NVA gets critical show of support for Estelle
Estelle's potential aligns with Executive Order 14153 which directs immediate measures to increase American mineral production.
Nova has placed itself on a trajectory mirroring that of MP Materials and Perpetua Resources, both of which have secured major US Department of Defense grants to fast-track the production of critical minerals.
Special Report: Nova Minerals has strengthened ties with key Alaskan lawmakers and stakeholders in the past week during a board of directors visit to its Estelle gold and critical minerals project.
The company has been drilling around the clock during the Alaskan summer to push Estelle's mineral resource estimate past 9.9Moz and define a resource of critical mineral antimony.
Also during the almost 24 hour sunlight the Nova (ASX:NVA) board has been warmly received by federal representatives, state and local leaders, tribal organisations and advocacy groups who expressed unified support for advancing Estelle.
VIP visits
During their visit board members met representatives of Alaska's Congressional Delegation, including the offices of US Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, and US representative for Alaska Nick Begich, who expressed ongoing backing for Nova's efforts to fast-track Estelle's development.
Nova additionally received a strong show of local support during an event at Port MacKenzie attended by more than 25 Alaskan leaders including Borough Mayor Edna DeVries, leaders from the Knik Tribe, state legislators and representatives from the Alaska Miners Association and Friends of West Susitna.
The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority also provided project updates on the West Susitna Access Road during the board visit. This new road will provide critical infrastructure that will support Estelle and regional development.
Nova is increasingly aligned with US Executive Order 14153, 'Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential', which outlines actions to bolster American mineral production.
This positions Nova to follow the path of MP Materials (market cap ~A$16 billion) and Perpetua Resources (market cap ~A$2.4 billion), which have both secured significant US Department of Defense (DoD) grants for critical mineral supply chain initiatives.
Following a positive technical site assessment by the DoD's critical materials team, Nova is continuing engagement with the DoD as Estelle moves toward becoming a near-term producer of gold and antimony.
Nova CEO Chris Gerteisen said: 'We're starting to see the kind of momentum that propelled companies like MP Materials and Perpetua Resources to secure major federal support.
'With our recent positive assessment from the (US) Department of Defense - and with gold and antimony prices near record highs - we're optimistic that Nova is well-positioned to be a key part of building a secure, domestic supply chain.
'We remain deeply grateful for the support we've received at every level and are committed to advancing this project responsibly and swiftly. Our team is humbled by the opportunity and focused on delivering long-term value for Alaska, the United States and our allies.'
Critical hub
During the Port MacKenzie event, Nova presented its long-term vision for a potential processing hub in Alaska and highlighted the significance of recent discoveries.
Congressional representative Nick Begich expressed strong support, which was echoed by other leaders who met the board:
'Partnerships like these are crucial for responsible resource development in Alaska and advancing plans for a Nova Minerals processing hub at Port MacKenzie will deliver important economic benefits for Alaska and support our long-term workforce development for Alaska's hardworking families,' Begich said.
On road to growth
Out in the field at Estelle exploration is continuing at the Stibium antimony-gold prospect, the high-grade RPM North deposit. Drilling in the Korbel starter pit area has already been completed, with samples to be sent to the laboratory for analysis shortly.
Also underway are other exploration mapping and sampling, environmental baseline studies, access road projects and various technical studies, all of which will go towards completing the pre-feasibility study.
Nova's board has since departed Alaska for further stakeholder engagement in New York City and Florida.
