Author

admin

Browsing

(TheNewswire)

  

February 10, 2026 TheNewswire – Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – JZR Gold Inc. (the ‘Company’ or ‘JZR’) (TSX-V: JZR) today announces that subject to applicable shareholder and TSX Venture Exchange approvals, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved the amendment of an aggregate of 725,000 incentive stock options (the ‘Amended Options’) previously granted to certain directors, officers, employees and consultants of the Company under the Company’s Equity Incentive Plan (the ‘Option Amendments’). Pursuant to the Option Amendments, the expiry date has been extended to February 12, 2031, with no change to the exercise price.

  

For further information, please contact:

 

Robert Klenk

Chief Executive Officer

E: rob@jazzresources.ca
T: 604.329.9092

 

Forward-Looking Statements

 

This news release contains forward-looking statements, which includes any information about activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future.  Forward-looking statements in this news release include statements with respect to the anticipated use of proceeds from the exercise of the Warrants.  Forward-looking information reflects the expectations or beliefs of management of the Company based on information currently available to it.  Forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information.  These factors include, but are not limited to: risks associated with the business of the Company; business and economic conditions in the mineral exploration industry generally; the supply and demand for labour and other project inputs; changes in commodity prices; changes in interest and currency exchange rates; risks related to inaccurate geological and engineering assumptions; risks relating to unanticipated operational difficulties (including failure of equipment or processes to operate in accordance with the specifications or expectations, unavailability of materials and equipment, government action or delays in the receipt of government approvals, industrial disturbances or other job action and unanticipated events related to health, safety and environmental matters); risks related to adverse weather conditions; geopolitical risk and social unrest; changes in general economic conditions or conditions in the financial markets; and other risk factors as detailed from time to time in the Company’s continuous disclosure documents filed with the Canadian securities regulators.  The forward-looking information contained in this press release is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement.  The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable securities laws.

 

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 press release.

 

None of the securities of JZR have been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act’), or any state securities law, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, persons in the United States or ‘U.S. persons’ (as such term is defined in Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act) absent registration or an exemption from such registration requirements. This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy in the United States nor shall there be any sale of the securities in any State in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION OR DISSEMINATION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES.

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Questcorp Mining Inc. (CSE: QQQ,OTC:QQCMF) (OTCQB: QQCMF) (FSE: D910) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Questcorp’) is pleased to announce an upsize to its previously announced non-brokered private placement to up to 15,000,000 units (each, a ‘Unit’) at a price of $0.20 per Unit for gross proceeds of up to $3,000,000 (the ‘Offering’). Each Unit will consist of one common share of the Company (each, a ‘Share’) and one-half-of-one share purchase warrant (each whole share purchase warrant, a ‘Warrant’). Each Warrant will entitle the holder to acquire an additional common share of the Company at a price of $0.30 for a period of thirty-six months following closing of the Offering, provided that holders will not be permitted to exercise Warrants until 60 days following closing of the Offering.

The Company expects to utilize the proceeds of the Offering for exploration work at the Company’s La Union Gold and Silver Project and North Island Copper Project, and for general working capital purposes.

The Units to be issued under the Offering will be offered for sale pursuant to the listed issuer financing exemption under Part 5A of National Instrument 45-106 – Prospectus Exemptions, as amended by CSA Coordinated Blanket Order 45-935 – Exemptions from Certain Conditions of the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption (collectively, the ‘Listed Issuer Financing Exemption‘), in all provinces of Canada, except Quebec, and other qualifying jurisdictions, including the United States. The Units offered under the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption will be immediately ‘free-trading’ under applicable Canadian securities laws.

There is an offering document (the ‘Offering Document‘) related to this Offering that can be accessed under the Company’s profile at www.sedarplus.ca and at the Company’s website at https://questcorpmining.ca/. Prospective investors should read this Offering Document before making an investment decision.

In connection with completion of the Offering, the Company may pay finders’ fees to eligible third-parties who have introduced subscribers to the Offering. Completion of the Offering remains subject to receipt of regulatory approvals.

This press release is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities in the United States or in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to qualification or registration under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The securities being offered have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and such securities may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent registration or an applicable exemption from U.S. registration requirements and applicable U.S. state securities laws.

About Questcorp Mining Inc.

Questcorp Mining Inc. is engaged in the business of the acquisition and exploration of mineral properties in North America, with the objective of locating and developing economic precious and base metals properties of merit. The Company holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 1,168.09 hectares comprising the North Island Copper Property, on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, subject to a royalty obligation. The Company also holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 2,520.2 hectares comprising the La Union Project located in Sonora, Mexico, subject to a royalty obligation.

Contact Information

Questcorp Mining Corp.

Saf Dhillon, President & CEO

Email: saf@questcorpmining.ca
Telephone: (604) 484-3031

This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking statements’ under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the intended use of proceeds from the Offering; closing of the Offering; and filing of the Offering Document. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties, uncertain capital markets; and delay or failure to receive board or regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities 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/283532

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

(TheNewswire)

    

Drill Hole LBX25-101 — Highlights

  • 1.50 m @ 0.88 g/t Au, 13.60 g/t Ag, 0.24% Cu, 5.61% Zn (159.20 m to 160.70 m) 

    • Including 0.50 m @ 2.06 g/t Au, 31.10 g/t Ag, 0.53% Cu, 12.35% Zn (159.70 m to 160.20 m) 

  • 1.60 m @ 1.16 g/t Au, 10.21 g/t Ag, 0.30% Cu, 4.39% Zn (187.70 m to 189.30 m) 

  • 3.00 m @ 0.97 g/t Au, 4.04 g/t Ag, 0.14% Cu, 2.21% Zn (190.50 m to 193.50 m) 

 

Drill Hole LBX25-102 — Highlights

  • 0.50 m @ 3.89 g/t Au, 38.70 g/t Ag, 0.42% Cu, 5.37% Zn (45.00 m to 45.50 m) 

  • 1.00 m @ 2.04 g/t Au, 0.80 g/t Ag, 0.01% Cu, 0.02% Zn (108.50 m to 109.50 m) 

  • 2.04 m @ 2.63 g/t Au, 2.38 g/t Ag, 0.02% Cu, 0.17% Zn 205.96 m to 208.00 m) 

    • Including 1.00 m @ 5.14 g/t Au, 4.60 g/t Ag, 0.04% Cu, 0.30% Zn (207.00 m to 208.00 m) 

  • 0.50 m @ 2.60 g/t Au, 13.60 g/t Ag, 0.10% Cu, 6.75% Zn (230.30 m to 230.80 m) 

 

Toronto, Ontario – February 11, 2026 TheNewswire – Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc. (TSX-V: LME | OTCQB: LMEFF | FSE: 5YD) (‘LAURION’ or the ‘Company’) reports assay results from drill holes LBX25-101 and LBX25-102 from the Company’s recent Fall diamond drilling program totalling 1,821 metres completed in 8 drill holes at the A-Zone/McLeod/CRK Zone at the Ishkōday Project, located in the Beardmore–Geraldton Greenstone Belt of north-western Ontario, approximately 220 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay.

Drill holes LBX25-101 and LBX25-102 were planned as part of LAURION’s model-guided A-Zone program to test interpreted mineralized horizons and strengthen continuity across the northeastern portion of the zone. (See Image DDH Cross Section.) The drill holes were positioned to validate structural interpretations and increase confidence in zones where both historical drilling and more recent Company-led drill programs have identified broad anomalous gold mineralization with localized higher-grade intervals. The assay results provide additional technical data that will support the refinement of future targeting and improve predictability for the Company’s subsequent drill campaigns. (See Image of Drill Locations of Fall Diamond Drilling.)

 

‘We are advancing the A-Zone through disciplined, high-confidence drill targeting designed to create measurable project value,’ said Cynthia Le Sueur-Aquin, President and CEO of LAURION. ‘Our objective is to complete drilling that answers specific geological questions, strengthens continuity, and improves predictability — because better technical clarity today supports stronger outcomes tomorrow for our shareholders.’

