Author

admin

Browsing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this article

    Next US copper mine: Copper mines under construction

    Black Butte project

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

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

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

    Florence project

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

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

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

    Idaho Cobalt Operation

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

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

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

    Next US copper mine: Mines being restarted

    Gunnison mine

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

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

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

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

    Sunshine mine

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

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

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

    Next US copper mine: Copper mines in the permitting stage

    Antler project

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

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

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

    Arctic project

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

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

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

    Back Forty project

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

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

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

    Cactus Mine project

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

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

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

    CK Gold project

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

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

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

    Copper Flat project

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

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

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

    Copperwood project

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

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

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

    Copper World Complex

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

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

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

    CuMo project

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

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

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

    Empire project

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

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

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

    Mason project

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

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

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

    NorthMet project

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

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

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

    Palmer project

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

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

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

    Pebble project

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

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

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

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

    Pumpkin Hollow project

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

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

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

    Resolution project

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

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

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

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

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

    Santa Cruz project

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

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

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

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

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

    Tamarack North project

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

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

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

    Twin Metals Minnesota project

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

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

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

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

    Van Dyke project

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

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

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

    White Pine North project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Among the fast-tracked projects are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Oil prices fall as OPEC hikes output and supply risks mount

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

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

    Watch Hansen discuss where oil and other commodities are heading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Oil price forecast for 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Supply concerns add tailwinds for natural gas

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

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

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

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

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

    Natural gas price forecast for 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

    Coelacanth is currently:

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

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

    Reserve Highlights

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

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

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

    Reserves Summary

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

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

     

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

    Reserves Values

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

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

     

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

    Price Forecast

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

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

     

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

    Reserve Life Index (‘RLI’)

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

    Reserve Category RLI
    Proved plus Probable Reserves 69.0
    Proved Reserves 42.9

     

    Reserves Reconciliation

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

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

     

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

    Capital Expenditures

    Capital allocation by category is as follows:

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

     

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

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

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

     

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

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

    Forward-Looking Information

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

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

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

    Reserves Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Industry Metrics

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

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

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

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

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

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

    BOE Conversions

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

    Abbreviations

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

     

    Test Results and Initial Production Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For further information, please contact:

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

    Robert Zakresky
    President and Chief Executive Officer

    Nolan Chicoine
    Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

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

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

    News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

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

    2024 HIGHLIGHTS

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

     

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

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

     

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

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

    OPERATIONS UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

    OIL AND GAS TERMS

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

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

     

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

    NON-GAAP AND OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES

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

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

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

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

     

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

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

     

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

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

     

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

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

     

    Capital Management Measures

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

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

     

    Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

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

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

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

    Supplementary Financial Measures

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

    PRODUCT TYPES

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

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

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

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

     

    TEST RESULTS AND INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

    Further Information

    For additional information, please contact:

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

    Mr. Robert J. Zakresky
    President and Chief Executive Officer

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

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

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

    News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard referred two intelligence community professionals to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution Wednesday over alleged leaks of classified information, Fox News Digital has learned. 

    An ODNI official told Fox News Digital that the intelligence community professionals allegedly leaked classified information to the Washington Post and the New York Times. A third criminal referral is ‘on its way’ to the DOJ. 

    The official told Fox News Digital that intelligence community professionals should take the move ‘as a warning.’ 

    ‘Politicization of our intelligence and leaking classified information puts our nation’s security at risk and must end,’ Gabbard told Fox News Digital. ‘Those who leak classified information will be found and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.’ 

    ‘Today, I referred two intelligence community leakers to the Department of Justice for criminal referral, with a third criminal referral on its way, which includes the recent illegal leak to the Washington Post,’ Gabbard said. ‘These deep-state criminals leaked classified information for partisan political purposes to undermine President Trump’s agenda.’ 

    Gabbard added: ‘I look forward to working with the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate, terminate and prosecute these criminals.’

    An ODNI official said the move to refer for criminal prosecution is the first step in the process of ‘holding these individuals accountable.’ 

    The official explained the process in their decision-making, telling Fox News Digital that they conducted an internal review and then sent the criminal referral to the Justice Department. The DOJ would then send the referral to the FBI to begin a formal, criminal investigation. 

    ‘We are aggressively investigating other leaks and will pursue further criminal referrals as warranted,’ the official told Fox News Digital. ‘Any intelligence community bureaucrat who is considering leaking to the media should take this as a warning.’ 

    The official added that the Trump administration ‘will identify leakers and leakers will face legal consequences.’ 

    Earlier this month, Gabbard established a new task force to restore transparency and accountability in the intelligence community. Fox News Digital first reported on the Director’s Initiative Group (DIG), which started by investigating weaponization within the intelligence community.

    Officials said the group will also work to root out politicization and expose unauthorized disclosures of classified intelligence. In addition, it will work to declassify information ‘that serves a public interest.’ 

    Gabbard also has held employees who participated in sexually explicit NSA chatrooms accountable, and is pursuing action on those who have made unauthorized leaks of classified information within the intelligence community. 

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Elon Musk may be easing off his role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE ), but President Donald Trump isn’t easing off his praise. 

    On Wednesday, Trump praised Musk’s smarts and patriotism during an executive order signing in the Oval Office, brushing off critics and defending the tech mogul’s work on federal reform.

    ‘He’s an incredible… brilliant guy,’ Trump said. ‘He was a tremendous help both in the campaign, and in what he’s done with DOGE.’

    DOGE, launched in 2025, has served as a hallmark of Trump’s second-term agenda to cut waste, streamline federal agencies, and apply private-sector principles to federal operations. 

