Archive

April 24, 2025

Browsing

In this video, Joe highlights key technical setups in select country ETFs that are showing strength right now. He analyzes monthly and weekly MACD, ADX, and RSI trends that are signaling momentum shifts. Joe also reviews the critical level to watch on the S&P 500 (SPX), while breaking down important patterns in the QQQ, IWM, and Bitcoin. As always, he finishes with analysis on your most-requested stocks, applying his trusted multi-timeframe approach.

The video premiered on April 23, 2025. Click this link to watch on Joe’s dedicated page.

Archived videos from Joe are available at this link. Send symbol requests to stocktalk@stockcharts.com; you can also submit a request in the comments section below the video on YouTube. Symbol Requests can be sent in throughout the week prior to the next show.

When the stock market is turbulent, it makes sense to hedge some of your valuable equity positions. One way to do it is through options. 

The adage “Don’t keep all your eggs in one basket” is well-known among investors. While a diversified portfolio reduces your risk, you probably have a handful of favorite stocks that you don’t want to sell. But watching those stocks lose value can be painful.

The good news: There is a way to reduce your losses on those positions.

Hedging With Options

Before diving into the strategies, you need to determine what you want to do with the stocks you want to hold on to. When a market is trending lower, options help protect your investments in the following ways:

  • Protecting your stocks against losses.
  • Generating income from declining stock values. 
  • Realizing profits from declining stocks if the stock moves in your favor.

Before proceeding further, look at all your portfolio holdings and determine which stocks you want to hold on to, then determine your hedging objectives.

This article will focus on the strategies you can implement to protect your stocks against losses. You can do this by buying puts, which are similar to an insurance policy. You pay for downside protection to gain unlimited upside potential.

Here’s how it works.

  1. You buy one put contract for 100 shares of an underlying stock. For example, if you own 100 shares of Apple, Inc. (AAPL), you buy one AAPL put contract; if you own 200 shares of AAPL, you could buy 2 put contracts.
  2. You buy a put with a strike price that could generate a profit that you’re comfortable with on your equity position, and a premium (the price of the contract) that you’re willing to pay to protect your position.
  3. If the stock’s price falls below the strike price, you could sell your put contract for a profit.  You could also choose to exercise your put contract, i.e., selling the underlying shares at the contract’s strike price.

For example, say you bought 100 shares of AAPL for $110 per share. AAPL stock is trading slightly below $205 but hit a high of $259.81. You want to protect your unrealized gains in case the price falls further. Looking at the daily chart of AAPL below, further downside looks highly probable.

The 50-day simple moving average (SMA) has crossed below the 200-day, the StockCharts Technical Rank (SCTR) score is at 32.50, which is relatively low, and the relative strength index (RSI) just below 50, indicating neutral momentum.

FIGURE 1. DAILY CHART OF AAPL STOCK. A declining trend, a technically weak chart, and lukewarm momentum indicate a higher probability of further decline.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

If you were to buy a put, what strike price and expiration would you choose? That can be a time-consuming exercise, but the OptionsPlay Add-on in StockCharts does it for you quickly. Here’s how.

  • Below the chart, click the Options menu, found under Tools & Resources. You’ll see the Options Chain by default (Options Summary).
  • Click the OptionsPlay button above the Options Chain to access the OptionsPlay Explorer. You’ll see the three optimal strategies listed.

FIGURE 2. OPTIMAL OPTIONS STRATEGIES FOR AAPL STOCK. You could sell 100 shares of AAPL, buy a put, or buy a put vertical spread. You can analyze the three scenarios and determine which one will help protect your equity position.Image source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The recommended long put (displayed in the middle) is the June 20 $205 put, which will cost $1,170. You have to decide if it’s worth paying this much premium to protect your position in the stock. If the stock price rises above $205 by expiration, your contract will expire worthless. You would have lost $1,170. Are you willing to take that risk?

You can modify the strategy by changing the expiration and strike price of the contract. This will help determine if there are more favorable risk-to-reward scenarios. The following scenarios could play out:

Scenario 1: The stock price falls below $205.

  • You could sell the put option for a profit, which will offset some of the unrealized losses from the decline in the stock’s price.
  • You could also choose to exercise the option and sell the shares for $205. You would walk away with a profit of $8,330 ($9,500 – 1,170).

Scenario 2: The stock price is above $205 by expiration.

  • Your put contract will expire worthless.
  • If you think the stock price will drop as contract expiration gets close, you could roll it to a further-out expiration. You’d sell your $205 June put and purchase another put option with a later expiration.

When buying puts, your maximum risk is limited to what you pay for the premium.

There’s More You Can Do

The strategy on the right shows a put vertical strategy, which has a much lower cost, a higher OptionsPlay score, and a potential reward of $2,145, which is much lower than buying a put.

The put vertical involves adding a lower strike price put with the same expiration. This would be a two-leg options trade—you buy the June 20 205 put and sell the June 20 $175 put.

The benefit of the put vertical is that you limit your risk to $855 (the debit). This will happen if  AAPL is above $205 and both puts expire worthless.

Your potential reward is limited to $2,145 (strike price – debit), which you will realize if AAPL’s stock price falls below $175. The probability of profit of the put vertical is 41.79%, versus 37.48% for the long put.

The Bottom Line

Buying puts and put vertical spreads can protect your options positions in a declining market. You still need to evaluate the cost of protection versus your profit potential, just as you would when you’re shopping for insurance.

The benefit of using the OptionsPlay Add-on is that the legwork is done for you. All you have to do is evaluate the different strategies, which are spelled out for you in simple terms. To learn more about the features available in the OptionsPlay Add-on, visit the StockCharts TV OptionsPlay with Tony Zhang YouTube channel.


Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your personal and financial situation or without consulting a financial professional.

Companies with upcoming copper mines in the US could be poised to benefit from tailwinds in the sector, including copper supply deficits and the new administration promising to cut ‘red tape’ for critical minerals projects.

Copper demand is climbing quickly in recent years because of the rapid urbanization of the global south as well as the developing energy transition sectors. However, current copper mines are increasing in age and there is a lack of new copper mines to replace them, both due to limited greenfield exploration and long permitting times.

This has put the world’s copper supply in a difficult situation, and experts expect to see deficits begin to emerge in 2025.

Resource nationalism is also increasing in recent times, with countries heavily focused on building their own critical minerals supply chains. This caused the Biden administration to list copper as a critical mineral in late 2024, which would allow projects accelerated permits, investment incentives and national security enhancements.

Additionally, after new US President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, Trump issued an executive order that would slash red tape to increase domestic critical mineral production, including copper. The move has caused significant environmental concerns, but it could support US copper companies that have previously struggled to receive permits.

Further action to speed up permitting came on March 20, when Trump signed another executive order with the goal of increasing American mineral production. The order included requests to related federal agencies to identify suitable mining sites on federal land and provide a list of priority projects.

This was followed by an announcement by the White House on April 18 that 10 mining projects would be granted increased transparency, accountability, and predictability for the permitting review process, which will improve permitting times for critical mineral projects. The initial list includes two copper sites: the Resolution copper project in Arizona, which is covered in the list below, and an expansion of Lisbon Valley Mining Company’s Lisbon Valley mine in Utah.

In this article we dive into more than 25 US copper projects in the construction, restarting or permitting phase, based on data from mine database Mining Data Online (MDO) as of March 2025. MDO’s database focuses on publicly traded mining companies, so there may be US copper mines being developed by private companies that are not in this list.

Read on to learn about the advanced copper projects that could become new copper mines.

In this article

    Next US copper mine: Copper mines under construction

    Black Butte project

    Ownership: 87% – Sandfire Resources (TSXV:SFR)
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: SEDEX, Stratabound

    Once it enters production, the Black Butte copper project in Montana is expected to produce 120,000 metric tons (MT) of copper concentrate annually. The site’s Johnny Lee deposit hosts proven and probable reserves of 8.8 million MT, containing 226,100 MT of copper at a grade of 2.6 percent.

    Sandfire had previously begun Phase I construction to mine the Johnny Lee deposit, but a Montana district court ruling overturned the prior Record of Decision in 2022 halted it. However, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in Sandfire’s favor in Q1 2024. With its mining permit reinstated, the company is now assessing Black Butte’s economics as it moves toward a final investment decision.

    Florence project

    Ownership:Taseko Mines (TSX:TKO,NYSE:TGB)
    Mine type: In-Situ
    Deposit type: Porphyry

    Located in Central Arizona, the Florence project is expected to produce 85 million pounds of copper annually. According to MDO, Florence will be one of the world’s most efficient copper producers, and copper produced on site will meet the London Metal Exchange grade A standard.

    Overall, the site’s proven and probable mineral reserves are 2.32 billion pounds of contained copper from 320 million MT of ore with an average grade of 0.36 percent copper. Construction at the site reached the 56 percent mark in December of 2024 and is on track for its first production by the end of 2025.

    Idaho Cobalt Operation

    Ownership:Jervois Global (ASX:JRV,OTC Pink:JRVMQ)
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Vein / narrow vein, sediment-hosted

    The Idaho Cobalt Operation (ICO) is located in Northern Idaho near the border with Montana. Even though the project is focused on cobalt production, over the seven-year life of the mine, it is planned to produce more than 15,000 MT of copper.

    While the ICO is still listed as under construction, Jervois Global halted development of the mine in March 2023 due to falling cobalt prices. As of Q4 2024, construction activities remain suspended and the company is focused on maintenance and environmental compliance.

    Next US copper mine: Mines being restarted

    Gunnison mine

    Ownership:Gunnison Copper (TSX:GCU,OTCQB:GCUMF)
    Mine type: In-Situ Recovery, Open Pit
    Deposit type: Skarn

    Gunnison Copper, previously named Excelsior Mining, is currently developing its Gunnison mine in Arizona as an open pit mining operation. Gunnison was originally scheduled to begin operating in 2020 as an in-situ recovery project, but startup was delayed due to low flow rates. Gunnison Copper has been evaluating different alternatives to overcome the challenges and obtained permits to begin well simulation using small-scale, shallow-level hydraulic fracking.

    However, the company determined that an open-pit operation has ‘substantially improved viability’ compared to the ISR operation at this time, and is now advancing the permitting process for the open pit. Gunnison intends to maintain the option of its fully permitted ISR operation and well stimulation.

