Author

admin

Browsing

The platinum price has surged over 20 percent year-to-date, propelled by a sharp rebound in Chinese demand and a tightening global supply picture that analysts say may signal a prolonged market deficit.

On May 23, platinum closed at US$1,098.40 per ounce, its highest level since May 2023, and a 22 percent increase from its year-to-date low US$892, seen on April 8. The rally, which has accelerated in recent weeks, comes amid renewed investor interest in precious metals, stark supply-side constraints and a changing global demand profile.

China has emerged as a key force behind platinum’s surge, with imports in April jumping 47 percent month-on-month to 10 metric tons, the highest in a year, according to Chinese Customs data.

“In the first quarter of this year alone, given the exceptionally high gold price, gold jewelry sales in China were down 32 percent year-on-year, and platinum jewelry sales were up 26 percent,” he emphasized.

Gold touched US$3,500 per ounce last month, pricing many Chinese buyers out of the market. Platinum, currently trading at a significant discount, is increasingly being seen as an attractive alternative, both for investment and jewelry.

“China’s a market that can pivot really quickly,” Sterck added, noting that platinum bars, coins and jewelry are now being marketed aggressively across social media platforms like TikTok.

This renewed Chinese interest aligns with broader structural issues in the platinum-group metals (PGMs) market, as detailed in a recent report by research firm Metals Focus. It notes that all five PGMs — platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium and ruthenium — ended last year in physical deficit. Platinum alone saw a second consecutive year of shortfall, with Metals Focus placing total global production at 5.77 million ounces, still well below the 2010 to 2021 annual average.

Behind the deficit lies a mix of supply disruptions, weak mine productivity and building demand.

Sterck underscored the severity of the shortfall seen in Q1, saying it was the largest in six years. It was driven by flooding in South Africa, smelter outages in Zimbabwe and operational restructuring in North America.

Even though South African output rose above 4 million ounces for the first time since 2021, much of that gain was attributed to the release of built-up work-in-process inventories rather than fresh production.

The constrained supply has had ripple effects across investment channels. Platinum secondary supply — which primarily comes from recycled jewelry and autocatalysts — rose just 1 percent last year.

In Asia, jewelry recycling volumes fell, and while autocatalyst recycling improved 9 percent due to higher scrappage rates and incentives in China, it remained insufficient to close the gap.

When it comes to demand, the auto sector, traditionally the largest consumer of PGMs, saw overall fabrication demand fall 4 percent to 12.14 million ounces in 2024. This decline marked the first drop since the COVID-19 pandemic, and was largely due to a 2 percent decrease in catalyzed vehicle production amid the rise of battery electric vehicles.

Industrial demand, on the other hand, was under pressure, falling 2 percent year-on-year. The biggest hit came from a 27 percent drop in chemical applications, particularly in China’s paraxylene sector, a key component in plastic production.

Against this backdrop, speculative positions in platinum have also helped drive recent price movements.

Sterck explained that in the first quarter of 2025, a confluence of market expectations and policy shifts — particularly related to US import tariffs — created arbitrage opportunities for traders.

“There was a lot of uncertainty as to whether tariffs would apply to platinum and other PGMs,” he explained, adding that the flow of metal into the US caused strong contangos in NYMEX futures markets, boosting Q1 investment figures.

Although aboveground stocks of platinum remain elevated, they are being gradually drawn down, and continued mine cutbacks could eventually tip the market further into deficit territory.

Sterck tempered this outlook with caution: “It feels like, as that range is pinching out, we’re definitely getting to a point where it seems highly likely the price will begin to reflect the underlying deficits. So we’ll have to wait and see.”

Metals Focus projects an average platinum price of US$970 for 2025 — a modest increase from last year’s average — but notes that volatility could return if investor sentiment sharpens or supply disruptions worsen.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

2025 PROGRAM

  • Drilling is now underway with three rigs

    Conversion of inferred resources into indicated & further exploration drilling.

  • Updated mineral resource end of Q2
  • Ongoing metallurgical work, focusing on flowsheet optionality with sulphide oxidation is a key part of our strategy to maximize the potential of the resource.