 

Geological Context

 

Drill hole LBX25-101 is situated approximately 265 m southwest of LBX25-100, with LBX25-102 positioned an additional 335 m southwest, extending drill coverage along the interpreted A-Zone mineralized corridor into a sparsely drilled area. LBX25-101 was established as a step-back collar to test projected mineralized horizons and structural continuity beyond the denser drill grid. Targeting incorporated projected intercept positions from holes LBX22-055, LBX22-056, LBX22-056A, LBX22-057, and historic hole K56 to improve geological and structural constraint across this portion of the zone.

 

Drill hole LBX25-102 was collared adjacent to the access road approximately 1.0 km south of the River Road, located north of the McLeod Zone and southwest of drill hole LBX21-041, to support continued drill coverage along this portion of the interpreted mineralized trend. This collar location enabled efficient drill access while extending geological coverage into a less densely tested portion of the corridor.

 

Hole ID

From

(m)

To

(m)

Core Length (m)

Au (g/t)

Ag (g/t)

Cu (%)

Zn (%)

LBX25-101

7.90

11.80

3.90

0.200

2.88

0.03

0.65

including

7.90

8.60

0.70

0.146

9.80

0.06

2.94

LBX25-101

120.2

120.80

0.60

0.224

4.80

0.12

1.54

LBX25-101

159.20

196.50

37.30

0.209

2.06

0.05

0.87

including

159.20

160.70

1.50

0.883

13.60

0.24

5.61

including

159.70

160.20

0.50

2.060

31.10

0.53

12.35

including

187.70

189.30

1.60

1.159

10.21

0.30

4.39

including

188.20

193.50

5.30

0.872

5.11

0.16

2.53

including

190.50

193.50

3.00

0.971

4.04

0.14

2.21

LBX25-102

45.00

45.50

0.50

3.890

38.70

0.42

5.37

LBX25-102

52.80

53.30

0.50

0.617

3.90

0.03

3.25

LBX25-102

82.90

83.70

0.80

0.511

0.50

0.01

LBX25-102

108.50

109.50

1.00

2.040

0.80

0.01

0.02

LBX25-102

205.96

208.00

2.04

2.630

2.38

0.02

0.17

Including

207.00

208.00

1.00

5.140

4.60

0.04

0.30

LBX25-102

212.00

213.00

1.00

0.339

0.25

0.04

LBX25-102

222.80

223.30

1.20

0.292

9.58

0.02

1.10

including

222.80

223.30

0.50

0.457

20.60

0.03

2.55

LBX25-102

226.00

245.00

19.00

0.355

2.63

0.03

0.58

including

230.30

233.60

3.30

1.114

6.35

0.07

1.78

including

230.30

230.80

0.50

2.600

13.60

0.10

6.75

NOTE: Intervals represent core length. The interval widths reported are down-hole widths. The true widths of the mineralized zones are not known at this time as there is insufficient information to determine the orientation of the mineralization.

 

Name

Elevation

(m)

Azimuth

Dip

Easting

Northing

Depth

(m)

LBX25-101

321

127

-50

446328

5513024

276

LBX25-102

323

115

-50

446200

5512713

300

Total

         

576

 

Sampling and QA/QC Protocols

 

All drill core is transported and stored inside the core facility located at the Ishkōday Project in Greenstone, Ontario. LAURION employs an industry standard system of external standards, blanks and duplicates for all of its sampling, in addition to the QA/QC protocol employed by the laboratory. After logging, core samples were identified and then cut in half along core axis in the same building and then zip tied individually in plastic sample bags with a bar code. Approximately five or six of these individual bags were then stacked into a ‘rice’ white material bag and stored on a skid for final shipment to the laboratory. All core samples were shipped to the ALS facility in Thunder Bay, Ontario, which were then prepared by ALS Global Geochemistry in Thunder Bay and analyzed by ALS Global Analytical Lab in North Vancouver, British Columbia. Samples are processed by 4-acid digestion and analyzed by fire assay on 50 g pulps and ICP-AES (Inductively Coupled Plasma – Atomic Emission Spectroscopy). Over limit analyses are reprocessed with gravimetric finish. A total of 5% blanks and 5% standard are inserted randomly within all samples. 5% of the best assay result pulps were sent for re-assays. All QA/QC were verified, and no contamination or bias have been observed. The remaining half of the core, as well as the unsampled core, is stored in temporary core racks at the core logging facility in Beardmore and moved to the core storage facility at the Ishkōday Project. Note: QA/QC review of standards and duplicates indicates analytical results are reliable. One zinc standard adjacent to a high-grade zinc interval returned elevated values consistent with expected analytical behaviour following high-grade samples.

 

Qualified Person

 

The technical contents of this release were reviewed and approved by Pierre-Jean-Lafleur P. Eng, a consultant to LAURION and a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

 

About LAURION Mineral Exploration Inc.

 

Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc. is a mid-stage junior mineral exploration company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol LME and on the OTC Pink market under the symbol LMEFF. The Company currently has 278,716,413 common shares outstanding, with approximately 73.6% held by insiders and long-term ‘Friends and Family’ investors, reflecting strong alignment between management, the Board, and shareholders.

 

LAURION’s primary focus is the 100%-owned, district-scale Ishkōday Project, a 57 km² land package hosting gold-rich polymetallic mineralization. The Company is advancing Ishkōday through a disciplined, milestone-driven exploration strategy focused on strengthening geological confidence, defining structural continuity.

 

LAURION’s strategy is centered on deliberate value creation. The Company is prioritizing systematic technical advancement, integrated geological and structural modeling, and the evaluation of optional, non-dilutive pathways, including historical surface stockpile processing, that may support flexibility in LAURION’s exploration plans without diverting the Company’s focus from its core exploration objectives.

 

The Company’s overarching objective is to build project value before monetization, ensuring that any future strategic outcomes are supported by technical clarity, reduced execution risk, and demonstrated scale. While the Board remains attentive to strategic interest that may arise, LAURION is not driven by transaction timing. Instead, the Company is focused on advancing the Ishkōday Project in a manner that strengthens long-term shareholder value.

 

LAURION will continue to communicate updates through timely disclosure and will issue press releases in accordance with applicable securities laws should any material information arise.

 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Laurion Mineral Exploration Inc.

Cynthia Le Sueur-Aquin – President and CEO

Tel: 1-705-788-9186 Fax: 1-705-805-9256

 

Douglas Vass – Investor Relations Consultant

Email: info@laurion.ca

Website: http://www.LAURION.ca

Follow us on: X (@LAURION_LME), Instagram (laurionmineral) and LinkedIn ()

  

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

 

This press release contains forward-looking statements, which reflect the Company’s current expectations regarding future events including with respect to LAURION’s business, operations and condition, management’s objectives, strategies, beliefs and intentions, the Company’s ability to advance the Ishkōday Project, the nature, focus, timing and potential results of the Company’s exploration, drilling and prospecting activities, including the Company’s diamond drill program referenced in this press release and the Company’s other planned activities for the Ishkōday Project for the remainder of 2026, and the statements regarding the Company’s exploration or consideration of any possible strategic alternatives and transactional opportunities, as well as the potential outcome(s) of this process, the possible impact of any potential transactions referenced herein on the Company or any of its stakeholders, and the ability of the Company to identify and complete any potential acquisitions, mergers, financings or other transactions referenced herein, and the timing of any such transactions. The forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Actual events and future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements could differ materially from those projected herein including as a result of a change in the trading price of the common shares of LAURION, the TSX Venture Exchange or any other applicable regulator not providing its approval for any strategic alternatives or transactional opportunities, the interpretation and actual results of current exploration activities, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future prices of gold and/or other metals, possible variations in grade or recovery rates, failure of equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, the failure of contracted parties to perform, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry, delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of exploration, as well as those factors disclosed in the Company’s publicly filed documents. Investors should consult the Company’s ongoing quarterly and annual filings, as well as any other additional documentation comprising the Company’s public disclosure record, for additional information on risks and uncertainties relating to these forward-looking statements. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. Subject to applicable law, the Company disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. All sample values are from grab samples and channel samples, which by their nature, are not necessarily representative of overall grades of mineralized areas. Readers are cautioned to not place undue reliance on the assay values reported in this press release.

 

NEITHER THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICE PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THE CONTENT OF THIS NEWS RELEASE.

           

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Rising geopolitical tensions, intensifying competition for critical minerals and the accelerating breakdown of the postwar global order were some of the key themes at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC) in late January, as investors grappled with what a volatile world means for capital, commodities and security of supply.