    Once the open-pit mine is in operation, Gunnison estimates an average annual production of 167 million pounds of copper cathode. The probable mineral reserve for the in-situ operation as of 2016 is 4.5 billion pounds of copper from 782.2 million MT of ore with an average grade of 0.29 percent. The open pit’s 2024 mineral resource estimate showed a measured and indicated resource of 5.1 billion pounds of copper from 831.6 million MT of ore with an average copper grade of 0.31 percent.

    Sunshine mine

    Ownership: Sunshine Silver Mining and Refining
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Vein / narrow vein, mesothermal

    The Sunshine mine has seen production dating back to 1904, with the most recent being in 2008. The site sits within one of the most prolific mining areas of the Coeur d’Alene district in Idaho, United States. Since acquiring the project in 2010, Sunshine Silver Mining and Refining has spent more than US$100 million on-site upgrades and developments with the intent of restarting production before the end of the decade.

    According to MDO, the Sunshine property hosts “one of the highest-grade, large primary silver deposits in the world.” Once restarted, it will also produce copper and several other metals as byproducts, with planned average annual copper production of 1.12 million pounds.

    Next US copper mine: Copper mines in the permitting stage

    Antler project

    Ownership: New World Resources (ASX:NWC,OTC Pink:NWCBF)
    State: Arizona
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS)
    Commodities: Copper, zinc, lead, silver, gold

    As of February 2025, New World Resource’s Antler project is on track to begin construction activities in H2 2025 and complete the permitting process by early 2026. Federally, the only permit remaining is the Mine Plan of Operations, which the Bureau of Land Management stated will be evaluated under an Environmental Assessment. If things proceed as planned, the company will begin shipping concentrate by 2027.

    The site hosts numerous targets and a probable copper reserve of 180,000 MT from 11 million MT of ore with an average grade of 1.6 percent copper. The company anticipates a mine life of 12.2 years with an average annual copper production of 36 million pounds and copper equivalent production of 30,100 MT.

    Arctic project

    Ownership:
    50% – Trilogy Metals (NYSE:TMQ)
    50% – South32 (ASX:S32,OTC Pink:SHTLF)
    State: Alaska
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: VMS
    Commodities: Copper, zinc, lead, silver, gold

    The Arctic project is currently in the feasibility stage. Due to its location, the only significant federal permit required is the 404 wetlands permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The remaining permits are issued at the state level.

    The site’s indicated copper resource is 2.35 billion pounds from 35.7 million MT of ore with an average grade of 2.98 percent copper. An additional 189 million pounds are inferred from 4.5 million MT of ore with an average grade of 1.92 percent. Once complete, the mine is expected to produce 234,000 MT of copper annually.

    Back Forty project

    Ownership: Gold Resource (NYSEAMERICAN:GORO)
    State: Michigan
    Mine type: Open pit and underground
    Deposit type: VMS, breccia pipe/stockwork
    Commodities: Gold, silver, copper, zinc

    Back Forty is planned as two open pits, an underground mine and a processing plant. Once fully permitted, Gold Resource plans for a 21 month construction period before mining commences at its Pinwheel open pit. In 2021, a judge denied a wetlands permit for Back Forty due to its impact on the surrounding area. MDO reports that Gold Resource’s revised mine plan avoids impact on the region’s wetlands, which should support the mine permitting process.

    Back Forty will have the capacity to produce 6.8 million pounds of copper concentrate annually. The project hosts an open pit indicated copper resource of 74 million pounds from 9.36 million MT of ore with an average grade of 0.36 percent copper, and an underground indicated copper resource of 47 million pounds from 5.1 million MT with an average grade of 0.41 percent.

    Cactus Mine project

    Ownership: Arizona Sonoran Copper (TSX:ASCU,OTCQX:ASCUF)
    State: Arizona
    Mine type: Open pit and underground
    Deposit type: Porphyry
    Commodities: Copper

    Cactus is a brownfield development project in Central Arizona with a 5.5 kilometer mine trend. The site hosts the past-producing Sacaton mine, a mining stockpile and three primary deposits: Cactus East, Cactus West and Parks/Salyer. Arizona Sonoran Copper is working to complete a pre-feasibility study for the second half of 2025.

    A Q3 2024 preliminary economic assessment( PEA) outlined a 31 year mine life with on-site production of 86,000 short tons of LME Grade A copper cathode per year. In total, the site has a measured and indicated resource of 7.29 billion pounds from 632.7 million MT of ore at an average grade of 0.576 percent copper.

    CK Gold project

    Ownership: US Gold (NASDAQ:USAU)
    State: Wyoming
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Porphyry, breccia pipe/stockwork
    Commodities: Copper, gold, silver

    In 2024, the CK Gold project achieved several permitting milestones. In April, US Gold received its mine operating permit, and in November, its subsidiary, Gold King, received its final permit approval from the air quality division of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. These permits were the final hurdles needed before the company began developing the project.

    The company plans to produce a copper concentrate that contains gold, copper and silver. CK has a significant copper resource with proven and probable reserves totaling 248 million pounds from 70.4 million MT at an average grade of 0.18 percent copper. US Gold is working towards a feasibility study, and aims to begin construction in late-2025 or 2026 with first concentrate production in 2027 or 2028.

    Copper Flat project

    Ownership: THEMAC Resources (TSXV:MAC,OTC Pink:MACQF)
    State: New Mexico
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Porphyry, breccia pipe/stockwork, hydrothermal
    Commodities: Copper, molybdenum, gold, silver

    Copper Flat is a brownfield project built on a site that has seen mining dating back to the 1890s, with various companies working to bring the site back online since the 1980s. To date, THEMAC has completed its definitive feasibility and environmental studies and has received several key Federal and State permits. The state mining permit is in the advanced stage.

    The site hosts a proven and probable copper reserve of 579.21 million pounds from 113.08 million MT of ore at an average grade of 0.3 percent copper.

    Copperwood project

    Ownership: Highland Copper (TSXV:HI,OTCQB:HDRSF)
    State: Michigan
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Sediment-hosted
    Commodities: Copper, silver

    Copperwood is a fully permitted project and is in active development. Highland spent much of 2024 working to fulfill its obligations to prepare the site as required under the terms of the wetlands and streams permit. Its next development steps are metallurgic testing using ultra-fine flotation technology and community engagement as it moves towards a construction decision.

    Copperwood hosts proven and probable reserves of 25.7 million MT of ore at an average grade of 1.45 percent copper for 820 million pounds of contained copper. Highland expects to produce 65 million pounds of saleable copper per year for a total of 675 million pounds over the mine’s 10.3 year life.

    Copper World Complex

    Ownership: Hudbay Minerals (TSX:HBM,NYSE:HBM)
    State: Arizona
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Porphyry, skarn
    Commodities: Copper, molybdenum, silver, gold

    Copper World is one of the largest copper projects in development in the United States, according to Hudbay. The company is currently in the permitting stage for Phase 1 at Copper World, which will consist of four open pits with an expected mine life of 20 years. The second phase will expand the operation and extend the life of the mine further.

    The site has received all necessary state permits to begin construction and operation after it received its air quality permit in January 2025. Hudbay is expecting annual average copper production of 92,000 MT during the first 10 years and 85,000 MT over the 20 year mine life. In year five, it plans to begin copper cathode production to supply the US market.

    CuMo project

    Ownership: Idaho Copper (OTC Pink:COPR)
    State: Idaho
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Porphyry, vein/narrow vein, breccia pipe/stockwork
    Commodities: Molybdenum, copper, silver, tungsten, rhenium, sulfuric acid

    While Idaho Copper’s focus with CuMo is developing one of the world’s largest molybdenum mines, the company also plans to produce an average of 84 million pounds of copper metal in concentrate per year. CuMo hosts a significant measured and indicated copper resource of 3.81 million pounds.

    Idaho Copper is working towards releasing an updated PEA during the first half of 2025. Additionally, the company expects to begin environmental work for its environmental impact statement sometime this year.

    Empire project

    Ownership:
    80% – Phoenix Copper (LSE:PXC,OTCQB:PXCLF)
    20% – ExGen Resources (TSXV:EXG,OTC Pink:BXXRF)
    State: Idaho
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Skarn, vein/narrow vein, breccia pipe/stockwork
    Commodities: Copper, gold, silver

    Empire is a brownfield project planned as an open-pit mine atop historic underground workings. Phoenix Copper is developing its mine plan for the Idaho Department of Lands and for federal review by the National Environmental Policy Act. The company is aiming to complete the permitting project in 2025 and begin production in 2026 using on-site, pre-owned milling equipment it purchased in 2024.

    Empire’s proven and probable copper reserves are 109.45 million pounds from 10.1 million MT of ore with an average grade of 0.49 percent copper. The mill will produce a copper-gold-silver concentrate and cement copper stream, combining for 89.1 million pounds of payable copper over the nine-year life of mine.

    Mason project

    Ownership: Hudbay Minerals
    State: Nevada
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Porphyry, vein/narrow vein
    Commodities: Copper, molybdenum, gold, silver

    Planned for a mine life of 27 years, Mason is a significant greenfield copper deposit and one of the largest undeveloped porphyry copper deposits in North America, according to MDO. Hudbay considers Mason a ‘long-term future development asset’ and is working on enhancing project economics through metallurgical studies.

    Based on its 2021 PEA, Hudbay expects the mine to produce an average of 112,000 MT of copper concentrate per year and deliver more than 10 million MT over its lifetime.

    NorthMet project

    Ownership:
    50% – Teck (TSX:TECK.A,TECK.B,NYSE:TECK)
    50% – Glencore (LSE:GLEN,OTC Pink:GLCNF)
    State: Minnesota
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Magmatic
    Commodities: Copper, nickel, palladium, gold, platinum, cobalt, silver

    The Teck and Glencore NewRange joint venture consists of two deposits: NorthMet and Mesaba. Permitting for NewRange is stalled in part due to concerns with the mine’s tailings plan. In 2025, the companies plan to advance engineering studies at NorthMet and secure updated development permits.

    The Trump administration’s executive order to speed approvals of critical minerals projects could potentially help the project clear regulatory hurdles. If it is fully permitted, NorthMet is expected to deliver an average of 60 million pounds of copper concentrate per year over a 20 year mine life.

    Palmer project

    Ownership: American Pacific Mining (CSE:USGD,OTCQX:USGDF)
    State: Alaska
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: VMS
    Commodities: Copper, zinc, silver, gold, barite, lead

    American Pacific Mining is assessing its Palmer project through its five-year plan that ends in 2028. In 2024, work included environmental and permitting activities, a variety of studies in preparation for future feasibility plans and drilling to expand the mineral resource.