Freegold Ventures Limited (TSX: FVL) (OTCQX: FGOVF) (‘Freegold’ or the ‘Company ‘) is pleased to announce that three drill rigs are now operational at Golden Summit. One rig is situated in the WOW Zone (Holes GS2502, GS2505), another is operating in the Cleary Zone (Holes GS2501, GS2503), and a third is in the Dolphin Zone (GS2504). A fourth rig is anticipated to begin in early summer.

The 2025 drilling program aims to upgrade inferred mineral resources to indicated through targeted infill drilling, along with geotechnical drilling and additional metallurgical test holes. Since 2020, exploration has been highly successful.  With a discovery cost of under $4.00 per ounce and substantially increased grade and tonnage, Golden Summit has grown into one of the most significant undeveloped gold resources in North America .  Ongoing metallurgical tests indicate that a substantial portion of the mineralization is non-refractory and can be processed conventionally, although further processing of sulfides is necessary for optimal recoveries.

The September 2024 resource estimate, based on a gold price of US$1,973 , includes a flowsheet comprising grinding, gravity separation, flotation, regrinding of sulfide concentrate, and CIL treatment, achieving a 72% recovery rate at a processing cost of $14 per ton. To increase recoveries, additional sulfide processing (oxidation) is beneficial; however, this will increase costs, which higher gold recovery and higher gold prices could well offset.

Current metallurgical programs are aimed at refining the flowsheet options available for evaluation in a pre-feasibility study, including testing of sulphide-oxidizing methods such as BIOX®, POX, and Albion Process. Earlier this year, Freegold reported 93% recovery using the Albion Process. Earlier this year, Freegold reported 93% recovery using the Albion Process TM oxidation-CIL, with further test work ongoing.  Comminution tests using half PQ core have been conducted on over 50 samples from various locations and lithologies within the deposit to determine the trade-off between grind size and liberation versus power consumption with a view to optimizing power requirements and gold recoveries.

An updated mineral resource estimate based on the 2024 drilling is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2025.

Link to the Plan Map

https://freegoldventures.com/site/assets/files/6287/pr-2025-drilling-20250529.jpg

HQ Core is logged, photographed and cut in half using a diamond saw, and one-half placed in sealed bags for preparation and subsequent geochemical analysis by MSA Laboratories in Prince George, BC .  At MSALABS, the entire sample will be dried and crushed to 70% passing -2mm (CRU-CPA). A ~500g riffle split will be analyzed for gold using CHRYSOS PhotonAssay (CPA-Au1). From this, 250g will be further riffle split from the original PhotonAssay sample, pulverized, and a 0.25g sub-sample analysed for multi-element geochemistry using MSA’s IMS230 package, which includes 4-acid digestion and ICP-MS finish. MSALABS operates under ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO 9001 certified quality systems. A QA/QC program includes laboratory and field standards inserted every ten samples. Blanks are inserted at the start of the submittal, and at least one blank every 25 standards.

The Qualified Person for this release is Alvin Jackson , P.Geo., Vice President of Exploration and Development for Freegold, who has approved the scientific and technical disclosure in this news release.

About Freegold Ventures Limited  
Freegold is a TSX-listed company focused on exploration in Alaska . It holds the Golden Summit Gold Project near Fairbanks and the Shorty Creek Copper-Gold Project near Livengood through leases.

For further information:

Kristina Walcott
President and CEO
Telephone: 1.604.662.7307
jkw@freegoldventures.com

Some statements in this news release contain forward-looking information, including, without limitation, statements as to planned expenditures and exploration programs, potential mineralization and resources, exploration results, the completion of an updated NI 43-101 technical report, and any other future plans. These statements address future events and conditions and, as such, involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by the statements. Such factors include, without limitation, the completion of planned expenditures, the ability to complete exploration programs on schedule, and the success of exploration programs. See Freegold’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31st, 2024 , filed under Freegold’s profile at www.sedar.com , for a detailed discussion of the risk factors associated with Freegold’s operations. On January 30, 2020 , the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. Reactions to the spread of COVID-19 continue to lead to, among other things, significant restrictions on travel, business closures, quarantines, and a general reduction in economic activity. While these effects have been reduced in recent months, the continuation and re-introduction of significant restrictions, business disruptions, and related financial impact, and the duration of any such disruptions cannot be reasonably estimated. The risks to Freegold of such public health crises also include employee health and safety risks and a slowdown or temporary suspension of operations in geographic locations impacted by an outbreak. Such public health crises, as well as global geopolitical crises, can result in volatility and disruptions in the supply and demand for various products and services, global supply chains, and financial markets, as well as declining trade and market sentiment and reduced mobility of people, all of which could affect interest rates, credit ratings, credit risk, and inflation. As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, Freegold has implemented a COVID management program and established a full-service Camp at Golden Summit to attempt to mitigate risks to its employees, contractors, and community. While the extent to which COVID-19 may impact Freegold is uncertain, it is possible that COVID-19 may have a material adverse effect   on Freegold’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