In a wide-ranging panel moderated by Jesse Day, legendary mining financier Frank Giustra joined retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor and geopolitical analyst Dr. Pascal Lottaz to examine flashpoints from Iran to Greenland, and why resource investors can no longer separate geopolitics from the metals that underpin modern economies.

Giustra, president and CEO of Fiore Group and co-chair of the International Crisis Group, opened the discussion by warning that tensions with Iran are approaching a critical threshold, driven by competing US and Israeli objectives.

“Israel would like to see Iran taken out as a major regional power,” Giustra said. “The US would like to see a different Iran — one it could do business with and that has stable relations with its neighbours. Those objectives are not the same.”

He added that the presence of a US carrier strike group in the region underscores the risk of escalation, but questioned whether military action would achieve Washington’s goals. “Iran is simply too large for a strike to have the intended effect,” he said, pointing to the absence of a coherent long-term policy.

Colonel Macgregor was more blunt, warning the US is “on the precipice of war” with Iran and arguing that Washington’s strategic thinking mirrors failed efforts elsewhere.

“This is the same mindset that committed us to war in Ukraine,” Macgregor said. “Destroy the country, divide it, dominate it, and take its resources. It failed there, and it will fail in Iran.”

Dr. Lottaz, an adjunct researcher at Waseda University in Tokyo and host of the ‘Neutrality Studies’ channel, said unpredictability has become the defining feature of US foreign policy.

“What Israel does is done in conjunction with the US — they are effectively one team,” Lottaz said. “Carrier groups sitting offshore are not just deterrence. They are also sitting ducks. Ships can sink.”

Greenland, minerals and power politics

The panel then turned to Greenland, a region increasingly viewed through the lens of critical minerals and Arctic security.

Giustra dismissed claims that Greenland poses an immediate security risk from Russia or China, arguing instead that resource competition is the real driver. “Greenland has always been open for business,” he said.

“The idea that the US needs to own it to access minerals is simply false.”

Instead, Giustra described Washington’s posture as coercive. “It’s essentially putting a gun to Greenland’s head and saying, ‘We want to buy you.’”

For mining investors, Greenland represents both opportunity and risk.

The island hosts significant deposits of rare earth elements, graphite and other strategic metals essential to clean energy technologies, defence systems and advanced manufacturing. But political uncertainty, including pressure from major powers, complicates development timelines and capital allocation.

Macgregor argued that US ambitions in Greenland and Venezuela reflect more optics than strategy. “This administration loves big gestures,” he said. “But unless you control what happens on the ground, nothing really changes.”

Europe’s energy crisis and deindustrialization

Lottaz traced Europe’s economic strain, particularly Germany’s deindustrialization, back to energy policy decisions, including the shutdown of nuclear power and the loss of Russian gas supplies.

“Political leadership in Europe is increasingly detached from national interests,” he said. “What matters more is positioning within EU and transatlantic institutions.”

That disconnect has direct consequences for resource markets, particularly energy-intensive industries such as metals refining, steel production and battery manufacturing, which depend on stable, affordable power.

Macgregor added that many global institutions, including NATO and the European Union, are approaching “block obsolescence,” forcing investors to rethink long-held assumptions about stability.

Critical minerals and the risk of conflict

As the discussion widened, Giustra pointed to critical minerals as one of the most dangerous fault lines in the emerging world order.

“The intense competition between China and the West over critical minerals is a major factor,” he said. “These are not just economic assets — they’re strategic weapons.”

China currently dominates processing of rare earth elements, lithium chemicals and battery-grade materials, giving it leverage over Western supply chains. Efforts by the US, Europe and allies to secure alternative sources — from Greenland to Africa to South America — are reshaping investment flows across the mining sector.

Giustra warned that history shows transitions between declining and rising powers are rarely peaceful. “The danger of conflict during a shift in world order is extremely high,” he said. “We may already be setting the stage for something far worse.”

Is there room for optimism?

Despite the grim outlook, Lottaz offered cautious optimism, arguing that even strained international systems retain some restraining influence.

“Everyone still claims to operate under the UN Charter, even when they violate it,” he said. “That tells us the idea of international law still matters.”

He also pointed to restraint in conflicts such as Ukraine, noting that NATO has avoided direct war with Russia. “There is still rationality at work. No one wants Armageddon.”

Macgregor closed with a stark reminder for investors and policymakers alike. “Rules only exist if someone enforces them,” he said. “As American power recedes, we’re entering a far more competitive and uncertain world.”

For the resource sector, that uncertainty translates into higher geopolitical risk, but also strategic opportunity. As governments scramble to secure supply chains for energy transition metals, defence materials and critical infrastructure, mining projects once considered peripheral are moving to the centre of global power politics.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

LOS ANGELES — The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements for the first, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, begin this week.

Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

“Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

José Castañeda, a Google Spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”

The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being.

In New Mexico, opening statements begin Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

Prosecutors have said that New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for its content but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful, saying they uncovered internal documents in which Meta employees estimate that about 100,000 children every day are subjected to sexual harassment on the company’s platforms.

Meta denies the civil charges while accusing Torrez of cherry-picking select documents and making “sensationalist” arguments. The company says it has consulted with parents and law enforcement to introduce built-in protections to social media accounts, along with settings and tools for parents.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Dr. Adam Trexler, founder and president of Valaurum, shares his thoughts on gold, identifying a key issue he sees developing in the physical market.

‘There’s a crisis in the physical gold market,’ he said, explaining that sector participants need to figure out how to serve investors who want to own gold, but can’t afford current bar and coin prices.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Clear Commodity Network CEO and Mining Stock Daily host Trevor Hall opened his talk at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC) with a strong message: It is still possible to go broke in a bull market.

“I want to start with the simple but uncomfortable truth: most investors don’t lose money in bear markets,” he said.

“They lose it in bull markets. Bear markets are honest. Liquidity disappears; prices fall. Risk is obvious, and fear keeps people cautious. Bull markets, on the other hand, are deceptive.”

According to Hall, bull markets feed the idea that everything is working well.

Charts and spreadsheet data convince investors and business owners that it is the perfect time to make big decisions, making this the phase of the cycle where moves are based on impulse.

“Rising prices get confused with good business, compelling stores get confused with durable assets. Bull markets don’t expose bad ideas immediately; they carry, and that’s why the damage is so severe when cycles turn.”

For short, people get too excited, focusing on the potential weight of what they can earn soon without realizing how much they could lose in the long run.

Supercycle review

Ultimately, what is needed is a shift in mindset. Hall specified that the first point that has to be recognised is that bull markets do not mean that everyone is making money.

“High prices produce a false sense of security. They made marginal assets look competitive,” he said. “They mask permitting challenges, metallurgy issues, infrastructure gaps in management, weaknesses and too much capital changed too many projects simply because the spreadsheet said it works. Investors have need to learn from that in today’s market.”

Momentum is not directly proportional to skill, and government involvement does not eliminate risk.

He cited 2011 as the last super cycle that created enormous opportunities, but also created enormous mistakes.

At the time, companies jumped into spending on huge projects and capital expenditure blowout, not accounting for returns.

Some companies also lost control and went all in on mergers and acquisitions, while developers “pursued production growth for the sake of growth.”

The sector focused on volume, therefore burning investors. The market funded every project that screams as economic at high spot prices.

This lack of discipline led to over a decade’s worth of rebuilding mining credibility.

Now, the sector has changed. This time, companies that generate durable margins, stick to realistic timelines, manage risk and focus on humility will be rewarded.

It’s all in discipline.

Advice for companies

Hall specified certain aspects he believes investors who have learned from the super cycle are now looking for. We summarised them into five points:
  • Concrete de-risk plans with achievable milestones
  • Strict capital discipline, especially on operating and construction costs
  • Management teams with experience in leadership, permitting, engineering and community relations
  • Productive offtakes

“Capital is no longer betting solely on geology. It’s betting on execution,” the CEO stated. “Investors want to see alignment with users, so institutional investors are screening for policy alignment projects that strengthen domestic supply chains, support energy security and fit federal or state strategic priorities.”

Above all, across all this is transparency. Hall said that it is a must and called it “the new currency of trust in this sector.”