    As of 2018, the site hosts an indicated copper resource of 154 million pounds from 4.68 million MT of ore at an average copper grade of 1.49 percent, and an inferred copper resource of 124 million pounds from 9.6 million MT of ore at an average grade of 0.59 percent.

    Pebble project

    Ownership: Northern Dynasty Minerals (TSX:NDM,NYSE:NAK)
    State: Alaska
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Porphyry
    Commodities: Copper, molybdenum, gold, silver, rhenium

    According to MDO, Pebble is the world’s largest known undeveloped resource of copper as well as gold. The project has been stalled since November 2020, when the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) rejected its permit applications due to environmental concerns. Since then, Northern Dynasty has been suing to overturn the rejection.

    In February 2025, court proceedings were suspended for 90 days at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE. This followed the confirmation of a new EPA administrator and Trump’s executive order supporting critical mineral projects. However, it still remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will support Pebble this time around, as the previous rejection was made during his first term.

    Pebble is planned to produce an estimated average of 320 million pounds of copper concentrate annually, from a measured and indicated resource base of 52.99 billion pounds of copper.

    Pumpkin Hollow project

    Ownership: Kinterra Capital
    State: Nevada
    Mine type: Open pit
    Deposit type: Skarn, breccia pipe/stockwork, iron oxide copper-gold (IOCG)
    Commodities: Copper, gold, silver

    The Pumpkin Hollow project hosts a fully permitted open pit project and a fully permitted and constructed underground mine. Production and development were suspended at the operations after its previous owner Nevada Copper filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2024. That October, Pumpkin Hollow was acquired for US$128 million by an affiliate company of private equity firm Kinterra Capital, which plans to advance the assets.

    Proven and probable copper reserves at Pumpkin Hollow’s open pit project total 3.59 billion pounds from 385.7 million MT of ore with an average grade of 0.47 percent copper. The open pit is expected to produce an annual average of 163 million pounds of payable copper. Additionally, the underground mine is projected to produce 50 million pounds of payable copper annually once it is restarted.

    Resolution project

    Ownership:
    55% – Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO)
    45% – BHP Group (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP)
    State: Arizona
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Porphyry
    Commodities: Copper, molybdenum, silver

    The Resolution project has the potential to supply 25 percent of the total US copper demand, with planned production of 40 billion pounds of copper over its 40 year mine life.

    Permitting for the project has been underway for over a decade, and the US Forest Service published and then rescinded the project’s final environmental impact statement in early 2021. The local Apache Tribe has taken legal action to stop the proposed mine as the deposit sits under a site of religious importance.

    According to BHP’s 2024 annual report, the Resolution joint venture and the US Forest Service are focused on further consultation with Native American Tribes to mitigate harm to the region. The agency has said there is currently no timeline for republication of the final environmental impact statement. After Trump took office in January, Rio Tinto’s CEO said he is optimistic the president will grant Resolution’s final permits.

    On April 19, Resolution was included as one of the initial 10 projects for the federal government’s permitting transparency initiative. The program is designed to produce greater predictability in the permitting process. According to the federal page for the project, ‘a permitting timetable will be published for this project on or before May 2, 2025.’

    Santa Cruz project

    Ownership: Ivanhoe Electric (TSX:IE,NYSE:IE)
    State: Arizona
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Porphyry, breccia pipe/stockwork, vein/narrow vein
    Commodities: Copper

    The Santa Cruz copper project is located on private land in Arizona. It is designed to minimize environmental impact, with a small surface footprint and the use of modern technology and on-site renewable energy to supply up to 70 percent of its energy demand.

    A December 2022 mineral reserve estimate reported an indicated copper resource of 2.8 million MT of copper from 226.72 million MT of ore with an average grade of 1.24 percent copper, and an inferred resource of 1.85 million MT copper from 149 million MT at the same grade.

    Ivanhoe Electric is aggressively working through engineering design and permitting applications for the project. As of February 2025, it has received 10 permits or rights supporting exploration activities, land use conversion and land reclamation. The company plans to submit its major site plan, aquifer protection permits and encroachment permit in Q2.

    In April, the company received a letter of interest from the Export-Import Bank of the United States for potential debt financing of US$825 million. Ivanhoe is on track to release a prefeasibility study in June 2025, and it ‘anticipates permits will be received and initial construction activities will begin in the first half of 2026.’

    Tamarack North project

    Ownership:
    51% – Talon Metals (TSX:TLO,OTC Pink:TLOFF)
    49% – Rio Tinto
    State: Minnesota
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Porphyry
    Commodities: Nickel, copper, cobalt, platinum, palladium, gold

    Tamarack is one of only three high-grade nickel sulfide deposits discovered in this century. Due to its significance, the US Department of Energy has selected it to receive a US$114.8 million grant for the construction of a battery mineral processing facility.

    Despite its nickel primary status, the project will produce 24,000 MT of copper concentrate annually as a by-product material from an indicated resource of 8.56 million MT of ore grading 0.92 percent copper. Talon currently plans to begin construction in 2026, with production beginning in late 2027.

    Twin Metals Minnesota project

    Ownership: Antofagasta (LSE:ANTO,OTC Pink:ANFGF)
    State: Minnesota
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Magmatic
    Commodities: Copper, nickel, platinum, palladium, gold, silver, cobalt, lead

    Twin Metals Minnesota’s development is currently on hold after hitting multiple roadblocks, including the rejection of its mine plan and cancelling of two federal mining leases due to concerns tailings from the mine will impact the Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

    In 2022, Antofagasta’s subsidiary Twin Metals engaged in litigation against the US government over the actions, and in September 2023, the district court dismissed the company’s claims, siding with the government. Twin Metals filed an appeal in November of that year.

    If approved, the mine is expected to produce 158,000 MT of copper annually. The company said it is studying the possible impact of Trump’s executive order.

    Van Dyke project

    Ownership: Copper Fox Metals (TSXV:CUU,OTCQX:CPFXF)
    State: Arizona
    Mine type: In-situ
    Deposit type: Porphyry, breccia pipe/stockwork, vein/narrow vein
    Commodities: Copper

    The Van Dyke project covers a project area of 531.5 hectares and hosts historical mine workings, which produced 11.5 million pounds of copper between 1929 and 1945 and an additional 5 million pounds between 1988 and 1989.

    In a 2020 PEA, Copper Fox reported an after-tax net present value of US$644.7 million, an internal rate of return of 43.4 percent and a payback period of 2.1 years. The company forecasts a mine life of 17 years and annual average copper production of 85 million pounds. Copper Fox is currently advancing the project towards a pre-feasibility study.

    White Pine North project

    Ownership:
    66% – Kinterra Capital
    34% – Highland Copper
    State: Michigan
    Mine type: Underground
    Deposit type: Sediment-hosted
    Commodities: Copper, silver

    Kinterra Capital is the operator of White Pine North as of 2023, when Highland sold it 66 percent of the project. In June 2024, the company initiated an environmental baseline study for White Pine North that would be key to supporting its ongoing permitting operations. Using room-and-pillar mining, the partners plan to use begin production at the first panel in 2027 and expect a four-year ramp-up to full plant throughput.

    The project hosts a measured and indicated copper resource of 3.5 billion pounds from 133.4 MT of ore with an average grade of 1.05 percent copper and an additional inferred copper resource of 2.18 billion pounds from 97.2 MT of ore with an average grade of 1.03 percent. Average annual payable copper metal production is projected at 94 million pounds.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, own shares of Northern Dynasty.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    The Trump administration has fast tracked the permitting of 10 US mining projects under the FAST-41 infrastructure initiative, escalating the government’s strategy of bolstering domestic minerals output and reducing foreign reliance.

    The announcement, made on April 18 by the White House and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council), comes in direct response to President Donald Trump’s executive order, which mandates swift and accountable action to facilitate the development of the nation’s vast mineral reserves.

    “This is the first use of the Permitting Council’s transparency authority, and we look forward to showcasing the many benefits the Federal Permitting Dashboard can bring to critical infrastructure projects,” said Manisha Patel, acting executive director at the Permitting Council.

    The ten projects, which include sites for lithium, copper, antimony, phosphate, potash, and metallurgical coal, have been formally granted FAST-41 status—a designation from the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that streamlines environmental reviews and interagency coordination for major infrastructure projects.

    The status does not exempt them from environmental regulations but aims to cut bureaucratic delays and improve transparency by publishing real-time permitting progress on a federal dashboard.

    Among the fast-tracked projects are:

    • McDermitt exploration project in Oregon — HiTech Minerals
    • Caldwell Canyon phosphate mine in Idaho
    • Lisbon Valley copper project in Utah
    • Michigan potash project
    • Libby exploration project in Montana

    While some of these projects are still in exploration or environmental assessment stages, their inclusion on the dashboard signals priority status.

    In practice, this means their permitting timelines will now be coordinated among relevant agencies and tracked publicly to reduce administrative redundancies that have historically delayed US mining ventures for up to a decade.

    The move underscores the Trump administration’s broader policy of “American Energy Dominance,” which includes securing domestic supply chains for critical materials used in electronics, electric vehicles, clean energy technologies, and military hardware.

    A recent Interior statement warned that continued dependence on imports—especially from geopolitical competitors like China—poses a threat to national security.

    “For too long, duplicative processes and regulatory paralysis have delayed the development of the minerals America needs to power everything from national defense systems to smartphones,” Adam Suess, Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the Department of the Interior, emphasized in the same release.

    “By cutting red tape and increasing accountability, we’re making it clear that under President Trump, the United States is serious about being a global leader in critical minerals,” Suess added.

    The designation also includes expansions to lithium projects, with Albemarle’s Silver Peak Mine in Nevada—currently the only operating lithium mine in the US—now poised for accelerated expansion.

    The focus on lithium, antimony, copper, and rare earth elements comes as the US seeks to diversify supply away from China, which currently dominates the global trade in many of these strategic materials.

    Furthermore, the announcement follows President Trump’s directive earlier this month to launch a federal probe into possible new tariffs on all critical mineral imports, signaling a more aggressive stance toward reshoring key elements of the nation’s industrial supply chain.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    The oil sector faced volatility throughout the first quarter of 2025.

    Concerns around weak demand, increasing supply and trade tensions came to head in early April, pushing oil prices to four year lows and eroding the support Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) had above the US$65 per barrel level.

