Author

admin

Browsing

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Coelacanth is currently:

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

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

Reserve Highlights

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

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

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

Reserves Summary

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

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

 

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

Reserves Values

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

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

 

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

Price Forecast

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

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

 

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

Reserve Life Index (‘RLI’)

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

Reserve Category RLI
Proved plus Probable Reserves 69.0
Proved Reserves 42.9

 

Reserves Reconciliation

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

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

 

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

Capital Expenditures

Capital allocation by category is as follows:

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Forward-Looking Information

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

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

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

Reserves Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry Metrics

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOE Conversions

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

Abbreviations

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

 

Test Results and Initial Production Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For further information, please contact:

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

Robert Zakresky
President and Chief Executive Officer

Nolan Chicoine
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

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

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

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

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

2024 HIGHLIGHTS

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

OPERATIONS UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

OIL AND GAS TERMS

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

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

 

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

NON-GAAP AND OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES

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

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Capital Management Measures

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

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

 

Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

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

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

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

Supplementary Financial Measures

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

PRODUCT TYPES

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

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

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

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

 

TEST RESULTS AND INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

Further Information

For additional information, please contact:

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

Mr. Robert J. Zakresky
President and Chief Executive Officer

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

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

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

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Five years removed from the onset of the Covid pandemic, Google is demanding that some remote employees return to the office if they want to keep their jobs and avoid being part of broader cost cuts at the company.

Several units within Google have told remote staffers that their roles may be at risk if they don’t start showing up at the closest office for a hybrid work schedule, according to internal documents viewed by CNBC. Some of those employees were previously approved for remote work.

As the pandemic slips further into the rearview mirror, more companies are tightening their restrictions on remote work, forcing some staffers who moved to distant locations to reconsider their priorities if they want to maintain their employment. The change in tone is particularly acute in the tech industry, which jumped so aggressively into flexible work arrangements in 2020 that San Francisco’s commercial real estate market is still struggling to recover.

Google began offering some U.S. full-time employees voluntary buyouts at the beginning of 2025, and some remote staffers were told that would be their only option if they didn’t return to the nearest office at least three days a week.

The latest threats land at a time when Google and many of its tech peers are looking to slash costs while simultaneously pouring money into artificial intelligence, which requires hefty expenditures on infrastructure and technical talent. Since conducting widespread layoffs in early 2023, Google has undertaken targeted cuts across various teams, emphasizing the importance of increased AI investments.

As of the end of last year, Google had about 183,000 employees, down from roughly 190,000 two years earlier.

Google offices in New York in 2023.Leonardo Munoz / VIEWpress / Corbis via Getty Images file

Google co-founder Sergey Brin told AI workers in February that they should be in the office every weekday, with 60 hours a week being “the sweet spot of productivity,” according to a memo viewed by CNBC. Brin said the company has to “turbocharge” efforts to keep up with AI competition, which “has accelerated immensely.”

Courtenay Mencini, a Google spokesperson, said the decisions around remote worker return demands are based on individual teams and not a companywide policy.

“As we’ve said before, in-person collaboration is an important part of how we innovate and solve complex problems,” Mencini said in a statement to CNBC. “To support this, some teams have asked remote employees that live near an office to return to in-person work three days a week.”

According to one recent notice, employees in Google Technical Services were told that they’re required to switch to a hybrid office schedule or take a voluntary exit package. Remote employees in the unit are being offered a one-time paid relocation expense to move within 50 miles of an office.

Remote employees in human resources, or what Google calls People Operations, who live within 50 miles of an office, are required to be in person on a hybrid basis by mid-April or their role will be eliminated, according to an internal memo. Staffers in that unit who are approved for remote work and live more than 50 miles away from an office can keep their current arrangements, but will have to go hybrid if they want new roles at the company.

Google previously offered a voluntary exit program to U.S.-based full-time employees in People Operations, starting in March, according to a memo sent by HR chief Fiona Cicconi in February.

That came after the company said in January that it would be offering voluntary exit packages to full-time employees in the U.S. in the Platforms and Devices group, which includes Android, Chrome and products like Fitbit and Nest. The unit has made cuts to nearly two-dozen teams as of this month. While internal correspondence indicated that remote work was a factor in the layoffs, Mencini said it was not a main consideration for the changes.

A year ago, Google combined its Android unit with its hardware group under the leadership of Rick Osterloh, a senior vice president. Osterloh said in January that the voluntary exit plan may be a fit for employees who struggle with the hybrid work schedule.