This article was developed in collaboration with Nova 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
9 hours ago
- News.com.au
Bombshell report exposes Donald Trump's $1b dilemma
Safety? Security? Or comfort? That's the $1 billion decision that confronted US President Donald Trump with his new Air Force One. It is a $US400 million personal gift from Qatar's royal family: a gold-plated, cushion-festooned, custom-made Boeing 747 'flying palace'. It is an alternative to Trump's 35-year-old, 'unimpressive' Boeing 747 flying White House. And a replacement for the often-delayed successors he personally ordered back in 2017. But there's a problem. Air Force One is designed to serve as an airborne military headquarters. From its decks, a President must be fully informed and fully in command of the United States' air, sea and land nuclear arsenal. And he must be protected from missiles, electromagnetic pulse and nuclear fallout. But President Trump does not want a mobile command centre. He wants to fly between the White House and his Mar-a-Lago estate in a mobile presidential palace. 'When you land and you see Saudi Arabia and you see UAE and you can see Qatar and you see all these — they have these brand-new Boeing 747s, mostly,' Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in an April interview aboard Air Force One. 'And you see ours next to it … It's much smaller, it's much less impressive — as impressive as it is.' He'd already encountered the Qatari flying palace. In February, members of the royal family flew into Palm Beach, Florida, to congratulate Trump on his reelection. Now the diversion of almost $US1 billion to a Pentagon 'black project' may be a sign of the actual cost of bringing their extravagant gift up to specification. 'No one wants to discuss a mysterious, $US934 million transfer of funds from one of the Pentagon's most over-budget, out-of-control projects — the modernisation of America's aging, ground-based nuclear missiles,' a new report from the New York Times states. 'Congressional budget sleuths have come to think that amount, slipped into an obscure Pentagon document sent to Capitol Hill as a 'transfer' to an unnamed classified project, almost certainly includes the renovation' of the jet that has been described as a palace in the sky.' Sky-high ambitions 'Trump's concerns about Air Force One seem less focused on safety and security and more on size and opulence,' says University of Dayton aviation historian Professor Janet Bednarek. 'His longing for a 'palace in the sky' is befitting for a president drawn to soaring skyscrapers, lavish parades and gold ornamentation.' President Trump has a long history of complaining about Air Force One. While it's acceptable for the US Air Force to rely upon 70-year-old Boeing B-52 bombers, that's not the case for the White House. And the existing Boeings, based on the 747-200B model, have been flying since the 1990s. Its colours are all wrong. It may have a streak of Trump's signature gold among the traditional white and soft blue. But Trump wants a bold new maroon and dark blue look. It's too utilitarian. He complains it's more like a flying White House Oval Office than a Presidential Palace suite. 'I believe that we should have the most impressive plane,' Trump told US media in April. But that's not the same as the most effective plane. Armour. Electronic shielding. Sensitive and secure communications. Accommodation for command, medical and serving staff Overpowered engines. All must be added before an aircraft can meet the minimum requirements of protecting—and empowering—a sitting US president. Trump has taken an unusually hands-on approach to replacing this Presidential status symbol since stepping into the Oval Office for his first term on January 20, 2017. One of his first acts was to commission replacements for the existing fleet. But that project is over budget and behind schedule. 'No, I'm not happy with Boeing,' he said immediately upon taking office in February this year. 'There's no excuse for it… I would not consider Airbus over Boeing, but I could buy one that was used and convert it.' He was clearly thinking of the personal tour he had been given by the Qatari royal family of its 13-year-old 747 at Palm Beach International Airport just days earlier. Then, on May 21, the US Department of Defence announced it had accepted the gift of a Boeing 747-8 on behalf of the President from Qatar. 'No cost' to US taxpayer 'I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer,' Trump said in May. 'I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, 'No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.'' The President appeared to think it would be an immediate replacement for his existing ride. 'It's going to be a couple of years, I think, before the (new) Boeings are finished,' he said. Earlier this month, Trump hosted the Qatar royal family's prime minister at the White House for a private dinner. The Pentagon has since confirmed the transfer of the aircraft will come at 'no cost' to the United States. But not its renovation. 'I think there has been a number thrown around on the order of $1 billion,' US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told a Congressional hearing in June. 'But a lot of those costs associated with that are costs that we'd have experienced anyway (with the new Boeing aircraft) … So it wouldn't be anywhere near that.' With the money allocated for the new aircraft diverted, Mink said the additional cost of renovating the Qatari 747 would be about $US400 million. But it now appears the real price may be the effectiveness and readiness of the US nuclear shield. The mysterious $US934 million funds transfer originates from the $US125 billion Pentagon Sentinel project, tasked with modernising US silo-based nuclear missiles. That project began in 2020. It's also facing cost blowouts and significant delays. 'The security implications of accepting a private plane from a foreign nation as Air Force One and the resulting ethical concerns a gift of that size creates were already significant,' Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen told US media overnight. 'This administration is diverting funds from the nuclear modernisation budget to finance costly renovations to this plane. (This is) weakening our credibility to fund a vanity project for President Trump.' Vanity versus validity 'The security measures needed to safely transport the president – especially during wartime – spurred the creation of the first custom-built aircraft for presidential use,' explains Professor Bednarek. That aircraft was a propeller-driven USAF VC-54 Skymaster modified to carry President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its official name was 'The Flying White House'. But it was best known as the 'Sacred Cow.' The first Presidential jet was a Boeing 707 used by President John F. Kennedy. The First Lady, Jacqueline Kennedy, helped establish the light-blue-and-white colour scheme that has since become the standard look. 