    Starting the year at US$75 (Brent) and US$72 (WTI), the oil benchmarks rallied in mid-January, reaching five month highs of US$81.86 and US$78.90, respectively. Tariff threats and trade tensions between the US and China, along with soft demand in Asia and Europe, dampened the global economic outlook for 2025 and added headwinds for oil prices.

    This pressure caused oil prices to slip to Q1 lows of US$69.12 (Brent) and US$66.06 (WTI) in early March.

    “The macroeconomic conditions that underpin our oil demand projections deteriorated over the past month as trade tensions escalated between the United States and several other countries,” a March oil market report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) notes, highlighting the downside risks of US tariffs and retaliatory measures.

    The instability and weaker-than-expected consumption from advanced and developing economies prompted the IEA to downgrade its growth estimates for Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 to about 1.2 million barrels per day.

    Despite the uncertain outlook, an announcement that OPEC+ would extend a 2.2 million barrel per day production cut into Q2 added some support to the market amid global growth concerns and rising output in the US.

    Prices spiked at the end of March, pushing both benchmarks to within a dollar of their 2025 start values. However, the rally was short-lived and prices had plummeted by April 9.

    Oil prices fall as OPEC hikes output and supply risks mount

    WTI price performance, December 31, 2024, to April 23, 2025.

    Sinking to four year lows, Brent and WTI fell below the critical US$60 per barrel threshold, to US$58.62 (Brent) and US$55.38 (WTI), lows not seen since April 2021. The decline saw prices shed more than 21 percent between January and April shaking the market and investor confidence.

    Watch Hansen discuss where oil and other commodities are heading.

    According to Hansen, if prices remain in the high US$50 range US production will likely decrease, aiding in a broader market realignment. ‘Eventually we will see production start to slow in the US, probably other places as well, and that will help balance the market,” the expert explained in the interview. “Helping to offset some of the risk related to recession, but also some of the production increases that we’re seeing from OPEC.”

    In early April, OPEC+ did an about face when it announced plans for a significant increase in oil production, marking its first output hike since 2022. The group plans to add 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) to the market starting in May, effectively accelerating its previously gradual supply increase strategy.

    Although the group cited “supporting market stability” as the reasoning behind the increase, some analysts believe the decision is a punitive one targeted at countries like Iraq and Kazakhstan who consistently exceed production quotas.

    “(The increase) is basically in order to punish some of the over producers,” said Hansen. He went on to explain that Kazakhstan produced 400,000 barrels beyond its quota.

    If these countries return to their agreed limits, it could offset OPEC’s planned production hikes.

    At the same time, US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela may tighten global supply further, while a growing military presence in the Middle East also signals rising geopolitical risks, particularly involving Iran.

    Oil price forecast for 2025

    As such Hansen expects prices to fluctuate between US$60 to US$80 for the rest of the year.

    “(I am) struggling to see, prices collapse much further than that, simply because it will have a counterproductive impact on supply and that will eventually help stabilize prices,” said Hansen.

    Hansen’s projections also fall inline with data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The organization downgraded the US$74 Brent price forecast it set in March to US$68 in April.

    The EIA foresees US and global oil production to continue rising in 2025, as OPEC+ speeds up its planned output increases and US energy remains exempt from new tariffs.

    Starting mid-year, global oil inventories are projected to build. However, the EIA warns that economic uncertainty could dampen demand growth for petroleum products, potentially falling short of earlier forecasts.

    “The combination of growing supply and lower demand leads EIA to expect the Brent crude oil price to average less than US$70 per barrel in 2025 and fall to an average of just over US$60 per barrel in 2026,” the April report read.

    Supply concerns add tailwinds for natural gas

    On the natural gas side, Q1 was marked by tight conditions amid rising demand. A colder-than-normal winter led to increased consumption, with US natural gas withdrawals in Q1 exceeding the five-year average.

    Starting the year at US$3.59 per metric million British thermal units, prices rose to a year-to-date high of US$4.51 on March 10. Values pulled back by the end of the 90 day period to the US$4.09 level, registering a 13.9 percent increase for Q1.

    ‘Cold weather during January and February led to increased natural gas consumption and large natural gas withdrawals from inventories,” a March report from the EIA explains.

    Natural gas price performance, December 31, 2024, to April 23, 2025.

    “(The) EIA now expects natural gas inventories to fall below 1.7 trillion cubic feet at the end of March, which is 10 percent below the previous five-year average and 6 percent less natural gas in storage for that time of year than EIA had expected last month,’ the document continues.

    Natural gas price forecast for 2025

    Following record setting demand growth in 2024 the gas market is expected to remain tight through 2025, amid market expansion from Asian countries.

    The IEA also pointed to price volatility brought on geopolitical tensions as a factor that could move markets.

    “Though the halt of Russian piped gas transit via Ukraine on 1 January 2025 does not pose an imminent supply security risk for the European Union, it could increase LNG import requirements and tighten market fundamentals in 2025,” the organization notes in a gas market report for Q1.

    Although the market is forecasted to remain tight the IEA expects growth in global gas demand to slow to below 2 percent in 2025. Similarly to 2024’s trajectory, growth is set to be largely driven by Asia, which is expected to account for almost 45 percent of incremental gas demand, the report read.

    THe US-based EIA has a more optimistic outlook for the domestic gas sector, projecting the annual demand growth rate to be 4 percent for 2025.

    “This increase is led by an 18 percent increase in exports and a 9 percent increase in residential and commercial consumption for space heating,” an April EIA market overview states.

    The report attributes the expected export growth to increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments out of two new LNG export facilities, Plaquemines Phase 1 and Golden Pass LNG.

    Venture Global’s (NYSE:VG) Plaquemines LNG facility in Louisiana commenced production in December 2024 and is currently in the commissioning phase.

    Once fully operational, it is expected to have a capacity of 20 million metric tons per annum. The facility has entered into binding long-term sales agreements for its full capacity

    Golden Pass LNG, a joint venture between ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) and state-owned QatarEnergy, is under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas. The project has faced delays due to the bankruptcy of a key contractor, with Train 1 now expected to be operational by late 2025 . Upon completion, Golden Pass LNG will have an export capacity of up to 18.1 million metric tons per annum.

    The EIA forecasts natural gas prices to average US$4.30 in 2025, a US$2.10 increase from 2025. Farther ahead the EIA has a more modest forecast of US$4.60 for 2026.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    Keep reading…Show less
    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Coelacanth Energy Inc. (TSXV: CEI) (‘Coelacanth’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce its 2024 year-end reserves as independently evaluated by GLJ Ltd. (‘GLJ’) effective December 31, 2024 (the ‘GLJ Report’ or the ‘Report’), in accordance with National Instrument 51-101 (‘NI 51-101’) and the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation (‘COGE’) Handbook. All dollar figures are Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

    Introduction

    During 2024, Coelacanth drilled an additional 3 Lower Montney wells on its 5-19 pad and started the construction of pipelines and facilities to allow for the production of all 9 wells on the 5-19 pad to come on production in Q2 2025. The 9 wells consist of 7 Lower Montney wells, 1 Upper Montney well and 1 Basal Montney well that have tested over 11,000 boe/d (flush production) (1). On completion of phase 1 of the facility in May 2025, Coelacanth will have capacity to produce 30.0 mmcf/d of gas plus the concurrent oil production for a combined capacity of approximately 7,500-8,000 boe/d. Phase 2 (adding compression) is scheduled for Q4 2025 and will double capacity.

    Coelacanth almost doubled its reserves from 2023 while still only having recognized reserves on less than 10% of its 150 section Montney land block at Two Rivers. A total of 23 combined wells and locations are included in the Report comprised of 13 drilled and completed Montney wells plus 10 Montney undeveloped locations. The 13 existing wells include 8 Lower Montney wells, 4 Upper Montney wells, and 1 Basal Montney well. All 10 undeveloped locations booked were Lower Montney leaving potential to book additional Upper and Basal Montney wells on the same lands. Coelacanth believes it has been conservative in its bookings and, over time, will be able to expand the current reserve base to cover a greater portion of the land base.

    The Report includes a total of $148.3 million of future development capital (‘FDC’) of which $33.5 million is in Jan-May of 2025 for phase 1 of the facility. By the end of May, the capital for phase 1 of the facility will have been spent and all of the proved developed non-producing and probable developed non-producing reserves will change to producing status. These adjustments will have a material effect on the Report given the FDC for phase 1 of the facility will be removed (thereby increasing the overall value) and the producing portion of the Report will increase dramatically with wells coming on production. Coelacanth is planning to engage GLJ to provide a mid-year update of the Report to better illustrate the magnitude of the changes.

    Coelacanth’s business plan for the Two Rivers Montney Project includes:

    • Delineating and establishing production on multiple Montney zones over its extensive land base.
    • Accelerating production through pad drilling once initial infrastructure is complete.
    • Licensing and constructing additional facilities and pipelines to process future production additions.

    Coelacanth is currently:

    • Finalizing the construction of Two Rivers East facility to accommodate the 5-19 pad production.
    • Licensing additional pads for future development.
    • Completing a third-party resource study to aid in well spacing and completion design as well as future delineation.
    • Completing a detailed review of Two Rivers for well development and future infrastructure requirements.

    Coelacanth is excited to initiate its business plan to systematically develop the property, establish the ultimate reserve recoveries and move the established recoverable resource from land to its established producing reserve base.

    Reserve Highlights

    Coelacanth is pleased to report material increases in both reserves and value:

    • Increased Total Proved plus Probable reserves by 95% to 27.5 million boe from 14.1 million boe.
    • Increased Total Proved reserves by 63% to 17.1 million boe from 10.5 million boe.
    • Increased Total Proved plus Probable Reserve value (net present value before taxes, discounted at 10%) by 155% to $239.6 million from $93.9 million.

    Notes:
    (1) See ‘Test Results and Initial Production Rates’.

    Reserves Summary

    Coelacanth’s December 31, 2024 reserves as prepared by GLJ effective December 31, 2024 and based on the GLJ (2025-01) future price forecast are as follows: (1,4)

    Working Interest Reserves (2) Tight Oil
    (Mbbl)
    Shale
    Natural Gas
    (Mmcf)
    NGLs
    (Mbbl)
    Total Oil Equivalent
    (Mboe) (3)
    Proved
    Producing 344 8,097 150 1,843
    Developed non-producing 1,874 38,862 720 9,071
    Undeveloped 1,137 27,324 506 6,197
    Total proved 3,355 74,283 1,376 17,111
    Probable 2,154 44,543 825 10,403
    Total proved & probable 5,509 118,826 2,201 27,515

     

    Notes:
    (1) Numbers may not add due to rounding.
    (2) ‘Working Interest’ or ‘Gross’ reserves means Coelacanth’s working interest (operating and non-operating) share before deduction of royalties and without including any royalty interest of Coelacanth.
    (3) Oil equivalent amounts have been calculated using a conversion rate of six thousand cubic feet of natural gas to one barrel of oil.
    (4) Disclosure of Net reserves are included in Company’s Annual Information Form (‘AIF’) dated April 23, 2025 filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca. ‘Net’ reserves means Coelacanth’s working interest (operated and non-operated) share after deduction of royalties, plus Coelacanth’s royalty interest in reserves.