Mencini told CNBC that, since the groups merged, the team has “focused on becoming more nimble and operating more effectively and this included making some job reductions in addition to the voluntary exit program.” She added that the unit continues to hire in the U.S. and globally.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

U.S. trucking is heading for a slowdown, with industry players fearing the “worst is yet to come” as tariffs start to crimp imports.

Trucking volumes have plunged to near pre-pandemic levels, according to Craig Fuller, founder of the logistics industry publication FreightWaves.

“With imports deteriorating, volumes are expected to fall by another 3-4% over the next month,” Fuller said Tuesday in a post on X, citing the real-time freight data platform Sonar, which he also founded. Fuller said that’s a worrying sign for truckers this year.

Container volumes are down 20% at the busy Port of Los Angeles since a year ago, FreightWaves reported Tuesday, saying “this downturn spells trouble” for trucking firms that ship the overseas cargo inland across the country. Freight trucks carrying goods out of the metro area are “converging downward toward 2020 lockdown levels,” the outlet said.

The flags come as warning signs pile up for the broader U.S. economy due to President Donald’s Trump’s evolving trade war.

The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday knocked down its forecast for the year, lowering its January projection for global gross domestic product growth to 2.8%, from 3.6% previously. The IMF also cut its outlook for U.S. growth to just 1.8%, down from 2.7%, citing “epistemic uncertainty and policy unpredictability” out of the White House. Fresh GDP data is due out next Wednesday.

Freight carriers are “heavily dependent on the health of the U.S. economy, and many industry insiders are waiting on the final outcome of tariffs prior to expressing opinions regarding their outlook,” said John Crum, head of specialty equipment finance at Wells Fargo.

Trucks are the nation’s freight mode of choice for everything from grain to gravel, as measured by weight, and also carry the lion’s share, by dollar value, of foodstuffs, electronics and vehicles, federal data shows. Imports accounted for 40% of freight tonnage moved domestically by truck as of 2023.

Despite freight firms’ broader reticence, many are still “expressing caution regarding freight volumes for 2025,” Crum said.

In a separate note, Wells Fargo supply chain finance managing director Jeremy Jansen said one silver lining is that companies “have a bit more profit margins than in 2018/19 to absorb some tariff actions.” 

The growing pessimism comes just months after industry experts were heralding a likely rebound in trucking volumes after two years of declines. Just days before Trump was sworn in to a second term in January, the American Trucking Association released a forecast projecting a 1.6% boost in freight for the year.

“Understanding the trends in our supply chain should be key for policymakers in Washington, in statehouses around the country and wherever decisions are being made that affect trucking and our economy,” ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a statement at the time.

But in the more than three months since then, consumers’ outlooks have nosedived, executives across industries have ramped up their warnings about slower sales, and Wall Street has swung wildly in response to ever-shifting signals about the administration’s trade agenda. Small-business owners say they’re doing their best to stockpile inventory before steeper tariffs take hold, even as many already get hit with higher bills from suppliers.

With much of Trump’s sweeping April 2 slate of tariffs temporarily rolled back, shipping volumes could jump in the second quarter “as consumers scoop up pre-tariff goods before prices go up,” logistics researchers at Cass Information Systems said in their March report. “But thereafter, the trade war is likely to extend the for-hire freight recession as higher prices reduce goods affordability and consumers’ real incomes.”

Overall U.S. exports rose 4.6% through February, federal researchers reported this month, while imports surged 21.4% as the trade war heated up.

The Cass Freight Index fell 5.5% in 2023 and 4.1% last year, “and so far, is trending toward another decline in 2025,” the analytics company said.

Mack Trucks recently announced layoffs of hundreds of workers at a Pennsylvania plant due to economic uncertainty, betting on slower demand for its iconic freight vehicles.

The decision drew sharp criticism last week from Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, who said, “I fear that we’re going to see more like this” due to tariffs. “We’re going to see more rising prices, more layoffs, more companies not investing in the future.”

“The economy has COVID,” Fuller wrote in a follow-up X post on Wednesday, in response to downbeat manufacturing data released this week. “The only cure is a deescalation of the tariffs.”

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

On Monday, the Dow dropped over 1,000 points after President Trump’s new round of criticism directed at Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The selloff reflects continued volatility driven by geopolitical tensions and uncertainty stemming from the ongoing trade war.

Meanwhile, the price of gold continued climbing to record highs, the U.S. dollar slipped to a three-year low, Bitcoin is working to recover the final 20% from its peak, and the broader market continued its downward slide.

This comparative snapshot on PerfCharts illustrates the bigger picture.

FIGURE 1. PERFCHARTS OF GOLD, DOLLAR INDEX, BITCOIN, AND THE S&P 500.  Safe haven is the name of the game.