SOURCE Freegold Ventures Limited

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2025/29/c3673.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Coelacanth Energy Inc. (TSXV: CEI) (‘Coelacanth’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce its financial and operating results for the three months ended March 30, 2025. All dollar figures are Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

FINANCIAL RESULTS Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s, except per share amounts)  2025   2024   % Change   
       
Oil and natural gas sales 2,666 3,666 (27 )
       
Cash flow from operating activities 981 3,256 (70 )
Per share – basic and diluted (1) 0.01 (100 )
       
Adjusted funds flow (used) (1) (1,440 ) 1,078 (234 )
Per share – basic and diluted (- ) (- )
       
Net loss (3,617 ) (1,201 ) 201
Per share – basic and diluted (0.01 ) (- ) 100
       
Capital expenditures (1) 25,701 1,263 1,935
       
Adjusted working capital (deficiency) (1) (25,710 ) 67,139 (138 )
       
Common shares outstanding (000s)      
Weighted average – basic and diluted 531,445 529,196
       
End of period – basic 532,202 529,392 1
End of period – fully diluted 624,877 618,165 1​

 

(1) See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures’ section.

  Three Months Ended
OPERATING RESULTS (1) March 31
   2025   2024   % Change   
       
Daily production (2)      
Oil and condensate (bbls/d) 184 300 (39 )
Other NGLs (bbls/d) 25 37 (32 )
Oil and NGLs (bbls/d) 209 337 (38 )
Natural gas (mcf/d) 3,311 3,934 (16 )
Oil equivalent (boe/d) 761 993 (23 )
       
Oil and natural gas sales      
Oil and condensate ($/bbl) 90.21 85.30 6
Other NGLs ($/bbl) 38.01 34.79 9
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 84.03 79.82 5
Natural gas ($/mcf) 3.65 3.40 7
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 38.94 40.57 (4 )
       
Royalties      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 15.95 20.77 (23 )
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.64 0.51 25
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 7.18 9.08 (21 )
       
Operating expenses      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 10.63 9.89 7
     Natural gas ($/mcf) 1.77 1.65 7
     Oil equivalent ($/boe) 10.63 9.89 7
       
Net transportation expenses (3)      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 2.27 2.45 (7 )
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.78 0.68 15
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 4.00 3.54 13
       
Operating netback (3)      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 55.18 46.71 18
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.46 0.56 (18 )
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 17.13 18.06 (5 )
       
Depletion and depreciation ($/boe) (14.30 ) (14.42 ) (1 )
General and administrative expenses ($/boe) (21.76 ) (13.86 ) 57
Share based compensation ($/boe) (18.46 ) (10.11 ) 83
Finance expense ($/boe) (12.86 ) (1.06 ) 1,113
Finance income ($/boe) 1.46 10.60 (86 )
Unutilized transportation ($/boe) (4.05 ) (2.49 ) 63
Net loss ($/boe) (52.84 ) (13.28 ) 298

 

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

Selected financial and operational information outlined in this news release should be read in conjunction with Coelacanth’s unaudited condensed interim financial statements and related Management’s Discussion and Analysis (‘MD&A’) for the three months ended March 31, 2025, which are available for review under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

OPERATIONS UPDATE

Coelacanth has reached a major milestone in its development with the completion of the Two Rivers East facility (the ‘Facility’). The Facility was completed on budget and has moved to the testing and start-up phase. The capacity of the Facility is currently 8,000 boe/d but will be expanded in Q4 2025 to 16,000 boe/d with added compression. We expect production to start flowing imminently from the 5-19 pad and ramp up through the summer. As previously released, the 5-19 pad has 9 wells that tested over 11,000 boe/d (1) that will be brought on systematically to approach the phase I capacity of the plant prior to further drilling.