    Reserves Values

    The estimated future net revenues before taxes associated with Coelacanth’s reserves effective December 31, 2024 and based on the GLJ (2025-01) future price forecast are summarized in the following table: (1,2,3,4)

    Discount factor per year
    ($000s) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
    Proved
    Producing 21,615 17,655 14,827 12,765 11,220
    Developed non-producing 131,346 97,179 74,105 57,825 45,878
    Undeveloped 93,068 63,389 44,903 32,689 24,196
    Total proved 246,030 178,224 133,834 103,279 81,294
    Probable 221,362 147,285 105,806 80,431 63,701
    Total proved & probable 467,391 325,509 239,640 183,710 144,995

     

    Notes:
    (1) Numbers may not add due to rounding.
    (2) The estimated future net revenues are stated prior to provision for interest, debt service charges or general administrative expenses and after deduction of royalties, operating costs, estimated well abandonment and reclamation costs and estimated future capital expenditures.
    (3) The estimated future net revenue contained in the table does not necessarily represent the fair market value of the reserves. There is no assurance that the forecast price and cost assumptions contained in the GLJ Report will be attained and variations could be material. The recovery and reserve estimates described herein are estimates only. Actual reserves may be greater or less than those calculated.
    (4) The after-tax present values of future net revenue attributed to Coelacanth’s reserves are included in Company’s AIF dated April 23, 2025 filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

    Price Forecast

    The GLJ (2025-01) price forecast is as follows:

    Year WTI Oil @ Cushing
    ($US / Bbl)
    Edmonton Light Oil
    ($Cdn / Bbl)
    AECO Natural Gas
    ($Cdn / Mmbtu)
    Chicago Natural Gas
    ($US / Mmbtu)
    Foreign Exchange
    (Cdn$/US$)
    2025 71.25 91.33 2.05 2.79 0.7050
    2026 73.50 93.32 3.00 3.70 0.7300
    2027 76.00 96.45 3.50 4.01 0.7500
    2028 78.53 99.82 4.00 4.10 0.7500
    2029 80.10 101.80 4.08 4.18 0.7500
    2030 81.70 103.84 4.16 4.27 0.7500
    2031 83.34 105.92 4.24 4.35 0.7500
    2032 85.00 108.04 4.33 4.45 0.7500
    2033 86.70 110.20 4.41 4.54 0.7500
    2034 88.44 112.40 4.50 4.63 0.7500
    Escalate thereafter (1) 2.0% per year 2.0% per year 2.0% per year 2.0% per year

     

    Note:
    (1) Escalated at two per cent per year starting in 2034 in the January 1, 2025 GLJ price forecast with the exception of foreign exchange, which remains flat.

    Reserve Life Index (‘RLI’)

    Coelacanth’s RLI presented below is based on estimated Q4 2024 average production of 1,084 boe per day.

    Reserve Category RLI
    Proved plus Probable Reserves 69.0
    Proved Reserves 42.9

     

    Reserves Reconciliation

    The following summary reconciliation of Coelacanth’s working interest reserves compares changes in the Company’s reserves as at December 31, 2024 to the reserves as at December 31, 2023 based on the GLJ (2025-01) future price forecast: (1,2)

    Total Proved Tight Oil  Shale
    Natural Gas 
    NGLs  Total Oil
    Equivalent
      (Mbbl) (Mmcf)  (Mbbl) (Mboe) (3)
    Opening balance          2,291       44,784         720       10,475
    Discoveries                       –                    –                          –                  –
    Extensions and improved recovery            1,212              27,468                 509          6,298
    Technical revisions                 (28)             3,663              173         756
    Acquisitions               –                  –                         –                    –
    Dispositions                    –                    –                            –                           –
    Economic factors              (15)            (297)               (1)              (66)
    Production                    (105)            (1,335)                (24)           (352)
    Closing balance           3,355               74,283           1,376           17,111
             
             
    Proved plus Probable Tight Oil Shale
    Natural Gas
    NGLs Total Oil
    Equivalent
      (Mbbl) (Mmcf) (Mbbl) (Mboe) (3)
    Opening balance            3,038      60,432                970            14,080
    Discoveries                 –                     –             –                       –
    Extensions and improved recovery            2,599               56,330              1,043         13,031
    Technical revisions               (9)              3,734                 213                     825
    Acquisitions                      –               –                 –                      –
    Dispositions                      –                         –         –                   –
    Economic factors             (13)              (334)                       –             (69)
    Production            (105)         (1,335)                   (24)          (352)
    Closing balance       5,509         118,826          2,201         27,515​

     

    Notes:
    (1) Numbers may not add due to rounding.
    (2) ‘Working Interest’ or ‘Gross’ reserves means Coelacanth’s working interest (operating and non-operating) share before deduction of royalties and without including any royalty interest of Coelacanth.
    (3) Oil equivalent amounts have been calculated using a conversion rate of six thousand cubic feet of natural gas to one barrel of oil.

    Capital Expenditures

    Capital allocation by category is as follows:

           
    ($000s) 2024 2023 2022
    Undeveloped land                   765                  1,006          1,164
    Acquisitions             765            1,006              1,164
           
    Drilling and completion            38,353           61,274              9,009
    Facilities and related infrastructure            44,935          12,094         3,689
    Geological, geophysical  and other             444             239              42
    Exploration and development expenditures          83,732          73,607              12,740
           
    Total capital expenditures    84,497   74,613      13,904

     

    Finding and Development Costs (‘F&D’) and Finding, Development and Acquisition Costs (‘FD&A’)

    Coelacanth has presented FD&A and F&D costs below:

       2024   2023  2022  3 Year Cumulative 
         Proved &
       Proved &    Proved &    Proved &
    ($000’s, except where noted)  Proved  Probable  Proved  Probable  Proved  Probable  Proved  Probable
                     
                     
    Exploration and development expenditures      83,732      83,732      73,607      73,607      12,740      12,740   170,079   170,079
    Change in FDC (1)      (1,713)      30,469      90,598      77,759      11,400      33,748   100,285   141,976
    F&D costs       82,019   114,201   164,205   151,366      24,140      46,488   270,364   312,055
    Acquisitions           765           765        1,006        1,006        1,164        1,164        2,935        2,935
    FD&A costs       82,784   114,966   165,211   152,372      25,304      47,652   273,299   314,990
                     
    Reserve Additions (Mboe) (2)                
    Exploration and development        6,989      13,789        8,637        9,784        1,169        3,400      16,795      26,973
    Acquisitions                 –                 –                 –                 –                 –                 –                 –                 –
             6,989      13,789        8,637        9,784        1,169        3,400      16,795      26,973
                     
    F&D costs ($/boe)        11.74          8.28        19.01        15.47        20.65        13.67        16.10        11.57
    FD&A costs ($/boe)        11.84          8.34        19.13        15.57        21.65        14.02        16.27        11.68

     

    Notes:
    (1) Future development capital (‘FDC’) expenditures required to recover reserves estimated by GLJ. The aggregate of the exploration and development costs incurred in the most recent financial period and the change during that period in estimated future development costs generally may not reflect total finding and development costs related to reserve additions for that period.
    (2) Sum of extensions and improved recovery, technical revisions and economic factors in the reserves reconciliation included above.

    For Coelacanth’s full NI 51-101 disclosure related to its 2024 year-end reserves please refer to the Company’s AIF dated April 23, 2025 filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

    Forward-Looking Information

    This news release contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘should’, ‘believe’, ‘intends’, ‘forecast’, ‘plans’, ‘guidance’ and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements or information.

    More particularly and without limitation, this document contains forward-looking statements and information relating to the Company’s oil, NGLs and natural gas production and reserves and reserves values, capital programs, and oil, NGLs, and natural gas commodity prices. The forward-looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by the Company, including expectations and assumptions relating to prevailing commodity prices and exchange rates, applicable royalty rates and tax laws, future well production rates, the performance of existing wells, the success of drilling new wells, the availability of capital to undertake planned activities and the availability and cost of labor and services.

    Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements and information are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Since forward-looking statements and information address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks. These include, but are not limited to, the risks associated with the oil and gas industry in general such as operational risks in development, exploration and production, delays or changes in plans with respect to exploration or development projects or capital expenditures, the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to production rates, costs and expenses, commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations, marketing and transportation, environmental risks, competition, the ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources and changes in tax, royalty and environmental legislation. The forward-looking statements and information contained in this document are made as of the date hereof for the purpose of providing the readers with the Company’s expectations for the coming year. The forward-looking statements and information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws.

    Reserves Data

    There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of tight oil, shale gas, and NGLs reserves and the future cash flows attributed to such reserves. The reserve and associated cash flow information set forth above are estimates only. In general, estimates of economically recoverable tight oil, shale gas, and NGLs reserves and the future net cash flows therefrom are based upon a number of variable factors and assumptions, such as historical production from the properties, production rates, ultimate reserve recovery, timing and amount of capital expenditures, marketability of oil and natural gas, royalty rates, the assumed effects of regulation by governmental agencies and future operating costs, all of which may vary materially.

    Individual properties may not reflect the same confidence level as estimates of reserves for all properties due to the effects of aggregation.

    This news release contains estimates of the net present value of the Company’s future net revenue from its reserves. Such amounts do not represent the fair market value of the Company’s reserves.

    The reserves data contained in this news release has been prepared in accordance with National Instrument 51-101 (‘NI 51-101’). The reserve data provided in this news release presents only a portion of the disclosure required under NI 51-101. All of the required information will be contained in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

    Reserves are estimated remaining quantities of oil and natural gas and related substances anticipated to be recoverable from known accumulations, as of a given date, based on the analysis of drilling, geological, geophysical and engineering data; the use of established technology, and specified economic conditions, which are generally accepted as being reasonable. Reserves are classified according to the degree of certainty associated with the estimates as follows:

    • Proved Reserves are those reserves that can be estimated with a high degree of certainty to be recoverable. It is likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will exceed the estimated proved reserves.

