Orange Minerals lists on US stock exchange to access deeper pool of capital
Special Report: Orange Minerals has successfully listed on the OTCQB Venture Market in the United States under the ticker symbol ORMXF. OMX lists on OTCQB exchange under ticker ORMXF
Move comes as company finalises Tepa gold project acquisition
Company plans to explore new African and existing Australia assets
It's a solid step forward in the company's strategy to broaden its international investor base and increase visibility among North American institutional and retail investors and provides access to a deeper pool of capital.
The move comes as Orange Minerals (ASX:OMX) looks to complete its acquisition of the Tepa gold project in Ghana's Bibiani Gold Field.
The project has three licences, Wioso, Mpasaso, and Ohiape, across a 166km² project area along strike from the Bibiani and Chirano gold deposits.
The company says the acquisition is complementary to the ongoing development of its Australian asset base, and further strengthens its exploration portfolio. Advancing exploration across multiple jurisdictions
Meanwhile, exploration continues at the Calarie project in NSW, where rock chip sampling last quarter returned up to 3.79g/t Au at Nibblers Hill and 3.12g/t Au at Mary's Dream.
OMX has defined nine geophysical targets at the project, with a drone magnetic survey planned near-term to further refine drill targets ahead of more exploration.
'With trading now active on both the ASX and OTCQB, and with its West African gold asset nearing completion, Orange is well-positioned to advance its exploration efforts across multiple jurisdictions,' the company said.
'The company remains committed to delivering shareholder value through disciplined growth, project advancement, and enhanced engagement with both Australian and international investors.'
This article was developed in collaboration with Orange Minerals, a Stockhead advertiser at the time of publishing.
This article does not constitute financial product advice. You should consider obtaining independent advice before making any financial decisions.
Originally published as Orange Minerals lists on US stock exchange to access deeper pool of capital
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
11 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Big business quick to veto productivity tax reform
Well, you can forget about Treasurer Jim Chalmers' three-day roundtable discussions leading to any improvement in the economy's productivity and growth, let alone getting the budget back under control. Late last week, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) persuaded all of Canberra's many other business lobby groups to join it in rejecting out of hand the Productivity Commission's proposal for reform of the company tax system which, the commission argued, would increase businesses' incentive to invest more in productivity-enhancing plant and equipment, without any net reduction in company tax collections. The proposal is for the rate of company tax to be cut for all but our biggest 500 companies, while introducing a 5 per cent tax on the net cash flow of all companies. The join statement by 24 business lobby groups says that 'while some businesses may benefit under the proposal, it risks all Australian consumers and businesses paying more for the things they buy every day – groceries, fuel and other daily essentials'. Get it? This is the lobbyists' oldest trick: 'We're not concerned about what the tax change would do to our profits, dear reader, we're just worried about what it would do you and your pocket. It's not us we worry about, it's our customers.' Loading Suddenly, their professed concern about the lack of productivity improvement and slow growth is out the window, and now it's the cost of living they're deeply worried about. They've been urging governments to increase the GST for years, but now they don't want higher prices. Yeah, sure. Bet you didn't know there are as many as 24 different business lobby groups in the capital. Their role is to advance the narrowly defined interests of their paying clients back in the rest of Oz by means fair or foul. They're not paid to help the government reach a deal we can all live with, nor to suggest that their clients worry about anything other than their own immediate interests. Canberra calls this lobbying. Economists call it rent-seeking. You press the government for special deals at the expense of someone else, while ensuring you contribute as little as possible. This, apparently, is the way democracy is meant to work.
The Age
11 minutes ago
- The Age
Big business quick to veto productivity tax reform
Well, you can forget about Treasurer Jim Chalmers' three-day roundtable discussions leading to any improvement in the economy's productivity and growth, let alone getting the budget back under control. Late last week, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) persuaded all of Canberra's many other business lobby groups to join it in rejecting out of hand the Productivity Commission's proposal for reform of the company tax system which, the commission argued, would increase businesses' incentive to invest more in productivity-enhancing plant and equipment, without any net reduction in company tax collections. The proposal is for the rate of company tax to be cut for all but our biggest 500 companies, while introducing a 5 per cent tax on the net cash flow of all companies. The join statement by 24 business lobby groups says that 'while some businesses may benefit under the proposal, it risks all Australian consumers and businesses paying more for the things they buy every day – groceries, fuel and other daily essentials'. Get it? This is the lobbyists' oldest trick: 'We're not concerned about what the tax change would do to our profits, dear reader, we're just worried about what it would do you and your pocket. It's not us we worry about, it's our customers.' Loading Suddenly, their professed concern about the lack of productivity improvement and slow growth is out the window, and now it's the cost of living they're deeply worried about. They've been urging governments to increase the GST for years, but now they don't want higher prices. Yeah, sure. Bet you didn't know there are as many as 24 different business lobby groups in the capital. Their role is to advance the narrowly defined interests of their paying clients back in the rest of Oz by means fair or foul. They're not paid to help the government reach a deal we can all live with, nor to suggest that their clients worry about anything other than their own immediate interests. Canberra calls this lobbying. Economists call it rent-seeking. You press the government for special deals at the expense of someone else, while ensuring you contribute as little as possible. This, apparently, is the way democracy is meant to work.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