Over the next few years, Coelacanth will continue with its business plan that incorporates:

  1. Systematically developing the resource using pad development and horizontal multi-frac technology to increase production and maximize cash flow and investment returns.
  2. Delineating the lands with vertical and horizontal wells to help in quantifying and understanding the commerciality of its large Montney resource base that includes up to four Montney benches over its 150 contiguous sections of land.
  3. Developing and licensing a flexible infrastructure plan that will allow for the resource to be scaled to a much larger production base.

Coelacanth has licensed additional locations on the 5-19 pad, is in the process of licensing additional development pads, delineation locations and additional infrastructure to grow beyond current plant capacity. While commodity prices and available capital will dictate the pace of execution of the business plan, we are very pleased with the results to date and look forward to reporting on new developments as they arise.

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

OIL AND GAS TERMS

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

Liquids

Bbls Barrels
Bbls/d Barrels per day
NGLs Natural gas liquids (includes condensate, pentane, butane, propane, and ethane)
Condensate Pentane and heavier hydrocarbons 

 

Natural Gas

Mcf Thousands of cubic feet
Mcf/d Thousands of cubic feet per day
MMcf/d Millions of cubic feet per day
MMbtu Million of British thermal units
MMbtu/d Million of British thermal units per day

 

Oil Equivalent

Boe Barrels of oil equivalent
Boe/d Barrels of oil equivalent per day

 

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

NON-GAAP AND OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES

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

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

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

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024   % Change   
Cash flow from operating activities  981 3,256 (70 )
Add (deduct):      
Decommissioning expenditures 139 148 (6 )
Change in restricted cash deposits 424 (100 )
Change in non-cash working capital (2,560 ) (2,750 ) (7 )
Adjusted funds flow (used) (non-GAAP) (1,440 ) 1,078 (234 )

 

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

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Transportation expenses 551 545
Unutilized transportation (277 ) (225 )
Net transportation expenses (non-GAAP) 274 320

 

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

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Oil and natural gas sales 2,666 3,666
Royalties (491 ) (821 )
Operating expenses (728 ) (894 )
Net transportation expenses (274 ) (320 )
Operating netback (non-GAAP) 1,173 1,631

 

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

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Capital expenditures – property, plant, and equipment 668 393
Capital expenditures – exploration and evaluation assets 25,033 870
Capital expenditures (non-GAAP) 25,701 1,263

 

Capital Management Measures

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

($000s) March 31,
2025 
  December 31, 2024   
Current assets 3,431 11,579
Less:     
Current liabilities  (36,009 ) (37,234 )
Working capital deficiency (32,578 ) (25,655 )
Add:     
Restricted cash deposits 4,900 4,900
Current portion of decommissioning obligations 1,968 2,118
Adjusted working capital deficiency (Capital management measure) (25,710 ) (18,637 )

 

Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

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

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

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

Supplementary Financial Measures

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

PRODUCT TYPES

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

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

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

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
Sales Volumes by Product Type  2025   2024 
     
Condensate (bbls/d)                      18                      19
Other NGLs (bbls/d)                      25                      37
NGLs (bbls/d)                      43                      56
     
Tight oil (bbls/d)                    166                    281
Condensate (bbls/d)                      18                      19
Oil and condensate (bbls/d)                    184                    300
Other NGLs (bbls/d)                      25                      37
Oil and NGLs (bbls/d)                    209                    337
     
Shale gas (mcf/d)                 3,311                 3,934
Natural gas (mcf/d)                 3,311                 3,934
     
Oil equivalent (boe/d)                    761                    993

 

TEST RESULTS AND INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

Further Information

For additional information, please contact:

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

Mr. Robert J. Zakresky
President and Chief Executive Officer

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

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

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/253761

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

23andMe on Tuesday announced it will voluntarily delist from the Nasdaq and de-register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a release.

The move comes after Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said earlier this month that it will acquire “substantially all” of 23andMe’s assets for $256 million.

The drugmaker came out on top following a bankruptcy auction for 23andMe, a once high-flying genetic testing company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March.