'Air Force One has long served as a symbol of the power and prestige of the presidency,' Professor Bednarek adds. President Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office aboard Air Force One as it flew President Kennedy's body back to Washington DC. President Richard Nixon took off aboard Air Force One on August 8, 1974, to return to his California home. It landed as Flight SAM 27000 - his Presidency having ended mid-flight. But Trump wants to elevate this Presidential icon to new heights. He personally met with Boeing executives and engineers at the White House immediately upon taking office in 2017. Within a month, he had a $US4.2 billion fixed-price deal: 'We got that price down by over $1 billion'. 'Air Force One is going to be incredible,' Trump explained. 'It's going to be the top of the line, the top in the world. And it's going to be red, white and blue, which I think is appropriate.' Soaring costs 'There's your new Air Force One,' Trump proclaimed in 2019, pointing to a Boeing mock-up of the future plane. 'I'm doing that for other presidents, not for me.' Details of the new-build presidential aircraft are top secret. And therefore sketchy. Better protection. More secure communications. A complete emergency surgery suite. The manufacturer has had to extend the lifetime of its decommissioned 747 production line to build the two new special edition airframes. The aircraft, first entering service in 1969, has been replaced by the newer, smaller Boeing 777. So it's little surprise that the VC-25B (a heavily modified version of its defunct commercial 747-8i) has suffered delays and cost overruns. Boeing has attributed this to the fact that it has struggled to retain and find suitable technicians, as well as obtain the necessary security clearance for them. The project is already $US2 billion over budget. And Boeing must continue to absorb the cost of any further changes. Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun admitted in a 2022 presentation to investors that the deal had been a disaster for his company and that it should never have been agreed upon. The first jet is now due to be completed in 2027, followed by the second a year later. But there may be further delays. Trump's proposed colour scheme reverted to a more traditional look under President Biden. But Trump celebrated his Inauguration in February with a cake decked out with an Air Force One in his preferred look. This will have engineering consequences. Dark colours absorb much more heat. And that will impact ultra-sensitive weapons systems, infra-red sensors and radar transmitters. Dark paints are also thicker and heavier. And that added weight and drag have a noticeable impact on high-performance aircraft. And whatever space and weight are needed for new gold-plated fittings and opulent accommodations must come from the aircraft's command centre functions, emergency surgery, and protective systems. Meanwhile, analysts say the $934 billion refurbishment of the Qatari gift 747 is likely to take at least two years, assuming no delays or cost overruns. And Trump has promised it will be donated to the Trump Presidential Museum upon the end of his Presidency. Constitutionally, that is due in January 2029.
ABC News
10 hours ago
- ABC News
Concern in Australia as Trump flags increased tariffs
The federal government is bracing for another round of tariffs on Australian exports entering the United States. US President Donald Trump has unexpectedly floated the possibility of doubling the baseline tariff imposed on all imports to his country.
SBS Australia
10 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Are Australians at risk from lifting the restrictions on US beef imports?
"Australia bans — and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything — but they ban American beef. Yet we imported $3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. They won't take any of our beef. They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and, you know what I don't blame them, but we're doing the same thing.' When United States President Donald Trump singled out Australia's ban on US beef imports, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would never compromise on protecting farmers or biosecurity. "We have made it very clear to the United States that we will not compromise on biosecurity. We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination. Indeed, we've made it a priority to strengthen biosecurity, because one of the things that makes Australian food and fibre the best in the world is a people everywhere, know that it stands for quality. It also stands for safety." Now, ahead of the tariff deadline on August 1, Australia's restrictions on US beef imports have been dropped. But the government says the timing of the decision is a coincidence, and has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Minister for Agriculture, Julie Collins, says a review into the US beef ban began in 2015 under the Coalition Government. "This decision has been purely based on science and a rigorous assessment by my department. Biosecurity risk assessment process is very robust and I have faith in the officials in my department to do this appropriately. These are experts in the field. Australia's biosecurity system is world-renowned for a reason and this assessment has now been completed." In 2019, Australia changed restrictions to allow beef imports from cattle traceably born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. In practice, however, the ongoing biosecurity rules meant that only a small amount of beef, largely shelf-stable products, were imported from the US. "We are assured that the supply chain and traceability and the safety of any food coming into Australia is safe. The US, of course, has been able to bring beef into Australia since 2019. Our farmers, are of course, are exporting already to the United States. We're exporting over four billion dollars' worth of beef to the United States presently and our farmers are a net beneficiary of our two-way trading system." So, why was the ban imposed in the first place? And should Australians be concerned about eating beef imported from the US? In 2003, Australia placed restrictions on the import of US beef in response to an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, more commonly known as Mad Cow Disease. Humans cannot contract mad cow disease, though in rare cases they can develop a variant which