When capital rotated out of stocks and Bitcoin, did it retreat to cash or gold? It’s a reasonable question, as cash appears to be circling the drain amid gold’s ascent.

Fear Trade Tailwinds

So, what’s going on, particularly with gold prices? Here’s a general snapshot:

  • The U.S. dollar index drop signals a loss of global confidence in the currency.
  • The possibility of Trump removing Powell raises fears about the Federal Reserve’s independence, especially as inflation concerns mount due to rising tariffs.
  • Fed Chair Powell indicated that rate hikes, not cuts, may be needed to control inflation.
  • Global trade tensions are intensifying, with China slashing U.S. oil imports and pivoting to other countries.
  • As the price of gold has broken through major resistance levels, SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) just crossed $100 billion in assets under management for the first time.

One More Thing: The Mar-a-Lago Accord

The so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord” is an idea tied to Trump’s economic team that would pressure U.S. allies to accept a weaker dollar and lower returns on U.S. debt in exchange for military protection.

If it happens, the dollar would devalue further, making U.S. exports more competitive. Imports would become more expensive, though. A weaker dollar may continue to boost gold and Bitcoin, both viewed as safe havens. As for the S&P 500, some companies, especially exporters, might benefit, but concerns about inflation or trade conflicts could drag the market down even further.

Gold at $4,000 by 2026

While several analysts, such as those at UBS, have set a $3,500 price target for gold, the Goldman Sachs Group forecasts gold at $4,000 by 2026.

Let’s take a look at where gold is now. Take a look at this daily chart.

FIGURE 2. DAILY CHART OF GOLD. With gold at all-time highs, the pullback could bounce at one of these support levels.

While gold’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) reading is registering as “overbought,” you’ll have to wait and see if the current dip develops into a pullback. If it does, the key market highs and lows highlighted by the Price Channels (extended by the magenta dotted lines) are likely to serve as support. I also overlaid the Ichimoku Cloud to provide a wider projected support range into the near future.

If you’re bullish on gold and expecting to reach the $3,500 to $4,000 range as forecasted by analysts, you can use these support levels as favorable entry points. The $2,956 level is especially important; it marks a key swing low, and a close below it could call gold’s uptrend into question.

As for “Digital Gold” (Bitcoin)…

The other safe haven asset, as some would call it (emphasis on “some”), is Bitcoin ($BTCUSD). Let’s take a look at its current price action by zooming in on this daily chart.

FIGURE 3. DAILY CHART OF BITCOIN ($BTCUSD). It’s at a juncture point, currently testing resistance at $88,505.

Looking at the price channels, you can see how Bitcoin has been making consecutive lower lows over the last three months. It has also been making lower highs until March, where the high of $88,505 was tested three times, and that is where the digital asset is currently trading.

The Ichimoku Cloud range and the blue-shaded area highlight this resistance level. If the market decides on Bitcoin as a reliable safe haven, you will see its price break above this resistance level and challenge the next resistance level at $100K before challenging its all-time high at around $109K. Currently, its RSI reading is lifting above 50 and rising, indicating that the crypto has room to run before approaching any range that may be considered overbought.

What About the Dollar?

The weekly chart of the US Dollar Index ($USD) below highlights the key support level the dollar has just broken below.

FIGURE 4. WEEKLY CHART OF THE U.S. DOLLAR. Near-term support is near, but will it hold?

The US Dollar Index is at a three-year low, with support at $97 and $95. The RSI also indicates that the dollar is entering oversold levels. But these technical levels might not mean much considering the alleged intentional devaluation of the dollar. This trend appears to be guided more by political strategy than market fundamentals.

Meanwhile, the fear trade into safe-haven assets is likely to intensify until monetary policy and the current geopolitical chess moves generate a clearer sense of direction and stability.

At the Close

As far as gold’s rise, sentiment is doing the heavy lifting right now, but it’s rooted in legitimate fundamental risks. If those risks persist or worsen, fundamentals may eventually validate even higher price levels. Hence, the Goldman projection of $4,000 an ounce. If you’re looking to enter gold or Bitcoin, I’ve laid out the key support levels for gold and potential headwinds for Bitcoin.

Watch those price levels closely, and stay tuned to the latest geopolitical developments.


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

Radisson Mining Resources Inc. (TSXV: RDS) (OTCQB: RMRDF) (FSE: 2RX) (‘Radisson’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it intends to raise C$7 Million in a non-brokered private placement (the ‘Offering’), with the proceeds directed towards advancing the exploration and development of the Company’s O’Brien Gold Project located in the Abitibi region of Québec and for general corporate purposes.