23andMe said it will file a Form 25 Notification of Delisting with the SEC on or around June 6, which would subsequently remove the stock from listing and registering with the Nasdaq.

The company said the Nasdaq had originally informed the company that a Form 25 would be filed in March, but since the exchange has not yet submitted the filing, 23andMe is doing so voluntarily.

23andMe exploded into the mainstream because of its at-home DNA testing kits that allowed customers to examine their genetic profiles. At its peak, the company was valued at around $6 billion.

But after going public via a merger with a special purpose acquisition company in 2021, the company struggled to generate recurring revenue and stand up viable research or therapeutics businesses.

Regeneron’s deal is still subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Pending approval, it’s expected to close in the third quarter of this year.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Macy’s cut its full-year profit guidance on Wednesday even as it beat Wall Street’s quarterly earnings expectations, as the retailer’s CEO said it will hike prices of certain items to offset tariffs.

In a news release, the department store operator said it reduced its earnings outlook because of higher tariffs, more promotions and “some moderation” in discretionary spending. Macy’s stuck by its full-year sales forecast, however.

For fiscal 2025, Macy’s now expects adjusted earnings per share of $1.60 to $2, down from its previous forecast of $2.05 to $2.25. It reaffirmed its full-year sales guidance of between $21 billion and $21.4 billion, which would be a decline from $22.29 billion in the most recent full year.

In an interview with CNBC, CEO Tony Spring said about 15 cents to 40 cents per share of the guidance cut is due to tariffs. He said about 20% of the company’s merchandise comes from China.

Macy’s will raise some prices and stop carrying certain items to mitigate the hit from tariffs, he added.

“You’re dealing with it on both the demand side as well as the increased cost side,” he said. “And so navigating that, we have a series of different scenarios to try to figure out kind of what will be the reality, and we want our guidance to reflect the flexibility of that uncertainty, so that we can react in real time to how we serve or better serve the consumer.”

Spring said the company will be “surgical” with price changes.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of approach,” he said. “There are going to be items that are the same price as they were a year ago. There is going to be, selectively, items that may be more expensive, and there are items that we might not carry because the pricing doesn’t merit the quality or the perceived value by the consumer.”

Here’s how Macy’s did during its fiscal first quarter, compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

In the three-month period that ended May 3, the company’s net income was $38 million, or 13 cents per share, compared with $62 million, or 22 cents per share, in the year-ago period. Sales dropped from $4.85 billion in the year-ago quarter. Excluding some one-time charges including restructuring charges, adjusted earnings per share were 16 cents.

The company’s shares were down more than 2% in early trading on Wednesday.

Economic uncertainty — including President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff announcements — has complicated Macy’s turnaround plans. The New York City-based legacy retailer is more than a year into a three-year effort to become a smaller, but healthier business. It’s shuttering weaker stores and investing in stronger parts of the company, including luxury department store Bloomingdale’s and beauty chain Bluemercury. It has also tried to improve the customer experience, including by speeding up online deliveries and adding staff to stores.

Spring told analysts on the earnings call that the tariff impact on Macy’s outlook includes the additional costs of inventory previously imported under the 145% China tariffs, which have since dropped to 30%. He said the outlook does not include a potential increase in tariffs on the European Union or any other U.S. trading partner.

Trump recently threatened to implement, and then delayed, a 50% tariff on the EU.

Macy’s sells a mix of national band private brands, which are sold exclusively at its stores and on its website. Spring told CNBC that the company has reduced the share of its private brands that comes from China to about 27% — a drop from 32% last year and more than 50% before the Covid pandemic.

CFO Adrian Mitchell said on the company’s earnings call that Macy’s has taken action to blunt the impact of tariffs on national brands it sells, too. He said the company has renegotiated orders with vendors, canceled some orders and delayed others.

“We’ve been able to gain some vendor discounts, which has been helpful to us, but we’re absorbing some of that price as well,” he said.

And in some cases, Macy’s is keeping prices the same despite higher costs to appeal to value-conscious customers and gain market share from competitors, Mitchell added.

Spring said on the company’s earnings call on Wednesday that Macy’s sales were stronger in March and April compared to February, attributing some of that to improving weather. So far, sales trends in the second quarter have been above those in March and April, he added.

Macy’s plans to close about 150 underperforming namesake stores across the country by early 2027.