Advice for investors

“Many deposits look promising, far fewer have teams capable of construction and operations,” Hall said, adding that while high metal prices do help the sector, they also encourage a wave of marginal projects that do not deserve capital.

Maintaining high standards amidst high prices is vital. He advised investors to ask the following questions before making decisions:

  • Does the project work within conservative price limits or not? Does it have structural advantages?
  • Does it have grade, jurisdiction, scale and production cost?
  • Does the project matter? Does it solve a supply deficit?
  • Does it serve a strategic need, or is it simply additive but unnecessary?
  • Can management actually build it?

Making the right moves

Hall likened his industry recommendations to that of a chess game: make decisive moves and manage risks. It’s not just about what’s in front of you; it’s how you can win.

The industry is entering a new era where the investment cycle is not only driven by numbers and market forces, but by strategic necessity.

It is also the first time in decades that government capital, institutional capital and private capital are moving in the same direction, posing bigger opportunities.

Companies must learn to listen and execute to remain in the game for the next decade of resource development, and investors should come into the space with clear expectations.

“I think the ultimate word is check your discipline, because your discipline and your expectations need to be in line and more in tune than ever before,” Hall told companies.

“And for investors out there listening, you have to remember this: bull markets don’t make people rich by default; they reveal who already have the discipline.”

Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

CALGARY, AB / ACCESS Newswire / February 10, 2026 / Valeura Energy Inc. (TSX:VLE,OTC:VLERF)(OTCQX:VLERF) (‘Valeura’ or the ‘Company’) announces record high proved plus probable (‘2P’) reserves, an increase in its 2P reserves life index (‘RLI’), and a third consecutive year of approximately 200% 2P reserves replacement ratio.

Highlights

  • Record high proved (‘1P’) reserves of 37.9 MMbbls, proved plus probable (‘2P’) reserves of 57.8 MMbbls, and proved plus probable plus possible (‘3P’) reserves of 71.2 MMbbls;

  • Adding, not just replacing reserves, with a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%;

  • 2P reserves net present value (‘NPV 10 ‘) before tax of US$872 million and US$692 million on an after tax basis (1) ;

  • Year-end 2025 cash position of US$306 million, and a net asset value (‘NAV’) of US$998 million, equating to approximately C$13 per common share (2) ;

  • RLI increased to a new record of 7.5 years, on a 2P basis (3) ; and

  • Above volumes and values do not include the recent farm-in to blocks G1/65 and G3/65 in the Gulf of Thailand, which will be additive upon completion (4) (the ‘Farm-in Transaction’).

(1) Discounted at 10% (‘NPV 10 ‘)
(2) 2P NPV 10 after tax plus cash of US$305.7 million (no debt), using US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.3722 and 105.5 million common shares of the Company (the ‘Common Shares’) outstanding, as at 31 December 2025
(3) Based on 2P reserves divided by the mid-point of the Company’s 2026 guidance production of 21 Mbbls/d
(4) Subject to government approval

Dr. Sean Guest, President and CEO commented:

‘For the third time in a row we have added approximately double the reserves we produced during the year, achieving a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%. This outcome is especially strong given the sharp drop in oil prices in 2025, meaning our reserves were evaluated at a forward price much lower than in the prior year.

We are committed to seeing through the volatility in the global commodity market and have maintained our focus on adding to the ultimate potential and longevity of our portfolio. This is reflected in an improvement to our RLI, which is now at a new record high of 7.5 years (based on 2P reserves and anticipated 2026 production). Our RLI has increased steadily over the three years we have been operating in Thailand, and we see this as affirmation of our ability to add more years of future cash flow, for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The net asset value of our business, defined as year-end cash plus our 2P net revenue (NPV 10 ), is US$1 billion which equates to approximately C$13/Common Share.

We are mindful of the concept of portfolio renewal and therefore continue to focus on contingent resources as well, which provides the feedstock for future reserves additions. We believe our decision to redevelop the Wassana field is an excellent example of this progression. At the same time, we have added more volumes through life-extending work with our Jasmine licence and through ongoing drilling success across the portfolio. In addition, upon completion of our strategic Farm-in Transaction to blocks G1/65 and G3/65 in the Gulf of Thailand, these new volumes will be additive to the volumes we have reported today.

We believe our year-end 2025 reserves and resources demonstrate our ability to drive deeper and longer-lived value from our assets, even when faced with a correction in commodity prices. I believe this underscores both the robustness of our portfolio and the relentless commitment to value shared by our world class team.’

Independent Reserves and Resources Evaluation

Valeura commissioned Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (‘NSAI’) to assess reserves and resources for all of its Thailand assets as of 31 December 2025. NSAI’s evaluation is presented in a report dated 09 February 2026 (the ‘NSAI 2025 Report’). This follows previous evaluations conducted by NSAI for the previous three years ended 31 December 2024 (the ‘NSAI 2024 Report’), 31 December 2023 (the ‘NSAI 2023 Report’), and 31 December 2022.

NSAI 2025 Report: Oil and Gas Reserves by Field Based on Forecast Prices and Costs

Reserves by Field

Gross (Before Royalties) Reserves, Working Interest Share (Mbbls)

Jasmine (Light/Med.)

Manora (Light/Med.)

Nong Yao (Light/Med.)

Wassana (Heavy)

Total

Proved

Producing Developed

6,465

1,557

4,751

1,319

14,091

Non-Producing Developed

1,413

77

153

432

2,074

Undeveloped

3,301

842

3,823

13,753

21,719

Total Proved (1P)

11,179

2,476

8,726

15,504

37,884

Total Probable (P2)

10,032

469

5,193

4,201

19,896

Total Proved + Probable (2P)

21,211

2,945

13,919

19,705

57,780

Total Possible (P3)

6,295

475

4,120

2,569

13,459

Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P)

27,506

3,420

18,039

22,274

71,238

Summary of Reserves Replacement, Value, and Field Life

Valeura added volumes within the 1P, 2P, and 3P categories in 2025. As compared to the NSAI 2024 Report, the NSAI 2025 Report indicates an increase of 5.6 MMbbls of proved (1P) reserves and 7.8 MMbbls of proved plus probable (2P) reserves, after having produced 8.5 MMbbls of oil in 2025. This implies a 1P reserves replacement ratio of 166% and a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%. 2025 was the Company’s third consecutive year of recording new reserves additions well in excess of volumes produced. The Company’s reserves replacement ratio on a 2P basis was 245% in 2024 and 218% in 2023.

Valeura’s RLI has increased for a third year in a row. Based on the mid-point of the Company’s 2026 production guidance of 19.5 – 22.5 Mbbls/d (21.0 Mbbls/d), on a 2P reserves basis as of 31 December 2025, the Company estimates its RLI to be approximately 7.5 years. This represents an increase from the Company’s RLI of 5.6 years as at 31 December 2024 and 4.5 years as at 31 December 2023 (calculated on the same basis).

While the 2025 2P reserves increased relative to 2024, the revenue and NPV 10 associated with these reserves is slightly lower than 2024. This reduction in value is driven by the significant drop in benchmark oil prices in 2025, causing NSAI to use a much lower oil price forecast in their year-end 2025 evaluation. The Company estimates that, based on the 2P net present value of estimated future revenue after income taxes in the NSAI 2025 Report (based on a 10% discount rate), plus the Company’s 2025 year-end cash position of US$305.7 million, the Company has a 2P NAV of US$997.7 million. Using the year-end count of Common Shares outstanding (being 105,535,429 Common Shares) and 31 December 2025 foreign currency exchange rates (which reflects a stronger Canadian dollar), Valeura’s NAV equates to approximately C$13/Common Share.

NAV Estimate

1P NPV 10

2P NPV 10

3P NPV 10

Before Tax

After Tax

Before Tax

After Tax

Before Tax

After Tax

NPV 10 (US$ million)

401.1

370.6

871.9

692.0

1,304.6

947.9

Cash at 31 December 2025 (US$ million) (1)

305.7

305.7

305.7

305.7

305.7

305.7

Net Asset Value (US$ million)

706.8

676.3

1,177.6

997.7

1,610.3

1,253.6

Common shares (million) (2)

105.5

105.5

105.5

105.5

105.5

105.5

Estimated NAV per basic share (C$ per share) (3)

9.2

8.8

15.3

13.0

20.9

16.3

(1) Cash at 31 December 2025 of US$305.7 million
(2) Issued and outstanding Common Shares as at 31 December 2025
(3) US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.3722 at 31 December 2025

The NSAI 2025 Report indicates a further extension in the anticipated end of field life for the Jasmine, Wassana and Manora fields, and a slight reduction in the anticipated end of field life for the Nong Yao field.