The Offering will include the sale of the following securities (collectively, the ‘Securities‘):

  • Class A common shares of the Company (the ‘FT Shares‘) which shall each qualify as a ‘flow-through share’ as defined in subsection 66(15) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (‘ITA‘) and section 359.1 of the Taxation Act (Québec) (the ‘Québec Tax Act‘), at a price of C$0.34 per FT Share; and,
  • Class A common shares of the Company (‘Common Shares‘) at a price of C$0.30 per Common Share.

The gross proceeds received by the Corporation from the sale of the FT Shares will be used to incur Canadian Exploration Expenses (‘CEE‘) that are ‘flow-through mining expenditures’ (as such terms are defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada)) on the O’Brien Gold Project in the Province of Québec, which will be renounced to the subscribers with an effective date no later than December 31, 2025, in the aggregate amount of not less than the total amount of the gross proceeds raised from the issue of FT Shares.

The closing of the Offering is expected to occur on or about May 15, 2025, and is subject to receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals including the acceptance of the Offering by the TSX Venture Exchange. All securities issued pursuant to the Offering will be subject to a four month hold period from the date of issue. A finder’s fee may apply to a portion of the proceeds raised under the Offering in the amount of 6% cash.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities described herein in the United States. The securities described herein have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to the account or benefit of a U.S. person absent an exemption from the registration requirements of such Act.

It is anticipated that one or more directors will acquire Securities under the Offering. Any such participation will be considered a ‘related party transaction’ as defined under Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (‘MI 61-101‘). It is anticipated that the transaction will be exempt from the formal valuation and minority shareholder approval requirements of MI 61-101 based on a determination that the securities of the Company are listed on the TSXV and that the fair market value of the Offering, insofar as it involves interested parties, will not exceed 25% of the market capitalization of the Company.

Radisson Mining Resources Inc.

Radisson is a gold exploration company focused on its 100% owned O’Brien Gold Project, located in the Bousquet-Cadillac mining camp along the world-renowned Larder-Lake-Cadillac Break in Abitibi, Québec. The Bousquet-Cadillac mining camp has produced over 25 million ounces of gold over the last 100 years. The Project hosts the former O’Brien Mine, considered to have been Québec’s highest-grade gold producer during its production. Indicated Mineral Resources are estimated at 0.50 million ounces (1.52 million tonnes at 10.26 g/t Au), with additional Inferred Mineral Resources estimated at 0.45 million ounces (1.60 million tonnes at 8.66 g/t Au). Please see the NI 43-101 ‘Technical Report on the O’Brien Project, Northwestern Québec, Canada’ effective March 2, 2023 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities available at www.sedar.com for further details and assumptions relating to the O’Brien Gold Project.

For more information on Radisson, visit our website at www.radissonmining.com or contact:

Matt Manson
President and CEO
416.618.5885
mmanson@radissonmining.com

Kristina Pillon
Manager, Investor Relations
604.908.1695
kpillon@radissonmining.com

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of the applicable Canadian securities legislation that is based on expectations, estimates, projections, and interpretations as at the date of this news release. Forward-looking statements including, but are not limited to, statements with respect to planned and ongoing drilling, the significance of drill results, the ability to continue drilling, the impact of drilling on the definition of any resource, the ability to incorporate new drilling in an updated technical report and resource modelling, the Company’s ability to grow the O’Brien project and the ability to convert inferred mineral resources to indicated mineral resources. Any statement that involves discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, interpretations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions, future events or performance (often but not always using phrases such as ‘expects’, or ‘does not expect’, ‘is expected’, ‘interpreted’, ‘management’s view’, ‘anticipates’ or ‘does not anticipate’, ‘plans’, ‘budget’, ‘scheduled’, ‘forecasts’, ‘estimates’, ‘believes’ or ‘intends’ or variations of such words and phrases or stating that certain actions, events or results ‘may’ or ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘might’ or ‘will’ be taken to occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking information and are intended to identify forward-looking information. Except for statements of historical fact relating to the Company, certain information contained herein constitutes forward-looking statements Forward-looking information is based on estimates of management of the Company, at the time it was made, involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the companies to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Such factors include, among others, risks relating to the drill results at O’Brien; the significance of drill results; the ability of drill results to accurately predict mineralization; the ability of any material to be mined in a matter that is economic. Although the forward-looking information contained in this news release is based upon what management believes, or believed at the time, to be reasonable assumptions, the parties cannot assure shareholders and prospective purchasers of securities that actual results will be consistent with such forward-looking information, as there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended, and neither the Company nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of any such forward-looking information. The Company believes that this forward-looking information is based on reasonable assumptions, but no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct and such forward-looking statements included in this press release should not be unduly relied upon. The Company does not undertake, and assumes no obligation, to update or revise any such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information contained herein to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required by law. These statements speak only as of the date of this news release.