In the fiscal first quarter, Macy’s namesake brand remained its weakest. Comparable sales across Macy’s owned and licensed business, plus its online marketplace, declined 2.1% year over year.

When Macy’s took out the stores that it plans to shutter, however, trends looked slightly better. Comparable sales of its go-forward business, including its owned and licensed business and online marketplace, declined 1.9%

On the other hand, comparable sales at Bloomingdale’s rose 3.8% year over year, including its owned, licensed and marketplace businesses. Comparable sales at Bluemercury climbed 1.5% year over year.

To try to turn its namesake stores around, Macy’s has invested in 50 locations — dubbed the “First 50” — with more staffing, sharper displays and changes to its mix of merchandise. It has expanded that initiative to 75 additional stores, bringing the total to 125 locations that have gotten increased attention. That’s a little over a third of the 350 namesake locations that Macy’s plans to keep open.

Those 125 locations performed better than the overall Macy’s brand. Comparable sales among those revamped stores owned and licensed by Macy’s were down 0.8% compared with the year-ago period.

On Macy’s earnings call in March — before Trump made several sudden tariff moves that baffled companies and investors — Spring said the company’s guidance “assumes a certain level of uncertainty” about the economic outlook. He said even Macy’s affluent customer “is just as uncertain and as confused and concerned by what’s transpiring.”

Earlier this spring, Macy’s announced a few key leadership changes — including a new chief financial officer. Macy’s new CFO, Thomas Edwards, will begin on June 22. He previously served as the chief financial officer and chief operating officer of Capri Holdings, the parent company of Michael Kors. He will succeed Mitchell, who is leaving Macy’s.

As of Tuesday’s close, Macy’s shares are down about 29% so far this year. That trails the S&P 500′s nearly 1% gains during the same period. Macy’s stock closed on Tuesday at $12.04 per share, bringing the retailer’s market value to $3.35 billion.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Dick’s Sporting Goods said Wednesday it’s standing by its full-year guidance, which includes the expected impact from all tariffs currently in effect.

The sporting goods giant said it’s expecting earnings per share to be between $13.80 and $14.40 in fiscal 2025 — in line with the $14.29 that analysts had expected, according to LSEG.

It’s projecting revenue to be between $13.6 billion and $13.9 billion, which is also in line with expectations of $13.9 billion, according to LSEG.

“We are reaffirming our 2025 outlook, which reflects our strong start to the year and confidence in our strategies and operational strength while still acknowledging the dynamic macroeconomic environment,” CEO Lauren Hobart said in a news release. “Our performance demonstrates the momentum and strength of our long-term strategies and the consistency of our execution.”

Here’s how the company performed in its first fiscal quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

The company’s reported net income for the three-month period that ended May 3 was $264 million, or $3.24 per share, compared with $275 million, or $3.30 per share, a year earlier. Excluding one-time items related to its acquisition of Foot Locker, Dick’s posted earnings per share of $3.37.

Sales rose to $3.17 billion, up about 5% from $3.02 billion a year earlier.

For most investors, Dick’s results won’t come as a surprise because it preannounced some of its numbers about two weeks ago when it unveiled plans to acquire its longtime rival Foot Locker for $2.4 billion. So far, Dick’s has seen a mix of reactions to the proposed acquisition.

On one hand, Dick’s deal for Foot Locker will allow it to enter international markets for the first time and reach a customer that’s crucial to the sneaker market and doesn’t typically shop in the retailer’s stores. On the other hand, Dick’s is acquiring a business that’s been struggling for years and some aren’t sure needs to exist due to its overlap with other wholesalers and the rise of brands selling directly to consumers.

While shares of Foot Locker initially soared more than 80% after the deal was announced, shares of Dick’s fell about 15%.

The transaction is expected to close in the second half of fiscal 2025 and, for now, Dick’s outlook doesn’t include acquisition-related costs or results from the acquisition.

In the first full fiscal year post-close, Dick’s expects the transaction to be accretive to earnings and deliver between $100 million and $125 million in cost synergies.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Walmart agreed to pay a small fine and promised to ensure its third-party resellers are unable to sell realistic looking toy guns to buyers in New York, after state Attorney General Letitia James said Tuesday that the retail giant’s online store shipped them to the state.