leads to dementia and premature death. However, the Australian food regulator deems US beef is low-risk. Trade Minister Don Farrell says the government would not compromise standards for trade. "We have not made any compromise and we certainly have not compromised Australia's strict biosecurity laws. This has been a process that's been underway for the last 10 years. It's now come to a completion and it's appropriate that we announce the results of that inquiry. But at no stage do we risk our terrific biosecurity standards for any trade arrangement." One key concern remaining after 2019 was that Mexico's livestock tracking system could inadvertently allow beef from disease-affected regions to enter Australia. However, the government says the review has found that the US Department of Agriculture protocols for beef imported from Canada and Mexico now address Australia's biosecurity concerns. Mark Thomas, the Chair of the Western Beef Association, says it's unclear how effective the US tracking system is. "Well, we implement an NIL system, as they call it, so any animal that's born on your property has a electronic tag, and that same tag is scanned and transferred whenever that animal leaves your property, all the way through to sort of slaughter. So an animal that's been slaughtered, they can go back and work out where that animal has been over its lifetime. I am unsure how quickly America can get up to speed. However, it's taken many, many years for Australia to implement that system and make sure that it works efficiently." Despite government assurances, National Party leader David Littleproud is among critics calling for an independent examination into the matter. "The government has not provided or released the protocols on which the beef from the U.S could be imported into this country. Those are the legal requirements that an importer would have to meet to bring beef from the United States into Australia, that was from Mexico or Canada. The fact they haven't done that raises serious concerns to me around how this decision has been made and the timing of it. If it was well planned, the department would be able to provide me with those details. They have not. I think the prudent way forward is to have an independent scientific panel review the department's decision and the protocols when they came out." Along with concerns about the spread of disease, there are also concerns about differing US regulations around the use of hormones and antibiotics on cattle. While some cattle in the US are given approved natural or synthetic hormones to help them grow, the US Food and Drug Administration regulates these, and experts say they are in extremely low levels. US beef, according to both Australian and US officials, is safe to eat, but is it better than Australian beef? Evangeline Mantzioris is the Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of South Australia. She says the diet of an animal impacts the nutritional value of the meat. "What it comes down to is the type of feed that the animals are given. So in the US they tend to be grain-fed whilst here in Australia, they tend to be grass-fed, and that produces differences in the way that the body of the cow handles it and in the way that they make and lay down fat in their body. The other thing that might make a slight difference is also the genetics of the cows. So assuming it's the same breed of cow, we expect grain-fed to lead to more fat in the meat compared to grass-fed." Studies show that grass-fed beef can be 30 to 75 per cent lower in fat than grain-fed. Grass-fed is also reported to have higher levels of beneficial Omega-3 fats, up to five times more antioxidants, and slightly higher protein, with some studies also indicating lower cholesterol. So, for consumers, choosing between local and imported beef will mostly come down to personal preference rather than health concerns. Dr Mantzioris says while the differences aren't major, grass-fed beef is the best option. "So if we combine all of those different components of the beef that we've looked at, overall grass fed beef, which is what we have in Australia, is the healthier option." But what about Australian farmers? When Australia lifted the ban, Donald Trump wrote on social media that the US was now going to sell 'so much beef' to Australia. Australia is the second largest exporter of beef products in the world. And while Australians are some of the highest per capita consumers of beef products, our relatively small population means we have a lot left to export. Mark Thomas says he isn't too worried about competing with U-S products. "Well, I suppose, from a from a cattle perspective's point of view, our only concern would be if we thought that US beef was going to compete with our own product here in Australia, and I don't believe that that is going to do so based on the price of cattle in the US over a longer period of time and considering their cattle numbers compared to what we have here in Australia." In fact, US cattle stocks have been in decline for two decades. The United States is the second largest importer of beef globally and cattle stocks in the country are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. The US Department of Agriculture says beef prices have increased by 8 per cent since the start of 2025, with one kilogram of beef costing around AU$30.. Mark Thomas says with beef shortages in the United States, it's unlikely the Australian market is going to be flooded with imported US beef. "Well, currently, there's a lot of Australian beef going into the US market, purely because they need it. At the moment, cattle prices in the US are just quoting a heavy steer close to $5 whereas that same animal in Australia is only going for $2.50 so how can they purchase an animal for $5 a kilo? Process it, send it to the other side of the world and expect to compete with the product that we have here?" While beef prices have been increasing in the United States, Australian beef exports broke an all-time monthly record in June. And the biggest buyer was, that's right, the United States. In New York, Stew Leonard Junior is the CEO of a grocery chain. He says he gets grass-fed beef from Australia and plans on splitting the tariff cost with his supplier. "We are a huge meat purchaser, and it's mainly the US. So you know, there could be some, that's one of our trains going by up there, okay, for the kids right there, they love that. But one of the things we don't get a lot from Australia, the only thing we do get is our grass-fed beef. They sell beautiful grass- fed beef in Australia. That's being tariffed a little bit. We're splitting that tariff with our supplier. We don't really buy beef from Canada or Mexico or Argentina."