Fields

Gross (Before Royalties) 2P Reserves,
Working Interest Share

End of Field Life

2P NPV10 After Tax
(US$ million)

31 December 2024 (MMbbls)

2025 Production (MMbbls)

Additions (MMbbls)

31 December 2025 (MMbbls)

Reserves Replacement Ratio (%)

NSAI 2024 Report

NSAI 2025 Report

31 December 2024

31 December 2025

Jasmine

16.8

(3.0)

7.4

21.2

249%

Aug-31

Oct-34

163.9

177.2

Manora

3.4

(0.8)

0.4

2.9

47%

Apr-30

Aug-31

45.7

17.2

Nong Yao

16.9

(3.6)

0.6

13.9

16%

Dec-33

Sep-33

416.1

257.4

Wassana

12.9

(1.2)

7.9

19.7

686%

Dec-35

Dec-41

126.6

240.1

Total

50.0

(8.5)

16.3

57.8

192%

752.2

692.0

2P reserves by field, and their associated after-tax 2P NPV 10 values are indicated below. The year-on-year change between the NSAI 2024 Report and NSAI 2025 Report indicates an increase in both 2P reserves volumes and the associated after-tax value for both the Jasmine and Wassana fields, reflecting the conversion of 2C resources to 2P reserves in both instances, bolstered in particular by the Company’s decision to proceed with redevelopment of the Wassana field, for which the final investment decision was announced in May 2025.

Reserves volumes and associated after-tax 2P values for the Manora and Nong Yao fields have decreased between the NSAI 2024 Report and NSAI 2025 Report, driven primarily by the significantly reduced forecast oil pricing applied in the year-end 2025 evaluation vs the year-end 2024 evaluation. In the case of Nong Yao, the year-on-year decline in NPV 10 is also influenced by the valuation ‘roll-forward’ effect: following the field’s expansion in 2024, Nong Yao delivered strong production in 2025, effectively bringing forward and monetising a meaningful portion of the value previously reflected in NSAI 2024 Report. This value realisation was partially offset by reserves replacement at Nong Yao, with NSAI reporting additions during 2025 that helped replenish the reserve base and support ongoing field life.

Fields

Gross (Before Royalties) 2P Reserves,
Working Interest Share (MMbbls)

2P NPV 10 After Tax (US$ million)

31 December 2023

31 December 2024

31 December 2025

31 December 2023

31 December 2024

31 December 2025

Jasmine

10.4

16.8

21.2

81.8

163.9

177.2

Manora

2.2

3.4

2.9

21.2

45.7

17.2

Nong Yao

12.4

16.9

13.9

185.6

416.1

257.4

Wassana

12.9

12.9

19.7

139.9

126.6

240.1

Total

37.9

50.0

57.8

428.5

752.2

692.0

Near-term forecast oil prices in the NSAI 2025 Report are 19% lower than in the NSAI 2024 Report. The Brent crude oil reference prices used in estimating the future net revenue from oil reserves have been revised downward in accordance with the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook requirements, which mandates the use of forward curve prices in near-term forecasts.

Report

Brent crude oil reference price for the year ended

31 December 2026

31 December 2027

31 December 2028

31 December 2029

31 December 2030

Thereafter

NSAI 2024 Report (US$/bbl)

78.51

79.89

81.82

83.46

85.13

2% inflation

NSAI 2025 Report (US$/bbl)

63.92

69.13

74.36

76.10

77.62

2% inflation

Difference (US$/bbl)

(14.59)

(10.76)

(7.46)

(7.36)

(7.51)

Difference (%)

(19%)

(13%)

(9%)

(9%)

(9%)

(9%)

Net present values of future net revenue from oil reserves are based on cost estimates as of the date of the NSAI 2025 Report, and the forecast Brent crude oil reference prices as indicated above. Specific price forecasts for each of the Company’s fields are adjusted for oil quality and market differentials, as guided by actual recent price realisations for each of the fields’ crude oil sales.

All estimated costs associated with the eventual decommissioning of the Company’s fields are included as part of the calculation of future net revenue. As in previous years, this can result in a negative future net revenue estimate for the 1P Proved Producing Developed category as these most conservative volumes are encumbered with the entire decommissioning cost for the field.

Future Net Revenue by Field

Before Tax NPV 10 (US$ million)

Jasmine (Light/Med.)

Manora (Light/Med.)

Nong Yao (Light/Med.)

Wassana (Heavy)

Total

Proved

Producing Developed

(53.7)

(8.1)

25.7

34.3

(70.5)

Non-Producing Developed

63.6

4.5

7.0

20.0

95.2

Undeveloped

(5.4)

3.4

98.6

279.8

376.4

Total Proved (1P)

4.4

(0.2)

131.3

265.5

401.1

Total Probable (P2)

222.5

18.9

177.4

52.0

470.8

Total Proved + Probable (2P)

226.9

18.7

308.7

317.6

871.9

Total Possible (P3)

201.6

19.4

150.5

61.2

432.7

Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P)

428.6

38.2

459.1

378.8

1,304.6

Future Net Revenue by Field

After Tax NPV 10 (US$ million)

Jasmine (Light/Med.)

Manora (Light/Med.)

Nong Yao (Light/Med.)

Wassana (Heavy)

Total

Proved

Producing Developed

(59.0)

(8.1)

25.7

(34.3)

(75.8)

Non-Producing Developed

58.9

4.5

7.0

20.0

90.5

Undeveloped

2.5

3.4

97.1

253.0

356.0

Total Proved (1P)

2.4

(0.2)

129.7

238.7

370.6

Total Probable (P2)

174.9

17.4

127.7

1.4

321.3

Total Proved + Probable (2P)

177.2

17.2

257.4

240.1

692.0

Total Possible (P3)

124.5

14.7

92.4

24.3

255.9

Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P)

301.7

31.9

349.8

264.4

947.9

Contingent Resources

NSAI assessed the Company’s contingent resources of its Thailand assets for additional reservoir accumulations and reported estimates in the NSAI 2025 Report, as it has done in each of the preceding three years. Contingent resources are heavy crude oil and light/medium crude oil, and are further divided into three subcategories, being Development Unclarified, Development Not Viable, and Development on Hold (see oil and gas advisories). Each subcategory is assigned a percentage risk, reflecting the estimated chance of development. Aggregate totals are provided below.

Contingent Resources

NSAI 2023 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest Share

NSAI 2024 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest share

NSAI 2025 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest Share

Unrisked (MMbbls)

Risked (MMbbls)

Unrisked (MMbbls)

Risked (MMbbls)

Unrisked (MMbbls)

Risked (MMbbls)

Low Estimate (1C)

15.2

6.5

29.4

9.2

29.9

10.3

Best Estimate (2C)

19.9

8.9

48.5

13.5

39.5

7.0

High Estimate (3C)

27.9

11.6

72.1

18.0

58.9

8.9

During 2025, Valeura successfully converted a substantial portion of its Best Estimate (2C) Contingent Resources to Reserves.

The above Contingent Resources do not include any resources from the Farm-in Transaction, where Valeura expects to earn a 40% non-operated working interest in Gulf of Thailand blocks G1/65 and G3/65. The Farm-in Transaction is subject to government approval, which is anticipated in due course, following completion of Thailand’s general election.

Further Disclosure

Valeura intends to disclose a summary of the NSAI 2025 Report to Thailand’s upstream regulator later in February 2025. Thereafter, the Company will publish its estimates of reserves and resources in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 51-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities along with its annual information form for the year ended 31 December 2025, in March 2026.

For further information, please contact:

Valeura Energy Inc. (General Corporate Enquiries) +65 6373 6940
Sean Guest, President and CEO
Yacine Ben-Meriem, CFO
Contact@valeuraenergy.com

Valeura Energy Inc. (Investor and Media Enquiries) +1 403 975 6752 / +44 7392 940495
Robin James Martin, Vice President, Communications and Investor Relations
IR@valeuraenergy.com

Contact details for the Company’s advisors, covering research analysts and joint brokers, including Auctus Advisors LLP, Beacon Securities Limited, Canaccord Genuity Ltd (UK), Cormark Securities Inc., Research Capital Corporation, Roth Canada Inc., and Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited, are listed on the Company’s website at www.valeuraenergy.com/investor-information/analysts/.