The settlement comes nearly a decade after Walmart, Amazon, Sears and other retailers entered into a consent order and judgment with New York’s previous attorney general, in which they agreed to keep toy guns that resemble actual deadly weapons off their shelves statewide and they paid civil penalties that topped $300,000.

The 2015 order was part of a nationwide reckoning over realistic looking toy guns in the wake of the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice, a 12 year-old Cleveland boy who was killed by police in November 2014 while holding a pellet gun.

The New York law bans retailers from selling or shipping toy guns of certain colors — black, dark blue, silver, or aluminum — that look like real weapons.

A realistic-looking toy gun Walmart shipped to New York.New York Attorney General’s Office

Toy guns sold in the state must be “made in bright colors or made entirely of transparent or translucent materials,” with businesses subject to a fine of $1,000 per violation, according to James’ office.

James said on Tuesday that an investigation by her office found that Walmart’s online store had shipped at least nine realistic-looking toy guns sold by third-party sellers to New York City, Westchester County and Western New York.

But the investigation also found that between March 2020 and November 2023, at least 46 imitation weapons that violate New York state law were purchased by consumers in the state through the Walmart.com platform, the settlement revealed.

“Realistic-looking toy guns can put communities in serious danger and that is why they are banned in New York,” James said in a statement.

“Walmart failed to prevent its third-party sellers from selling realistic-looking toy guns to New York addresses, violating our laws and putting people at risk,” she said.

“The ban on realistic-looking toy guns is meant to keep New Yorkers safe and my office will not hesitate to hold any business that violates that law accountable.”

Walmart must pay $14,000 in penalties and $2,000 in fees under the settlement, the AG’s office said.

That total of $16,000 is a tiny fraction of the approximately $49 million in net income Walmart earned on an average day in the most recent financial quarter.

CNBC has requested comment from Walmart, which neither admitted nor denied the findings by James’ office in its investigation.

As part of the settlement, Walmart is required to prohibit third parties from offering for sale or selling any of the imitation guns covered by the state law to buyers in New York.

“Walmart shall terminate the ability of a third party from being able to list and sell toy guns and imitation weapons on Walmart.com when it has determined that a third party has engaged in conduct” that violates that restriction on three separate occasions, the settlement said.

And “Walmart shall implement and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent such third parties from offering for sale, exposing for sale, or selling Prohibited Items on Walmart.com for importation, holding for sale, or distribution to New York,” the settlement says.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Technology Back in Top-5

Last week’s market decline of 2-2.5% (depending on the index) has led to some notable shifts in sector performance and rankings.

This pullback, coming after a strong rally, is changing the order of highs and lows on the weekly chart — a particularly significant development, at least for me.

Let’s dive into the details and see what’s flying around in the market.

The composition of the top five sectors has seen some notable changes. Here’s how it stands now:

The big surprise here is Technology making its way into the top five, displacing Consumer Staples (now at #6). This shift suggests a gradual move from a more defensive positioning to sectors that are more cyclical and economically sensitive.

Another eye-catching move comes from Consumer Discretionary, jumping from #10 to #7 — a significant leap, albeit still in the bottom half of the ranking. Real Estate and Materials saw minor shifts, while Energy dropped to #10 and Health Care remains at #11.

  1. (1) Industrials – (XLI)
  2. (4) Communication Services – (XLC)*
  3. (3) Utilities – (XLU)
  4. (2) Financials – (XLF)*
  5. (6) Technology – (XLK)*
  6. (5) Consumer Staples – (XLP)*
  7. (10) Consumer Discretionary – (XLY)*
  8. (7) Real-Estate – (XLRE)*
  9. (8) Materials – (XLB)*
  10. (9) Energy – (XLE)*
  11. (11) Healthcare – (XLV)

Weekly/Daily RRG Analysis

The weekly Relative Rotation Graph (RRG) provides some interesting insights:

  • Utilities maintains very high readings, but Consumer Staples (highest on RS-Ratio ranking) is likely to be pushed down by weak daily chart readings.
  • Industrials continues to push further into the leading quadrant with stable momentum.
  • Financials and Communication Services are inside the weakening quadrant but have room to curl back towards leading.
  • Technology, despite having the second-lowest RS-Ratio reading, is rapidly improving with a strong RS-Momentum heading over recent weeks.