    • Probable Reserves are those additional reserves that are less certain to be recovered than proved reserves. It is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater or less than the sum of the estimated proved plus probable reserves.

    Industry Metrics

    This news release contains metrics commonly used in the oil and natural gas industry. Each of these metrics is determined by the Company as set out below or elsewhere in this news release. These metrics are ‘F&D costs’, ‘FD&A costs’, and ‘reserve-life index’. These metrics do not have standardized meanings and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. As such, they should not be used to make comparisons.

    Management uses these oil and gas metrics for its own performance measurements and to provide shareholders with measures to compare the Company’s performance over time, however, such measures are not reliable indicators of the Company’s future performance and future performance may not compare to the performance in previous periods.

    ‘F&D costs’ are calculated by dividing the sum of the total capital expenditures for the year (in dollars) by the change in reserves within the applicable reserves category (in boe). F&D costs, including FDC, includes all capital expenditures in the year as well as the change in FDC required to bring the reserves within the specified reserves category on production.

    ‘FD&A costs’ are calculated by dividing the sum of the total capital expenditures for the year inclusive of the net acquisition costs and disposition proceeds (in dollars) by the change in reserves within the applicable reserves category inclusive of changes due to acquisitions and dispositions (in boe). FD&A costs, including FDC, includes all capital expenditures in the year inclusive of the net acquisition costs and disposition proceeds as well as the change in FDC required to bring the reserves within the specified reserves category on production.

    The Company uses F&D and FD&A as a measure of the efficiency of its overall capital program including the effect of acquisitions and dispositions. The aggregate of the exploration and development costs incurred in the most recent financial year and the change during that year in estimated future development costs generally will not reflect total finding and development costs related to reserves additions for that year.

    ‘Reserve life index’ or ‘RLI’ is calculated by dividing the reserves (in boe) in the referenced category by the latest quarter of production (in boe) annualized. The Company uses this measure to determine how long the booked reserves will last at current production rates if no further reserves were added.

    BOE Conversions

    BOE’s may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A BOE conversion ratio of 6 Mcf: 1 Bbl is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead.

    Abbreviations

    Bbl barrel
    Mbbl thousands of barrels
    MMbtu millions of British thermal units
    Mcf thousand cubic feet
    MMcf million cubic feet
    NGLs natural gas liquids
    BOE barrel of oil equivalent
    MBOE thousands of barrels of oil equivalent
    WTI West Texas Intermediate at Cushing, Oklahoma

     

    Test Results and Initial Production Rates

    The 5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 9.4 days and produced at an average rate of 377 bbl/d oil and 2,202 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The A5-19 Basal Montney well was production tested for 5.9 days and produced at an average rate of 117 bbl/d oil and 630 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The B5-19 Upper Montney well was production tested for 6.3 days and produced at an average rate of 92 bbl/d oil and 2,100 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The C5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 5.8 days and produced at an average rate of 736 bbl/d oil and 2,660 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The D5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 12.6 days and produced at an average rate of 170 bbl/d oil and 580 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The E5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 11.4 days and produced at an average rate of 312 bbl/d oil and 890 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure was stable, and production was starting to decline.

    The F5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 4.9 days and produced at an average rate of 728 bbl/d oil and 1,607 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The G5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 7.1 days and produced at an average rate of 415 bbl/d oil and 1,489 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The H5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 8.1 days and produced at an average rate of 411 bbl/d oil and 1,166 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure was stable and production was starting to decline.

    A pressure transient analysis or well-test interpretation has not been carried out on these nine wells and thus certain of the test results provided herein should be considered to be preliminary until such analysis or interpretation has been completed. Test results and initial production rates disclosed herein, particularly those short in duration, may not necessarily be indicative of long-term performance or of ultimate recovery.

    Any references to peak rates, test rates, IP30, IP90, IP180 or initial production rates or declines are useful for confirming the presence of hydrocarbons, however, such rates and declines are not determinative of the rates at which such wells will continue production and decline thereafter and are not indicative of long-term performance or ultimate recovery. IP30 is defined as an average production rate over 30 consecutive days, IP90 is defined as an average production rate over 90 consecutive days and IP180 is defined as an average production rate over 180 consecutive days. Readers are cautioned not to place reliance on such rates in calculating aggregate production for the Company.

    For further information, please contact:

    Coelacanth Energy Inc.
    2110, 530 – 8th Ave SW
    Calgary, Alberta T2P 3S8
    Phone: (403) 705-4525
    www.coelacanth.ca

    Robert Zakresky
    President and Chief Executive Officer

    Nolan Chicoine
    Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

    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.

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249585

    News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Coelacanth Energy Inc. (TSXV: CEI) (‘Coelacanth’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce its financial and operating results for the three months and year ended December 31, 2024. All dollar figures are Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

    2024 HIGHLIGHTS

    • Drilled and completed three Lower Montney wells and completed a previously drilled Upper Montney well on its 5-19 pad at Two Rivers East. Average test production from the three Lower Montney wells was 1,624 boe/d (61% light oil) and test production from the Upper Montney well was 1,338 boe/d (54% light oil). (2)
    • Secured revolving bank credit facilities for a total of $52.0 million from a Canadian chartered bank.
    • Substantially completed construction of pipelines to connect the 5-19 pad wells to the Two Rivers East facility.
    • Initiated construction of its Two Rivers East facility for a Q2 2025 on-stream date.
    FINANCIAL RESULTS Three Months Ended Year Ended
      December 31 December 31
    ($000s, except per share amounts)  2024  2023  % Change  2024  2023  % Change  
                 
    Oil and natural gas sales 4,544 4,204 8 13,736 6,663 106
                 
    Cash flow from (used in) operating activities 3,157 (404 ) (881 ) 2,203 (4,234 ) (152 )
    Per share – basic and diluted (1) 0.01 (-) (100 ) (0.01 ) (100 )
                 
    Adjusted funds flow (used) (1) 382 1,750 (78 ) 1,515 (333 ) (555 )
    Per share – basic and diluted (-) (-)
                 
    Net loss (2,903 ) (750 ) 287 (8,897 ) (6,573 ) 35
    Per share – basic and diluted (0.01 ) (-) 100 (0.02 ) (0.01 ) 100
                 
    Capital expenditures (1) 64,952 34,656 87 84,497 74,613 13
                 
    Adjusted working capital (deficiency) (1)       (18,637 ) 67,589 (128 )
                 
    Common shares outstanding (000s)            
    Weighted average – basic and diluted 530,398 478,731 11 529,804 439,055 21
                 
    End of period – basic       530,670 528,650
    End of period – fully diluted       615,930 609,989 1  

     

    (1) See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures’ section.
    (2) See ‘Test Results and Initial Production Rates’ section.

      Three Months Ended Year Ended
    OPERATING RESULTS (1) December 31 December 31
       2024  2023  % Change  2024  2023  % Change  
                 
    Daily production (2)            
    Oil and condensate (bbls/d) 473 419 13 320 139 130
    Other NGLs (bbls/d) 29 28 4 34 16 113  
    Oil and NGLs (bbls/d) 502 447 12 354 155 128
    Natural gas (mcf/d) 3,490 2,858 22 3,648 1,624 125  
    Oil equivalent (boe/d) 1,084 923 17 962 426 126
                 
    Oil and natural gas sales            
    Oil and condensate ($/bbl) 87.06 87.38 (-) 89.46 88.94 1
    Other NGLs ($/bbl) 33.28 32.32 3 33.22 33.22  
    Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 83.97 83.88 83.99 83.28 1
    Natural gas ($/mcf) 2.07 2.86 (28 ) 2.14 3.26 (34 )
    Oil equivalent ($/boe) 45.57 49.47 (8 ) 39.01 42.82 (9 )
                 
    Royalties            
    Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 16.86 19.38 (13 ) 18.70 20.24 (8 )
    Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.13 0.26 (50 ) 0.21 0.57 (63 )
    Oil equivalent ($/boe) 8.22 10.20 (19 ) 7.66 9.57 (20 )
                 
    Operating expenses            
    Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 8.34 11.57 (28 ) 9.47 13.25 (29 )
    Natural gas ($/mcf) 1.25 1.28 (2 ) 1.58 2.21 (29 )
    Oil equivalent ($/boe) 7.88 9.57 (18 ) 9.47 13.25 (29 )
                 
    Net transportation expenses (3)            
    Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 5.54 4.95 12 3.46 4.10 (16 )
    Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.76 0.81 (6 ) 0.73 1.12 (35 )
    Oil equivalent ($/boe) 5.01 4.92 2 4.04 5.75 (30 )
                 
    Operating netback (loss) (3)            
    Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 53.23 47.98 11 52.36 45.69 15
    Natural gas ($/mcf) (0.07 ) 0.51 (114 ) (0.38 ) (0.64 ) (41 )
    Oil equivalent ($/boe) 24.46 24.78 (1 ) 17.84 14.25 25
                 
    Depletion and depreciation ($/boe) (10.76 ) (12.18 ) (12 ) (13.59 ) (14.93 ) (9 )
    General and administrative expenses ($/boe) (15.46 ) (10.77 ) 44 (14.34 ) (27.08 ) (47 )
    Share based compensation ($/boe) (7.08 ) (16.31 ) (57 ) (11.12 ) (23.49 ) (53 )
    Loss on lease termination ($/boe) (2.02 ) 100 (0.57 ) 100
    Finance expense ($/boe) (18.02 ) (1.28 ) 1,308 (6.33 ) (3.09 ) 105
    Finance income ($/boe) 3.65 10.01 (64 ) 8.23 18.75 (56 )
    Unutilized transportation ($/boe) (3.88 ) (3.08 ) 26 (5.37 ) (6.65 ) (19 )
    Net loss ($/boe) (29.11 ) (8.83 ) 230 (25.25 ) (42.24 ) (40 )

     

    (1) See ‘Oil and Gas Terms’ section.
    (2) See ‘Product Types’ section.
    (3) See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures’ section.

    Selected financial and operational information outlined in this news release should be read in conjunction with Coelacanth’s audited financial statements and related Management’s Discussion and Analysis (‘MD&A’) for the year ended December 31, 2024, which are available for review under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

    OPERATIONS UPDATE

    In Q4 2024, Coelacanth achieved two more significant milestones in its vision of moving the Two Rivers Montney Project from a large Montney land block to a proven resource with decades of inventory.