About the Company

Valeura Energy Inc. is a Canadian public company engaged in the exploration, development and production of petroleum and natural gas in Thailand and in Türkiye. The Company is pursuing a growth-oriented strategy and intends to re-invest into its producing asset portfolio and to deploy resources toward further organic and inorganic growth in Southeast Asia. Valeura aspires toward value accretive growth for stakeholders while adhering to high standards of environmental, social and governance responsibility.

Additional information relating to Valeura is also available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Oil and Gas Advisories

Reserves and contingent resources disclosed in this news release are based on an independent evaluation

conducted by the incumbent independent petroleum engineering firm, NSAI with an effective date of 31 December 2025. The NSAI estimates of reserves and resources were prepared using guidelines outlined in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook and in accordance with National Instrument 51-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities . The reserves and contingent resources estimates disclosed in this news release are estimates only and there is no guarantee that the estimated reserves and contingent resources will be recovered.

This news release contains a number of oil and gas metrics, including ‘NAV’, ‘reserves replacement ratio’, ‘RLI’, and ‘end of field life’ which do not have standardised meanings or standard methods of calculation and therefore such measures may not be comparable to similar measures used by other companies. Such metrics are commonly used in the oil and gas industry and have been included herein to provide readers with additional measures to evaluate the Company’s performance; however, such measures are not reliable indicators of the future performance of the Company and future performance may not compare to the performance in previous periods.

‘NAV’ is calculated by adding the estimated future net revenues based on a 10% discount rate to net cash, (which is comprised of cash less debt) as of 31 December 2025. NAV is expressed on a per share basis by dividing the total by basic Common Shares outstanding. NAV per share is not predictive and may not be reflective of current or future market prices for Valeura.

‘Reserves replacement ratio’ for 2025 is calculated by dividing the difference in reserves between the NSAI 2025 Report and the NSAI 2024 Report, plus actual 2025 production, by the assets’ total production before royalties for the calendar year 2025.

‘RLI’ is calculated by dividing reserves by management’s estimated total production before royalties for 2026.

‘End of field life’ is calculated by NSAI as the date at which the monthly net revenue generated by the field is equal to or less than the asset’s operating cost.

Reserves

Reserves are estimated remaining quantities of commercially recoverable oil, 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 further categorised according to the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub-classified based on development and production status.

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.

Developed reserves are those reserves that are expected to be recovered from existing wells and installed facilities or, if facilities have not been installed, that would involve a low expenditure (e.g., when compared to the cost of drilling a well) to put the reserves on production.

Developed producing reserves are those reserves that are expected to be recovered from completion intervals open at the time of the estimate. These reserves may be currently producing or, if shut in, they must have previously been on production, and the date of resumption of production must be known with reasonable certainty.

Developed non-producing reserves are those reserves that either have not been on production, or have previously been on production, but are shut in, and the date of resumption of production is unknown.

Undeveloped reserves are those reserves expected to be recovered from known accumulations where a significant expenditure (e.g., when compared to the cost of drilling a well) is required to render them capable of production. They must fully meet the requirements of the reserves classification (proved, probable, possible) to which they are assigned.

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.

Possible reserves are those additional reserves that are less certain to be recovered than probable reserves. It is unlikely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will exceed the sum of the estimated proved plus probable plus possible reserves. There is a 10% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of the estimated proved plus probable plus possible reserves.

The estimated future net revenues disclosed in this news release do not necessarily represent the fair market value of the reserves associated therewith.

The estimates of reserves and future net revenue for individual properties may not reflect the same confidence level as estimates of reserves and future net revenue for all properties, due to the effects of aggregation.

Contingent Resources

Contingent resources are those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations using established technology or technology under development, but which are not currently considered to be commercially recoverable due to one or more contingencies. Contingencies are conditions that must be satisfied for a portion of contingent resources to be classified as reserves that are: (a) specific to the project being evaluated; and (b) expected to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe.

Contingent resources are further categorised according to the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub‐classified based on a project maturity and/or characterised by their economic status. There are three classifications of contingent resources: low estimate, best estimate and high estimate. Best estimate is a classification of estimated resources described in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook as the best estimate of the quantity that will be actually recovered; it is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater or less than the best estimate. If probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 50 percent probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the best estimate.

The project maturity subclasses include development pending, development on hold, development unclarified and development not viable. The contingent resources disclosed in this news release are classified as either development unclarified, development not viable, or development on hold.

Development unclarified is defined as a contingent resource that requires further appraisal to clarify the potential for development and has been assigned a lower chance of development until commercial considerations can be clearly defined. Chance of development is the likelihood that an accumulation will be commercially developed.

Conversion of the development unclarified resources referred to in this news release is dependent upon (1) the expected timetable for development; (2) the economics of the project; (3) the marketability of the oil and gas production; (4) the availability of infrastructure and technology; (5) the political, regulatory, and environmental conditions; (6) the project maturity and definition; (7) the availability of capital; and, ultimately, (8) the decision of joint venture partners to undertake development.

The major positive factor relevant to the estimate of the contingent development unclarified resources referred to in this news release is the successful discovery of resources encountered in appraisal and development wells within the existing fields. The major negative factors relevant to the estimate of the contingent development unclarified resources referred to in this news release are: (1) the outstanding requirement for a definitive development plan; (2) current economic conditions do not support the resource development; (3) limited field economic life to develop the resources; and (4) the outstanding requirement for a final investment decision and commitment of all joint venture partners.

Development not viable is defined as a contingent resource where no further data acquisition or evaluation is currently planned and hence there is a low chance of development, there is usually less than a reasonable chance of economics of development being positive in the foreseeable future. The major negative factors relevant to the estimate of development not viable referred to in this news release are: (1) current economic conditions do not support the resource development; and (2) availability of technical knowledge and technology within the industry to economically support resource development.

Development on hold is defined as a contingent resource where there is a reasonable chance of development, but there are contingencies to be resolved before the project can move forward.

If these contingencies are successfully addressed, some portion of these contingent resources may be reclassified as reserves.

Of the best estimate 2C contingent resources estimated in the NSAI 2025 Report, on a risked basis: 63% of the estimated volumes are light/medium crude oil, with the remainder being heavy oil; 42% are categorised as Development Unclarified, with the remainder being Development Not Viable. Development Unclarified 2C resources have been assigned an average chances of development for the four fields ranging from 5% to 85%, while 2C Development Not Viable resources have been assigned an average chance of development ranging from 10% to 15%.

Contingent resources within the Development on hold category are only in the 1C certainty estimate (low or conservative). The main contingencies are licence extensions and continuation of drilling beyond five years. These contingencies are considered to have a high chance of positive resolution and are therefore not applied in the best estimates of respective reserves and resources (2P and 2C).

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development Unclarified)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Unclarified

1,812

1,698

380

355

10% – 85%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Unclarified

2,334

2,190

528

494

10% – 85%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Unclarified

3,418

3,216

793

744

10% – 85%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Heavy Crude Oil (Development Unclarified)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Unclarified

4,163

3,924

1,836

1,730

5% – 60%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Unclarified

6,006

5,661

2,393

2,256

5% – 60%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Unclarified

9,324

8,788

3,149

2,968

5% – 60%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development Not Viable)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Not Viable

16,808

15,460

2,521

2,319

5% – 15%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Not Viable

30,057

27,577

3,870

3,552

5% – 15%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Not Viable

45,326

41,543

4,801

4,400

5% – 15%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Heavy Crude Oil (Development Not Viable)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Not Viable

1,256

1,183

188

178

15%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Not Viable

1,114

1,050

167

158

15%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Not Viable

847

799

127

120

15%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development on Hold)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development on Hold

4,224

3,738

3,850

3,409

90% – 95%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development on Hold

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development on Hold

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Heavy Crude Oil (Development on Hold)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development on Hold

1,659

1,564

1,506

1,420

90% – 95%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development on Hold

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development on Hold

The NSAI estimates have been risked, using the chance of development, to account for the possibility that the contingencies are not successfully addressed.