Remember, the ranking combines daily and weekly readings.

Technology’s high daily chart reading is propelling it into the top five, while Consumer Staples’ weak daily reading is pushing it out.

Industrials: The Leader Holding Strong

XLI is now pushing against its all-time high, just below 145. After two weeks of attempts, last week’s slight market decline confirms that this resistance level has worked.

We’re now looking for where any potential decline might stop and form a new low. The gap area from two weeks ago seems to be a good support area to watch.

The relative strength line breaking out of its consolidation formation continues to drag the RRG lines higher. XLI, for good reason, remains the strongest sector at the moment.

Communication Services: Stable Relative Uptrend

XLC is continuing its move higher with remarkable stability. The uptrend in the RS line is still valid, currently testing the lower boundary of the rising channel.

Due to the lack of upward relative momentum in recent weeks, both RRG lines are now pointing lower.

However, the RS-Ratio line remains well above 100, keeping the XLC tail on the right-hand side of the RRG.

Utilities: Testing Resistance

XLU is pushing against overhead resistance but has yet to manage a decisive break higher.

With defensive sectors under pressure, it’s questionable whether this breakout will happen in the short term.

The RS line versus SPY is dropping back into its trading range, unable to break away decisively. This drop is causing the RS-Momentum line to roll over and start pointing lower.

It’s the recent strength in relative strength that’s keeping Utilities inside the leading quadrant for now.

Financials: At a Crossroads

The Financial sector seems to be respecting the old rising support line as resistance, with the market dropping off that line last week and now trading around $50.

This move is affecting the relative strength line, which has returned to the lower boundary of the rising channel — a level that needs to hold to maintain a positive outlook for XLF.

The RS-Ratio line is stable around 102.50, high enough to keep Financials on the right-hand side of the graph.

The RS-Momentum line has just dropped below 100, positioning the XLF tail inside the weakening quadrant, but with enough room to curl back up before hitting lagging.

Technology: The Week’s Winner

XLK saw a significant jump two weeks ago and has since returned to test the old resistance area as support. If last week’s decline continues, there’s a bit more room to the downside — $220 seems to be a good level to watch for support, marking the bottom of the gap range from two weeks ago.

The jump has pushed the relative strength line above its falling resistance line, a good sign that seems to be breaking the relative downtrend in place since mid-last year.

This is changing the characteristics of the relative strength move for the Technology sector.

For now, it has only pushed the RS-Momentum line above 100, moving XLK into the improving quadrant on the weekly RRG, but it’s already starting to drag the RS-Ratio line higher.

Portfolio Performance

We’re clawing back some of the losses from recent weeks. The underperformance of almost 6% last week has now shrunk to 4.6%. Still behind the benchmark, but closing in again and narrowing the gap.

It’s a long-term game, so we keep pushing forward. So far, nothing out of the ordinary. Let’s wait and see whether we’ve seen the low in underperformance and how long it will take to return to SPY’s performance since inception.

#StayAlert –Julius

Get the latest stock market update with Mary Ellen McGonagle. Learn key downside signals, how to manage pullbacks, and which earnings reports could impact the market next week.

In this week’s episode, Mary Ellen reviews where the markets currently stand and what to watch for to signal further downside. She also highlights ways to combat inevitable pullbacks and shares the key earnings reports that are likely to move the markets in the upcoming week.

This video originally premiered May 23, 2025. You can watch it on our dedicated page for Mary Ellen’s videos.

New videos from Mary Ellen premiere weekly on Fridays. You can view all previously recorded episodes at this link.

If you’re looking for stocks to invest in, be sure to check out the MEM Edge Report! This report gives you detailed information on the top sectors, industries and stocks so you can make informed investment decisions.

Confused by mixed market signals? Follow along as Julius analyzes sector rotation, asset rotation, and global market trends using daily and weekly Relative Rotation Graphs (RRGs).

In this video, Julius puts the current sector rotation in perspective on both weekly and daily Relative Rotation Graphs (RRGs). He also examines asset rotation and the position of the U.S. markets in relation to international equities.

This video was originally published on May 27, 2025. Click on the icon above to view on our dedicated page for Julius.

Past videos from Julius can be found here.

#StayAlert, -Julius