    In 2022 and 2023, Coelacanth was able to prove productivity in the Lower Montney over a significant portion of lands at Two Rivers that allowed for the decision to build-out infrastructure and to continue pad drilling at Two Rivers East. During 2024, Coelacanth completed the licensing phase of the infrastructure and started construction while also continuing to develop the Montney resource.

    In Q4 2024, Coelacanth was able to substantially complete all pipelines required for its 5-19 pad that connected it from the pad to the future facility and then on to a midstream gathering system. Concurrently, Coelacanth completed a successful Upper Montney well at Two Rivers East and changed the completion design in the Lower Montney on the 5-19 pad. The Upper Montney completion proved significant productivity (previously announced test rate of 1,136 boe/d) (1) in a zone that can be mapped over a significant portion of Coelacanth’s lands and should materially increase drilling inventory. The new Lower Montney completions yielded increased overall test rates as well as increasing the oil percentage (3-well average test rates previously announced at 1,624 boe/d with 61% light oil) (1) pointing to potentially higher per-well recoveries of oil and gas and corresponding per-well values than previously estimated.

    Construction of the facility continued throughout Q1 2025 and is now substantially complete. With 9 wells and over 11,000 boe/d (1) of test production waiting on completion of the facility, we anticipate yet another major milestone will be reached imminently. We look forward to reporting updates on the Two Rivers East project as new developments arise.

    (1) See ‘Test Results and Initial Production Rates’ section for more details.

    OIL AND GAS TERMS

    The Company uses the following frequently recurring oil and gas industry terms in the news release:

    Liquids
    Bbls Barrels
    Bbls/d Barrels per day
    NGLs Natural gas liquids (includes condensate, pentane, butane, propane, and ethane)
    Condensat Pentane and heavier hydrocarbons
       
    Natural Gas
    Mcf Thousands of cubic feet
    Mcf/d Thousands of cubic feet per day
    MMcf/d Millions of cubic feet per day
    MMbtu Million of British thermal units
    MMbtu/d Million of British thermal units per day
       
    Oil Equivalent
    Boe Barrels of oil equivalent
    Boe/d Barrels of oil equivalent per day

     

    Disclosure provided herein in respect of a boe may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A boe conversion rate of six thousand cubic feet of natural gas to one barrel of oil equivalent has been used for the calculation of boe amounts in the news release. This boe conversion rate is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead.

    NON-GAAP AND OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES

    This news release refers to certain measures that are not determined in accordance with IFRS (or ‘GAAP’). These non-GAAP and other financial measures do not have any standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other entities. The non-GAAP and other financial measures should not be considered alternatives to, or more meaningful than, financial measures that are determined in accordance with IFRS as indicators of the Company’s performance. Management believes that the presentation of these non-GAAP and other financial measures provides useful information to shareholders and investors in understanding and evaluating the Company’s ongoing operating performance, and the measures provide increased transparency to better analyze the Company’s performance against prior periods on a comparable basis.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    Adjusted funds flow (used)
    Management uses adjusted funds flow (used) to analyze performance and considers it a key measure as it demonstrates the Company’s ability to generate the cash necessary to fund future capital investments and abandonment obligations and to repay debt, if any. Adjusted funds flow (used) is a non-GAAP financial measure and has been defined by the Company as cash flow from (used in) operating activities excluding the change in non-cash working capital related to operating activities, movements in restricted cash deposits and expenditures on decommissioning obligations. Management believes the timing of collection, payment or incurrence of these items involves a high degree of discretion and as such may not be useful for evaluating the Company’s cash flows. Adjusted funds flow (used) is reconciled from cash flow from (used) in operating activities as follows:

      Three Months Ended Year Ended
      December 31 December 31
    ($000s)  2024  2023  2024  2023
    Cash flow from (used in) operating activities  3,157 (404 ) 2,203 (4,234 )
    Add (deduct):        
    Decommissioning expenditures 161 206 1,427 1,883
    Change in restricted cash deposits (5,361 ) (2,376 ) (784 )
    Change in non-cash working capital 2,425 1,948 261 2,802  
    Adjusted funds flow (used) (non-GAAP) 382 1,750 1,515 (333 )

     

    Net transportation expenses
    Management considers net transportation expenses an important measure as it demonstrates the cost of utilized transportation related to the Company’s production. Net transportation expenses is calculated as transportation expenses less unutilized transportation and is calculated as follows:

      Three Months Ended Year Ended
      December 31 December 31
    ($000s)  2024  2023  2024  2023  
    Transportation expenses 887 680 3,313 1,930
    Unutilized transportation (387 ) (262 ) (1,891 ) (1,035 )
    Net transportation expenses (non-GAAP) 500 418 1,422 895

     

    Operating netback
    Management considers operating netback an important measure as it demonstrates its profitability relative to current commodity prices. Operating netback is calculated as oil and natural gas sales less royalties, operating expenses, and net transportation expenses and is calculated as follows:

      Three Months Ended Year Ended
      December 31 December 31
    ($000s)  2024  2023  2024  2023
    Oil and natural gas sales 4,544 4,204 13,736 6,663
    Royalties (820 ) (866 ) (2,698 ) (1,489 )
    Operating expenses (786 ) (813 ) (3,335 ) (2,062 )
    Net transportation expenses (500 ) (418 ) (1,422 ) (895 )
    Operating netback (non-GAAP) 2,438 2,107 6,281 2,217

     

    Capital expenditures
    Coelacanth utilizes capital expenditures as a measure of capital investment on property, plant, and equipment, exploration and evaluation assets and property acquisitions compared to its annual budgeted capital expenditures. Capital expenditures are calculated as follows:

      Three Months Ended Year Ended
      December 31 December 31
    ($000s)  2024  2023  2024  2023
    Capital expenditures – property, plant, and equipment 233 4,584 1,206 26,928
    Capital expenditures – exploration and evaluation assets 64,719 30,072 83,291 47,685
    Capital expenditures (non-GAAP) 64,952 34,656 84,497 74,613

     

    Capital Management Measures

    Adjusted working capital (deficiency)
    Management uses adjusted working capital (deficiency) as a measure to assess the Company’s financial position. Adjusted working capital is calculated as current assets and restricted cash deposits less current liabilities, excluding the current portion of decommissioning obligations.

    ($000s)  December 31, 2024  December 31, 2023
    Current assets 11,579 87,616
    Less:     
    Current liabilities  (37,234 ) (28,754 )
    Working capital (deficiency)  (25,655 ) 58,862
    Add:     
    Restricted cash deposits 4,900 6,784
    Current portion of decommissioning obligations 2,118 1,943
    Adjusted working capital (deficiency) (Capital management measure) (18,637 ) 67,589

     

    Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

    Adjusted Funds Flow (Used) per share
    Adjusted funds flow (used) per share is a non-GAAP financial ratio, calculated using adjusted funds flow (used) and the same weighted average basic and diluted shares used in calculating net loss per share.

    Net transportation expenses per boe
    The Company utilizes net transportation expenses per boe to assess the per unit cost of utilized transportation related to the Company’s production. Net transportation expenses per boe is calculated as net transportation expenses divided by total production for the applicable period.

    Operating netback per boe
    The Company utilizes operating netback per boe to assess the operating performance of its petroleum and natural gas assets on a per unit of production basis. Operating netback per boe is calculated as operating netback divided by total production for the applicable period.

    Supplementary Financial Measures

    The supplementary financial measures used in this news release (primarily average sales price per product type and certain per boe and per share figures) are either a per unit disclosure of a corresponding GAAP measure, or a component of a corresponding GAAP measure, presented in the financial statements. Supplementary financial measures that are disclosed on a per unit basis are calculated by dividing the aggregate GAAP measure (or component thereof) by the applicable unit for the period. Supplementary financial measures that are disclosed on a component basis of a corresponding GAAP measure are a granular representation of a financial statement line item and are determined in accordance with GAAP.

    PRODUCT TYPES

    The Company uses the following references to sales volumes in the news release:

    Natural gas refers to shale gas.
    Oil and condensate refers to condensate and tight oil combined.
    Other NGLs refers to butane, propane and ethane combined.
    Oil and NGLs refers to tight oil and NGLs combined.
    Oil equivalent refers to the total oil equivalent of shale gas, tight oil, and NGLs combined, using the conversion rate of six thousand cubic feet of shale gas to one barrel of oil equivalent as described above.

    The following is a complete breakdown of sales volumes for applicable periods by specific product types of shale gas, tight oil, and NGLs:

      Three Months Ended Year Ended
      December 31 December 31
    Sales Volumes by Product Type  2024  2023 2024  2023
             
    Condensate (bbls/d) 22 12 32 7
    Other NGLs (bbls/d) 29 28 35 16
    NGLs (bbls/d) 51 40 67 23
             
    Tight oil (bbls/d) 451 407 287 132
    Condensate (bbls/d) 22 12 32 7
    Oil and condensate (bbls/d) 473 419 319 139
    Other NGLs (bbls/d) 29 28 35 16
    Oil and NGLs (bbls/d) 502 447 354 155
             
    Shale gas (mcf/d) 3,490 2,858 3,648 1,624
    Natural gas (mcf/d) 3,490 2,858 3,648 1,624
             
    Oil equivalent (boe/d) 1,084 923 962 426

     

    TEST RESULTS AND INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES

    The 5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 9.4 days and produced at an average rate of 377 bbl/d oil and 2,202 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The A5-19 Basal Montney well was production tested for 5.9 days and produced at an average rate of 117 bbl/d oil and 630 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The B5-19 Upper Montney well was production tested for 6.3 days and produced at an average rate of 92 bbl/d oil and 2,100 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The C5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 5.8 days and produced at an average rate of 736 bbl/d oil and 2,660 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The D5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 12.6 days and produced at an average rate of 170 bbl/d oil and 580 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The E5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 11.4 days and produced at an average rate of 312 bbl/d oil and 890 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure was stable, and production was starting to decline.

    The F5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 4.9 days and produced at an average rate of 728 bbl/d oil and 1,607 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The G5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 7.1 days and produced at an average rate of 415 bbl/d oil and 1,489 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure and production rates were stable.

    The H5-19 Lower Montney well was production tested for 8.1 days and produced at an average rate of 411 bbl/d oil and 1,166 mcf/d gas (net of load fluid and energizing fluid) over that period which includes the initial cleanup where only load water was being recovered. At the end of the test, flowing wellhead pressure was stable and production was starting to decline.