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 news release. No stock exchange, securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained herein.

Not for distribution to United States newswire services or for dissemination in the United States

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249318

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Lahontan Gold Corp. (TSXV: LG) (OTCQB: LGCXF) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Lahontan’) is pleased to announce that, further to its press release of April 8, 2025, the Company has increased the size of its non-brokered private placement financing to up to 44,000,000 units (each, a ‘Unit’) at a price of $0.05 per Unit for aggregate gross proceeds of up to $2,200,000 (the ‘Offering’).

Each Unit is comprised of one common share of the Company (each, a ‘Common Share‘) and one-half of one whole Common Share purchase warrant (each whole warrant, a ‘Warrant‘) of the Company. Each Warrant entitling the holder thereof to purchase one Common Share at a price of $0.08 per Common Share for a period of two (2) years from the date of issuance, provided, however, that should the closing price at which the Common Shares trade on the TSX Venture Exchange (or any such other stock exchange in Canada as the Common Shares may trade at the applicable time) exceed CDN$0.12 for ten (10) consecutive trading days at any time following the date that is four months and one day after the date of issuance, the Company may accelerate the Warrant Term (the ‘Reduced Warrant Term‘) such that the Warrants shall expire on the date which is 30 business days following the date a press release is issued by the Company announcing the Reduced Warrant Term

Gross proceeds raised from the Offering will be used for general working capital purposes and for exploration at the Company’s Santa Fe Mine Project.

Closing of the Offering is subject to receipt of all necessary corporate and regulatory approvals, including the approval of TSX Venture Exchange. All securities issued in connection with the Offering will be subject to a hold period of four months plus a day from the date of issuance and the resale rules of applicable securities legislation.

This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities in the United States. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act’) or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to U.S. Persons as defined under applicable United States securities laws unless registered under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available.

About Lahontan Gold Corp.

Lahontan Gold Corp. is a Canadian mine development and mineral exploration company that holds, through its US subsidiaries, four top-tier gold and silver exploration properties in the Walker Lane of mining friendly Nevada. Lahontan’s flagship property, the 26.4 km2 Santa Fe Mine project, had past production of 359,202 ounces of gold and 702,067ounces of silver between 1988 and 1995 from open pit mines utilizing heap-leach processing*. The Santa Fe Mine has a Canadian National Instrument 43-101 compliant Indicated Mineral Resource of 1,539,000 oz Au Eq (grading 0.99 g/t Au Eq) and an Inferred Mineral Resource of 411,000 oz Au Eq (grading 0.76 g/t Au Eq), all pit constrained (Au Eq is inclusive of recovery, please see Santa Fe Project Technical Report*). The Company plans to continue advancing the Santa Fe Mine project towards production, update the Santa Fe Preliminary Economic Assessment, and drill test its satellite West Santa Fe project during 2025. For more information, please visit our website: www.lahontangoldcorp.com.

* Please see the ‘Preliminary Economic Assessment, NI 43-101 Technical Report, Santa Fe Project’, Authors: Kenji Umeno, P. Eng., Thomas Dyer, PE, Kyle Murphy, PE, Trevor Rabb, P. Geo, Darcy Baker, PhD, P. Geo., and John M. Young, SME-RM; Effective Date: December 10, 2024, Report Date: January 24, 2025. The Technical Report is available on the Company’s website and SEDAR+.

On behalf of the Board of Directors

Kimberly Ann

Founder, CEO, President, and Director

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

Lahontan Gold Corp.

Kimberly Ann
Founder, Chief Executive Officer, President, Director

Phone: 1-530-414-4400

Email:
Kimberly.ann@lahontangoldcorp.com

Website: www.lahontangoldcorp.com

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Except for statements of historical fact, this news release contains certain ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of applicable securities law. Forward-looking information is frequently characterized by words such as ‘plan’, ‘expect’, ‘project’, ‘intend’, ‘believe’, ‘anticipate’, ‘estimate’ and other similar words, or statements that certain events or conditions ‘may’ or ‘will’ occur. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates at the date the statements are made and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements including, but not limited to delays or uncertainties with regulatory approvals, including that of the TSXV. There are uncertainties inherent in forward-looking information, including factors beyond the Company’s control. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking information if circumstances or management’s estimates or opinions should change except as required by law. The reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional information identifying risks and uncertainties that could affect financial results is contained in the Company’s filings with Canadian securities regulators, which filings are available at www.sedarplus.ca.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWS WIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249396

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com