Glossary

bbls

barrels of oil

Mbbls

thousand barrels of oil

MMbbls

million barrels of oil

Advisory and Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Certain information included in this news release constitutes forward-looking information under applicable securities legislation. Such forward-looking information is for the purpose of explaining management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes, such as making investment decisions. Forward-looking information typically contains statements with words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘expect’, ‘plan’, ‘intend’, ‘estimate’, ‘propose’, ‘project’, ‘target’ or similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

Forward-looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, management’s anticipation that completion of the Farm-in Transaction will be additive to volumes and values; management’s expectation of receiving governmental approval of the Farm-in Transaction and the timing thereof; management’s continued focus on contingent resources and the anticipated growth of resources; the ability to add more years of future cash flow, for the benefit of all stakeholders; the ability to drive deeper and longer-lived value from the Company’s assets, even when faced with a correction in commodity prices; the Company’s anticipated 2026 production guidance of 19.5 – 22.5 Mbbls/d; dates for the anticipated end of field life of Valeura’s assets; forecast oil prices; the Company’s intention to disclose a summary of the NSAI 2025 Report to Thailand’s upstream regulator and the anticipated timing thereof; and the anticipated filing date of the Company’s annual information form along with its estimates of reserves and resources.

Forward-looking information is based on management’s current expectations and assumptions regarding, among other things: political stability of the areas in which the Company is operating; continued safety of operations and ability to proceed in a timely manner; continued operations of and approvals forthcoming from governments and regulators in a manner consistent with past conduct; future drilling activity on the required/expected timelines; the prospectivity of the Company’s lands; the continued favourable pricing and operating netbacks across its business; future production rates and associated operating netbacks and cash flow; decline rates; future sources of funding; future economic conditions; the impact of inflation of future costs; future currency exchange rates; interest rates; the ability to meet drilling deadlines and fulfil commitments under licences and leases; future commodity prices; the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; royalty rates and taxes; future capital and other expenditures; the success obtained in drilling new wells and working over existing wellbores; the performance of wells and facilities; the availability of the required capital to funds its exploration, development and other operations, and the ability of the Company to meet its commitments and financial obligations; the ability of the Company to secure adequate processing, transportation, fractionation and storage capacity on acceptable terms; the capacity and reliability of facilities; the application of regulatory requirements respecting abandonment and reclamation; the recoverability of the Company’s reserves and contingent resources; future growth; the sufficiency of budgeted capital expenditures in carrying out planned activities; the impact of increasing competition; the ability to efficiently integrate assets and employees acquired through acquisitions; global energy policies going forward; future debt levels; and the Company’s continued ability to obtain and retain qualified staff and equipment in a timely and cost efficient manner. In addition, the Company’s work programmes and budgets are in part based upon expected agreement among joint venture partners and associated exploration, development and marketing plans and anticipated costs and sales prices, which are subject to change based on, among other things, the actual results of drilling and related activity, availability of drilling, offshore storage and offloading facilities and other specialised oilfield equipment and service providers, changes in partners’ plans and unexpected delays and changes in market conditions. Although the Company believes the expectations and assumptions reflected in such forward-looking information are reasonable, they may prove to be incorrect.

Forward-looking information involves significant known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Exploration, appraisal, and development of oil and natural gas reserves and resources are speculative activities and involve a degree of risk. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by the Company including, but not limited to: the ability of management to execute its business plan or realise anticipated benefits from acquisitions; the risk of disruptions from public health emergencies and/or pandemics; competition for specialised equipment and human resources; the Company’s ability to manage growth; the Company’s ability to manage the costs related to inflation; disruption in supply chains; the risk of currency fluctuations; changes in interest rates, oil and gas prices and netbacks; potential changes in joint venture partner strategies and participation in work programmes; uncertainty regarding the contemplated timelines and costs for work programme execution; the risks of disruption to operations and access to worksites; potential changes in laws and regulations, the uncertainty regarding government and other approvals; counterparty risk; the risk that financing may not be available; risks associated with weather delays and natural disasters; and the risk associated with international activity. See the most recent annual information form and management’s discussion and analysis of the Company for a detailed discussion of the risk factors.

The forward-looking information contained in this new release is made as of the date hereof and the Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless required by applicable securities laws. The forward-looking information contained in this new release is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction, including where such offer would be unlawful. This news release is not for distribution or release, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Ireland, the Republic of South Africa or Japan or any other jurisdiction in which its publication or distribution would be unlawful.

Neither the Toronto Stock Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Toronto Stock Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

This information is provided by Reach, the non-regulatory press release distribution service of RNS, part of the London Stock Exchange. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.

SOURCE: Valeura Energy Inc.

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Relationship Represents Potential Long Term Scalability of High Efficiency Supply Chain from Demonstration to Commercial Scale

Syntholene Energy CORP (TSXV: ESAF) (FSE: 3DD0) (OTCQB: SYNTF) (‘Syntholene’ or the ‘Company’) announces that it has selected Dynelectro ApS (Denmark) as the electrolyzer technology vendor for its planned synthetic fuel demonstration facility in Iceland. Dynelectro is the developer of what it describes as the world’s most efficient electrolyzer platform, purpose-built for high-performance hydrogen production in power-to-liquids applications for synthetic fuel (‘eFuel’) and, more specifically, synthetic sustainable aviation fuel (‘eSAF’).

Dynelectro’s electrolyzer platform has demonstrated industry-leading energy efficiency in the production of hydrogen, a key feedstock to eFuels, while maintaining durability under continuous industrial operation at variable load. The system architecture emphasizes reduced balance-of-plant complexity, high current density operation, and modular deployment, characteristics that align closely with Syntholene’s objective of developing capital-efficient, repeatable synthetic fuel infrastructure.

The planned demonstration facility is intended to validate the Company’s integrated approach to producing low-cost hydrogen as a feedstock to eSAF and other eFuels, with a focus on scalability, energy efficiency, and long-term cost competitiveness with fossil fuels.

‘Syntholene’s eSAF production plans are a perfect match for Dynelectro’s electrolyser solution,’ explains Sune Lilbaek, CEO at Dynelectro ApS. ‘To be successful in the eSAF market, the lowest possible cost of hydrogen over the lifespan of the plant is a necessity. Dynelectro’s unique take on SOEC electrolysers seeks to enable the lowest possible energy consumption and maintenance cost. When integrated with Syntholene’s proprietary hybrid thermal production system, it is possible to convert up to 90% of the renewable electrical energy supplied into clean hydrogen. Together, we expect to be deploying the most cost-effective, energy-efficient solution for production of sustainable aviation fuel on the market today.’

The vendor selection represents a key technical milestone for Syntholene as it advances engineering and procurement activities associated with its first demonstration-scale facility.

‘The selection of Dynelectro is the result of a rigorous two-year technical and commercial evaluation process across all major vendors focused on efficiency, reliability, and long-term scalability,’ said Dan Sutton, CEO of Syntholene. ‘Electrolyzer performance coupled with low-cost clean energy are the primary drivers of synthetic fuel economics. Partnering with a technology provider that prioritizes energy efficiency and industrial robustness is critical as we move from demonstration toward multi-megawatt commercial deployment.’

About Syntholene

Syntholene is actively commercializing its novel Hybrid Thermal Production System for low-cost clean fuel synthesis. The target output is ultrapure synthetic jet fuel, manufactured at 70% lower cost than the nearest competing technology today. The company’s mission is to deliver the world’s first truly high-performance, low-cost, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuel at an industrial scale, unlocking the potential to produce clean synthetic fuel at lower cost than fossil fuels, for the first time.

Syntholene’s power-to-liquid strategy harnesses thermal energy to power proprietary integrations of hydrogen production and fuel synthesis. Syntholene has secured 20MW of dedicated energy to support the Company’s upcoming demonstration facility and commercial scale-up.

Founded by experienced operators across advanced energy infrastructure, nuclear technology, low-emissions steel refining, process engineering, and capital markets, Syntholene aims to be the first team to deliver a scalable modular production platform for cost-competitive synthetic fuel, thus accelerating the commercialization of carbon-neutral eFuels across global markets.