    A pressure transient analysis or well-test interpretation has not been carried out on these nine wells and thus certain of the test results provided herein should be considered to be preliminary until such analysis or interpretation has been completed. Test results and initial production rates disclosed herein, particularly those short in duration, may not necessarily be indicative of long-term performance or of ultimate recovery.

    Any references to peak rates, test rates, IP30, IP90, IP180 or initial production rates or declines are useful for confirming the presence of hydrocarbons, however, such rates and declines are not determinative of the rates at which such wells will continue production and decline thereafter and are not indicative of long-term performance or ultimate recovery. IP30 is defined as an average production rate over 30 consecutive days, IP90 is defined as an average production rate over 90 consecutive days and IP180 is defined as an average production rate over 180 consecutive days. Readers are cautioned not to place reliance on such rates in calculating aggregate production for the Company.

    FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

    This document contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘should’, ‘believe’, ‘intends’, ‘forecast’, ‘plans’, ‘guidance’ and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements or information.

    More particularly and without limitation, this news release contains forward-looking statements and information relating to the Company’s oil and condensate, other NGLs, and natural gas production, capital programs, and adjusted working capital (deficiency). The forward-looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by the Company, including expectations and assumptions relating to prevailing commodity prices and exchange rates, applicable royalty rates and tax laws, future well production rates, the performance of existing wells, the success of drilling new wells, the availability of capital to undertake planned activities, and the availability and cost of labour and services.

    Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements and information are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Since forward-looking statements and information address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks. These include, but are not limited to, the risks associated with the oil and gas industry in general such as operational risks in development, exploration and production, delays or changes in plans with respect to exploration or development projects or capital expenditures, the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to production rates, costs, and expenses, commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations, marketing and transportation, environmental risks, competition, the ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources and changes in tax, royalty, and environmental legislation. The forward-looking statements and information contained in this document are made as of the date hereof for the purpose of providing the readers with the Company’s expectations for the coming year. The forward-looking statements and information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws.

    Coelacanth is an oil and natural gas company, actively engaged in the acquisition, development, exploration, and production of oil and natural gas reserves in northeastern British Columbia, Canada.

    Further Information

    For additional information, please contact:

    Coelacanth Energy Inc.
    Suite 2110, 530 – 8th Avenue SW
    Calgary, Alberta T2P 3S8
    Phone: (403) 705-4525
    www.coelacanth.ca

    Mr. Robert J. Zakresky
    President and Chief Executive Officer

    Mr. Nolan Chicoine
    Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

    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.

    To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249584

    News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    LOS ANGELES — A group of California homeowners is taking on insurance companies that they say illegally coordinated to deny coverage to fire-prone areas, leaving thousands of displaced residents drastically underinsured as they fight for funding to rebuild.

    The homeowners, many of whom were affected by the recent wildfires that torched large swaths of Los Angeles, have filed a lawsuit alleging that California insurance companies colluded in a “nefarious conspiracy” to shut out high-risk homeowners from the insurance market.

    The complaint, filed Friday in Los Angeles County, accuses dozens of major insurance companies and their subsidiaries of collaborating in a “group boycott” of certain areas to eliminate competition and force homeowners toward the state’s insurer of last resort, a program known as the California FAIR Plan.

    The lawsuits name California’s largest home insurers, including State Farm, Farmers, Berkshire Hathaway, Allstate and Liberty Mutual. None of them have provided a comment on the allegations.

    The FAIR Plan has its own reserves and is intended to provide basic insurance to residents who cannot find a policy through the private marketplace. While it was created by the governor and the Legislature, and the state’s insurance commissioner has oversight, it is not a public program. The insurance companies named in the lawsuit jointly own and operate the FAIR plan, offering terms that limit their risk and place a higher burden on policyholders.

    “They knew that they could force people, by dropping insurance, into that plan which had higher premiums and far lower coverages,” Robert Ruyak, an attorney with Larson LLP, the law firm that brought the complaint, said. “They realized that they could take this device, which is to protect consumers, and turn it into something that protected them.”

    Ruyak argues the insurance companies knew they could limit their liability by directing policyholders onto the FAIR Plan, which allows companies to recoup up to half of their losses through premium increases, by agreeing that no company would insure high-risk areas.

    “All of these insurance companies participate in the California FAIR Plan. They own it and manage it. It is not a California entity, it is not even a separate entity … the only way this scheme would work is if no one would pick up a dropped policy at any price, on any terms. And that’s what happened.”

    Millions of U.S. homeowners have in recent years struggled to buy property insurance as companies have increasingly declined to offer coverage to people who live in high-risk areas, particularly as climate change has supercharged some natural disasters. An NBC News analysis in 2023 found that a quarter of all U.S. homes may be at risk of a climate-induced insurance shock.

    California has been among the hardest hit by what some have called an “insurance crisis.” The state’s FAIR Plan, meanwhile, has been the subject of growing scrutiny and frustration from insurance regulators and customers.

    The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial and seeking payment for three times their damages. 

    A separate class-action lawsuit filed Friday makes similar allegations.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    Berry unicorn startup Fruitist has surpassed $400 million in annual sales, thanks to the success of its long-lasting jumbo blueberries.

    The company, which was founded in 2012, announced on Tuesday that it is changing its name from Agrovision to Fruitist. It previously only used the name for branding its consumer products, which also include raspberries, blackberries and blueberries.

    As sales of its berries grow, Fruitist has raised more than $600 million in venture capital, according to Pitchbook data. Notable backers include the family office of Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio.

    Fruitist is reportedly considering going public as soon as this year, even as global trade conflicts hit stocks and raise fears about a global economic slowdown.

    The company has tried to set itself apart in a crowded space in part by positioning its berries as “snackable.” The snacking category has been one of the fastest growing in the food industry in recent years.

    While many consumers still enjoy potato chips and pretzels, many big food companies have expanded their portfolios in recent years to include healthier options. The adoption of GLP-1 drugs and the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda pushed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have made healthier snacking options even more attractive to both consumers and investors.

    Today, Fruitist’s berries can be found in more than 12,500 North American retailers, including Costco, Walmart and Whole Foods. Sales of its jumbo blueberries alone have tripled in the last 12 months, fueling the company’s growth.

    Co-founder and CEO Steve Magami told CNBC that Fruitist was created to solve the problem of “berry roulette.” That’s what he calls the uneven quality of grocery store berries, which he blames on the business model of legacy produce players.

    “You have a bunch of small growers that send their product to a packer, and the packer sends the product to a distributor or an importer, and then that player is either selling to the retailers or they are sending the product to another distributor to then sell to retailers,” Magami said. “You have this disjointed value chain that stifles quality.”

    To sell more berries of higher consistent quality, the company grows its fruit in microclimates, with its own farms in Oregon, Morocco, Egypt and Mexico. It also uses machine learning models to predict the best time to pick the fruit. Fruitist invested heavily in infrastructure, like on-site cold storage to keep the berries fresh before they ship.

    The company’s vertically integrated supply chain means that its berries should last longer than the competition.

    “I’ve intentionally let them sit in my refrigerator for three weeks, and they’re still great after three weeks,” Magami said.

    Larger berries, like the company’s non-genetically modified jumbo blueberries that are two to three times the size of a regular blueberry, also have a longer shelf life.

    Looking ahead, Fruitist is planning to expand into cherries. The company is growing them now on its Chilean farms and plans to start shipping them next season, which means they could land in grocery stores by early 2026.

    Magami said the company has invested more than $600 million to farm berries year-round and build a global footprint that spans North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

    To date, Fruitist has spent little of the funding it has raised on marketing, although that’s set to change. In February, Major League Soccer team D.C. United announced a multiyear deal with the company, including an exclusive sleeve patch partnership.

    One push for public recognition could come in the form of an initial public offering.

    In January, Bloomberg reported that the company was weighing going public as soon as June. Magami declined to comment on the report to CNBC.

    If Fruitist decides to go public, it will enter a public market that has yielded mixed results for new stocks in recent years.

    Produce giant Dole returned to the public markets in 2021. Shares of the company have risen 14% over the last year, outpacing the S&P 500′s gains of 2% over the same period. Dole, which reported annual revenue of $8.5 billion last year, has a market value of $1.3 billion.

    However, market turmoil caused by the White House’s trade wars have led a number of companies, like Klarna and StubHub, to delay their plans to go public. But investors are interested in consumer companies with strong growth; shares of Chinese tea chain Chagee climbed 15% in the company’s public market debut on Thursday.

    Trade tensions present other challenges for a global produce company. President Donald Trump has temporarily lowered new tariff rates on imports from most countries to just 10% until early July, but it’s unclear what could happen after that deadline. India, where Fruitist owns nearly 50 acres to grow blueberries, is facing a 26% duty, for example.

    Still, Magami said the company is anticipating “minimal impact” from the duties, noting that it has been investing in U.S. production for years.

    “We’re optimistic about how this will play out,” he said. “We don’t import to compete with the domestic supply, we import to actually provide 52 weeks.”

    Luckily for Fruitist, the tariff rates are set to rise when domestic berries are in season.

    CORRECTION (April 23, 2025, 9:08 a.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misstated Dole’s revenue last year. It was $8.5 billion, not $2.2 billion.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

    Boeing could hand over some of its aircraft that were destined for Chinese airlines to other carriers after China stopped taking deliveries of its planes amid a trade war with the United States.

    “They have in fact stopped taking delivery of aircraft due to the tariff environment,” Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” on Wednesday.

    Ortberg said that a few 737 Max planes that were in China set to be delivered to carriers there have been flown back to the U.S.

    He said some jets that were intended for Chinese customers, as well as aircraft the company was planning to build for China later this year, could go to other customers.

    “There’s plenty of customers out there looking for the Max aircraft,” Ortberg said. “We’re not going to wait too long. I’m not going to let this derail the recovery of our company.”

    The CEO’s comments came after Boeing reported a narrower-than-expected loss for the first quarter and cash burn that came in better than analysts feared as airplane deliveries surged in the three months ended March 31.

    President Donald Trump earlier this month issued sweeping tariffs on imports to the U.S. While he paused some of the highest rates, the trade war with China has only ramped up.

    Trump said Tuesday that he’s open to taking a less confrontational approach to trade talks with China, calling the current 145% tariff on Chinese imports “very high.”

    “It won’t be that high. … No, it won’t be anywhere near that high. It’ll come down substantially. But it won’t be zero,” Trump said.

    This post appeared first on NBC NEWS