, which lasted under two months, was to achieve better welfare outcomes during an emergency bushfire response. Animal rights campaigners are seeking to overturn a decision to authorise an unprecedented aerial shooting program after more than 1000 koalas were shot dead from helicopters. After a bushfire burnt through 2200 hectares of the Budj Bim National Park in Victoria's west in March, the environment department authorised an aerial operation to humanely euthanise suffering fire-impacted koalas in areas of the park not accessible by foot. The department said the decision to shoot from helicopters was not taken lightly and had consulted animal welfare experts and experienced veterinarians. But rights group Australians for Animals NSW said the action, which killed over 1000 koalas, was inhumane as it was "impossible" to kill koalas 30 metres from a helicopter with a clean shot and they didn't check if the animals had died or for any orphaned and injured joeys afterwards. "This was a precedent because there has been no one who shoots koalas from helicopters in the entire country," the group's coordinator Sue Arnold told AAP. She said the department's decision to euthanise the koalas was made at a stakeholder meeting on the basis of one vet's approval and would have been conducted in secrecy if not for the local animal shelters and carers who heard helicopter noises and gunshots. The charity on Thursday announced they are taking the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to the Victorian Supreme Court, seeking to quash the conservation regulator's authorisation made on behalf of the department's secretary to permit the aerial culling. The lawsuit handled by Bleyer Lawyers argues the department's decision was made in error because the Wildlife Act does not allow for that type of authorisation. "We are dealing with a government that really comes from the Dark Ages ... and if the court rules in favour of government, Australia, in terms of animal cruelty, is completely f*****," Ms Arnold said. In correspondence with the charity, DEECA secretary John Bradley said koalas were individually assessed by trained and accredited wildlife assessors as physically close to the animal as operationally viable. He noted an aerial assessment by a vet at the time said dependent joeys were unlikely to be present during that period and if present, they were likely to already be compromised due an injured mother's inability to provide milk. Mr Bradley said the operation, which lasted under two months, was to achieve better welfare outcomes during an emergency bushfire response.
West Australian
2 days ago
- Politics
- West Australian
Activists in court action over aerial koala cull
Animal rights campaigners are seeking to overturn a decision to authorise an unprecedented aerial shooting program after more than 1000 koalas were shot dead from helicopters. After a bushfire burnt through 2200 hectares of the Budj Bim National Park in Victoria's west in March, the environment department authorised an aerial operation to humanely euthanise suffering fire-impacted koalas in areas of the park not accessible by foot. The department said the decision to shoot from helicopters was not taken lightly and had consulted animal welfare experts and experienced veterinarians. But rights group Australians for Animals NSW said the action, which killed over 1000 koalas, was inhumane as it was "impossible" to kill koalas 30 metres from a helicopter with a clean shot and they didn't check if the animals had died or for any orphaned and injured joeys afterwards. "This was a precedent because there has been no one who shoots koalas from helicopters in the entire country," the group's coordinator Sue Arnold told AAP. She said the department's decision to euthanise the koalas was made at a stakeholder meeting on the basis of one vet's approval and would have been conducted in secrecy if not for the local animal shelters and carers who heard helicopter noises and gunshots. The charity on Thursday announced they are taking the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to the Victorian Supreme Court, seeking to quash the conservation regulator's authorisation made on behalf of the department's secretary to permit the aerial culling. The lawsuit handled by Bleyer Lawyers argues the department's decision was made in error because the Wildlife Act does not allow for that type of authorisation. "We are dealing with a government that really comes from the Dark Ages ... and if the court rules in favour of government, Australia, in terms of animal cruelty, is completely f*****," Ms Arnold said. In correspondence with the charity, DEECA secretary John Bradley said koalas were individually assessed by trained and accredited wildlife assessors as physically close to the animal as operationally viable. He noted an aerial assessment by a vet at the time said dependent joeys were unlikely to be present during that period and if present, they were likely to already be compromised due an injured mother's inability to provide milk. Mr Bradley said the operation, which lasted under two months, was to achieve better welfare outcomes during an emergency bushfire response.
Perth Now
2 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Activists in court action over aerial koala cull
Animal rights campaigners are seeking to overturn a decision to authorise an unprecedented aerial shooting program after more than 1000 koalas were shot dead from helicopters. After a bushfire burnt through 2200 hectares of the Budj Bim National Park in Victoria's west in March, the environment department authorised an aerial operation to humanely euthanise suffering fire-impacted koalas in areas of the park not accessible by foot. The department said the decision to shoot from helicopters was not taken lightly and had consulted animal welfare experts and experienced veterinarians. But rights group Australians for Animals NSW said the action, which killed over 1000 koalas, was inhumane as it was "impossible" to kill koalas 30 metres from a helicopter with a clean shot and they didn't check if the animals had died or for any orphaned and injured joeys afterwards. "This was a precedent because there has been no one who shoots koalas from helicopters in the entire country," the group's coordinator Sue Arnold told AAP. She said the department's decision to euthanise the koalas was made at a stakeholder meeting on the basis of one vet's approval and would have been conducted in secrecy if not for the local animal shelters and carers who heard helicopter noises and gunshots. The charity on Thursday announced they are taking the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to the Victorian Supreme Court, seeking to quash the conservation regulator's authorisation made on behalf of the department's secretary to permit the aerial culling. The lawsuit handled by Bleyer Lawyers argues the department's decision was made in error because the Wildlife Act does not allow for that type of authorisation. "We are dealing with a government that really comes from the Dark Ages ... and if the court rules in favour of government, Australia, in terms of animal cruelty, is completely f*****," Ms Arnold said. In correspondence with the charity, DEECA secretary John Bradley said koalas were individually assessed by trained and accredited wildlife assessors as physically close to the animal as operationally viable. He noted an aerial assessment by a vet at the time said dependent joeys were unlikely to be present during that period and if present, they were likely to already be compromised due an injured mother's inability to provide milk. Mr Bradley said the operation, which lasted under two months, was to achieve better welfare outcomes during an emergency bushfire response.