About Dynelectro

Dynelectro is a Danish SOE electrolyser OEM at the forefront of developing advanced, sustainable energy solutions. Utilising cutting-edge solid-oxide electrolysis technology, Dynelectro achieves unprecedented system performance and lifespan, enabling a five-fold improvement in lifetime performance through a novel approach to stack control and integration. Their innovations enable operators to seamlessly adjust production based on the availability of cost-effective renewable energy.

The company commercialises MW-scale Dynamic Electrolyser Units (DEUs), producing clean hydrogen to unlock syngas and e-fuel production. Dynelectro was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in the capital region of Denmark. Visit www.dynelectro.dk

For further information, please contact:
Dan Sutton, CEO
comms@syntholene.com
www.syntholene.com

Investor Relations
KIN Communications Inc.
604-684-6730
ESAF@kincommunications.com

Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘aims’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘objective’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘project’, ‘should’, ‘believe’, ‘plans’, ‘intends’ and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information or statements. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, including but not limited to statements regarding the use of a particular vendor, the services to be provided and standard of delivery, expected benefits of engagement of certain service providers, development of the Company’s test facility, commercial scalability, technical and economic viability, anticipated geothermal power availability, anticipated benefit of eFuel, the Company’s business plans, and future commercial opportunities, are forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by the Company, including without limitation the assumption that the Company will be able to execute its business plan, that the eFuel will have its expected benefits, that the selected vendor will be able to complete their deliverables on time and to the standard expected, that the test facility will be completed as planned, that there will be market adoption, and that the Company will be able to access financing as needed to fund its business plan. Although the Company believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking statements and information are based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements and information because the Company can give no assurance that they 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 could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks, including, without limitation, Syntholene’s ability to meet production targets, realize projected economic benefits, meet targeted timelines for development, overcome technical challenges, secure financing, maintain regulatory compliance, manage geopolitical risks, and successfully negotiate definitive terms. Syntholene does not undertake any obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities laws.

Readers are advised to exercise caution and not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/283350

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Gold often dominates conversations at the annual Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC), but silver’s price surge, which began in 2025 and continued into January, placed the metal firmly in the spotlight.

At this year’s silver forecast panel, Commodity Culture host and producer Jesse Day sat down with Maria Smirnova, senior portfolio manager and senior investment officer Sprott (TSX:SII,NYSE:SII); GoldSeek President and CEO Peter Spina; Peter Krauth, editor of Silver Stock Investor and Silver Advisor; and Silver Tiger Metals (TSXV:SLVR,OTCQX:SLVTF) President and CEO Glenn Jessome to discuss silver’s meteoric performance and where it could be headed next.

Significant tailwinds supporting silver

Over the past five years, the silver price has largely stagnated, trading between US$20 and US$25 per ounce until mid-2024 when the white metal crossed the US$30 mark. Even then, the price mostly held steady until 2025, when it crossed the US$35 mark in June, then passed US$40 in September and US$50 in October.

However, the most significant rise came at the start of December, when momentum took over, sending silver on a historic run that pushed it to a record high of US$116 by the end of January.

Behind these meteoric gains was a highly volatile silver market, which, despite strong fundamentals, became highly speculative and attractive to investors seeking an alternative to gold, which is also trading at all-time highs.

“You buy gold to prevent losing money, and you buy silver to make money, to buy more gold,” Spina said.

Silver is in the midst of a six-year structural supply deficit, with the expectation that it will continue through 2026.

A key driver of this deficit is silver’s growing role in industrial applications. Although its biggest gains have come from its use in solar panel production, it’s also important to several other sectors, including automotive and defense.

“We wouldn’t have a modern civilization without silver. It’s used in a myriad of different places, and what is interesting now is that silver is very critical to the national defense of the US, of China, of big superpowers. So it’s becoming weaponized,” Spina explained. He noted that the US designated silver a critical mineral in 2025, placing it alongside copper for strategic purposes, and suggested that stockpiling is likely underway.

In addition to demand driving the silver price, Spina also noted that investors who had been absent from the market for many years moved into net-buying positions last year, which has helped to accelerate the market.

“Its more serious than the gold market, because silver is so essential in our daily lives,” Spina said.

While demand increases, a serious situation is developing on the supply side. The majority of silver produced today comes as a byproduct from mining other metals like copper and zinc.

Jessome outlined how perilous the supply side is, noting that in 2025 there were just 52 primary silver mines worldwide; by the end of 2026, that number is expected to fall to 46, and in 2027 to 39.

With so few mines and high prices, the expectation is that there would be new production set to come online, and although there are some in the pipeline, including Jessome’s Silver Tiger, the reality is that starting a new mine is fraught with challenges. He noted that, from the first drill hole to production, the average time is 17 years.

“From that first drill hole to a commercial mine, it’s one in 1,000. So if you think that we’re going to solve this 39 in the next year, it’s not easy, it’s hard,” Jessome told the VRIC audience.

He continued to explain that, regardless of what happens with the price, people don’t realize there’s not enough silver.

Bull markets, retractions and getting ahead

Even though silver’s fundamentals support high prices, the questions on many lips throughout VRIC were: ‘Is it too much too soon?’ and ‘Is it a bull market or is it a bubble?’

The consensus was that the metal remains in a bull market, but is exhibiting some bubble-like characteristics; investors can expect corrections, but silver will likely maintain momentum.

“We’re multiple percent above the 200 day moving average. This is not something that’s sustainable. If we continue at this pace, it would suck all the money from the markets into this one asset. It’s not likely to continue,” Krauth said just days prior to a significant correction that took the silver price back below US$70.

He pointed to the 2001 to 2011 bull market: silver rose from US$4 to nearly US$50, but along the way, there were corrections. “There were five corrections of 15 percent or more. The average correction was 30 percent. That would take us to US$75, US$80 right now,” Krauth emphasized to the audience at VRIC.

While the expert explained that a silver correction of that magnitude wouldn’t be shocking, he also pointed out that miners would still be pretty happy at those prices.

Given the market volatility, Spina echoed much of Krauth’s belief that there is reason for investors to be excited but also urged caution, commenting, “I would be very, very cautious in trying to trade this, especially with leverage or anything like that, but I do think that we’re in the revaluation phase. Silver could go a lot higher, but along the way, we can get some very vicious pullbacks, and so one has to be ready for those events.’

Smirnova urged calm, and that she was hopeful for a correction, agreeing with Krauth that the parabolic trajectory of silver wasn’t sustainable, and saying she sees gold market as more steady.

She also suggested that, rather than chasing opportunities, investors should be patient and wait for them to come to them, rather than being fearful in such a volatile market.

“I would urge people to think, sit back, and think about the reasons why silver ran in the first place, and whether those reasons are continuing right now, and they will. I think the fundamentals haven’t changed for silver, using corrections as opportunities to reload, to enter, to buy things that you know you like as an investor,” Smirnova said.

Investor takeaway

Overall, the panel was in agreement that the main factors fueling a strong silver market, supply and demand, investment, and a bifurcated market, aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Demand for silver goes beyond investment and is set to play a crucial role in the energy transition, AI and technology, and national defense. However, they also agreed that it’s probably run up to fast, and needs a correction, which started to happen on January 29, but none expected the bull market to come to an end.

Smirnova did an excellent job of putting the changing silver market into perspective for investors.

“We mine and produce, between scrap and mining supply, 1 billion ounces a year at US$30. That was a US$30 billion market. At US$100 it’s a US$100 billion market. It’s nothing. We have companies trading at trillion-dollar valuations in the market. The whole silver market is $100 billion a year, so it really does not take a lot of money to move the price, and that’s why I think it’s gone from US$30 to US$100 in no time at all,” she said.

While these price shifts don’t require significant capital inflows, they make a significant difference across the sector. Krauth noted that the price of silver hasn’t really been factored in for silver developers or producers because their projections are currently based on prices that are two-thirds lower.

“Almost nobody ever uses spot prices. They’re arguably two-thirds below spot price,’ he said.

‘So when the next few quarters come in and the market starts to realize what kind of cash these projects are generating, I think that’s when the reality will start to set in,” Krauth added.

The panel was largely optimistic that opportunities will continue to arise in the silver market. They noted that physical silver prices tend to be more volatile, but there are safer options for investors who don’t want to miss out.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com