    Musk’s informal advisory role in the effort has drawn both attention and criticism.

    In an exchange with a reporter, Trump addressed what he described as unfair treatment of Musk and Tesla. ‘They took it out on Tesla, and I just thought it was so unfair because he’s trying to help the country, but he has helped the country… He didn’t need to do this. He did it,’ he said.

    Trump’s remarks came as tensions have hit an all-time high for Musk’s electric vehicle company Tesla. 

    A Kansas City dealership was recently firebombed, causing over $200,000 in damage. In Europe, a Tesla executive canceled a scheduled appearance in Rome over reported security threats. These incidents have occurred alongside ongoing protests at Tesla’s Berlin gigafactory.

    Trump continued his praise, referencing Musk’s aerospace work with SpaceX: ‘When you see those rockets go up and come back and land in the same gantry, nobody else can do that but this man. So he’s just an incredible person, and he’s a friend of mine as a nice person too, as a very nice person.’

    He also noted Musk’s broad technological contributions. ‘He’s a great patriot… he makes a great product… it’s a great car. It’s [a] great everything. Starlink is great. What he does is good. He’s doing medical things that are amazing.’

    A recent Fox News poll shows that while 49% of Americans think DOGE will make the government more efficient, 52% believe the Trump administration has not been ‘competent and effective’ in managing federal operations — a sentiment unchanged from 2017.

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    The Trump administration is warning of ‘serious consequences’ over Russia’s plans to open a naval base in war-torn Sudan. News of the development of the base has triggered an unusual warning from the State Department, Fox News Digital was told.

    A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘We encourage all countries, including Sudan, to avoid any transactions with Russia’s defense sector.’

    The Kremlin appears to be desperate to join the Horn of Africa global powers ‘naval club,’ with its approved plans for a base for warships and nuclear-powered submarines at Port Sudan. This is not far down the Indian Ocean coast from Djibouti, where there are U.S. and Chinese bases. With the new Syrian government likely to kick the Russians out of their base in Tartus, Port Sudan would be Russia’s only foreign naval base.

    ‘Moscow views Sudan, because of its strategic location, as a logical place to expand Russia’s footprint into Africa, which Putin views as a key place of geopolitical confrontation with the United States and China,’ Rebekah Koffler, a strategic military intelligence analyst, told Fox News Digital. 

    ‘Russia views the U.S. and China as its top adversaries, with whom Moscow may in the long-term have a kinetic conflict. Hence, Putin wants intelligence and military capabilities stationed close to the U.S. Djibouti base and Chinese facilities,’ she said.

    ‘Given that the U.S. and China already have [a] naval presence off of the Horn of Africa,’ Koffler added, ‘Russia is looking at Port Sudan as a logistics hub for weapons transfers, storage of military hardware ammunition, all sorts of war-fighting capabilities.’

    ‘The potential Russian naval logistics facility in Sudan would support Russian power projection in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean,’ John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Fox News Digital. He added that ‘this issue has gained greater importance for Moscow, given the uncertainty over the future of its Tartus naval logistics facility.’

    A Russian naval base in the Indian Ocean has strategic military implications — it’s a relatively short sailing distance to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, a choke point through which an estimated 12% of the world’s shipping passes, while 61% of global oil tanker traffic is also said to use the canal. Koffler said this poses a significant security threat. 

    ‘If Russia perceives an impending escalation against Russia, let’s say in Ukraine — such as an impending deployment of NATO forces or draconian economic measures designed to tank [the] Russian economy — I would not rule out the possibility that Putin could authorize something disruptive to exploit the choke point and destabilize or disrupt global shipping, as a way of deterring Western actions threatening Russia.’

    The deal permitting Moscow to build a military base has been given the green light, although there are serious logistical challenges involved. ‘The agreement between Sudan and Russia was finalized in February, following a meeting between Sudan’s Foreign Minister Ali Yusef Sharif and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow,’ Koffler explained. 

    Hence the strongly worded comments to Fox News Digital from the State Department that ‘the United States is aware of the reported deal between Russia and the SAF [Sudanese Armed Forces] on establishing a Russian naval facility on Sudan’s coast. We encourage all countries, including Sudan, to avoid any transactions with Russia’s defense sector, which could trigger serious consequences, potentially including sanctions on entities or individuals associated with those transactions.

    ‘Moving forward with such a facility or any other form of security cooperation with Russia would further isolate Sudan, deepen the current conflict, and risk further regional destabilization. ‘

    On the (very) dry land that is Sudan, the situation Monday around the city of Al Fasher and the neighboring massive Zamzam refugee camp in the Darfur region is ‘horrifying,’ U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Tom Fletcher posted.

    The civil war in Sudan, between the government’s SAF and the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has just passed its grisly second anniversary. Tens of thousands have been killed, and an estimated 13 million people have been uprooted from their homes. The U.N. describes it as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and UNICEF calls it ‘hell on earth.’

    ‘There can be no overstating the brutality and destructiveness of the RSF assault on Zamzam (refugee camp),’ Sudan researcher Eric Reeves told Fox News Digital this week. ‘The camp that has existed since 2004 is no longer, even as it had grown to more than 500,000 people.’

    Ominously, Reeves added that ‘the real dying has only just begun. Nearly the entire population of Zamzam has fled, and in all directions the threat of RSF violence remains. This creates insecurity of a sort that prevents humanitarians from reaching these scattered people. Tremendous numbers will die either from RSF violence or the lack of food, water and shelter.’

    Another 30 were reported killed on Tuesday in a fresh RSF attack on Al Fasher. And just this past week, the RSF rebels announced they are setting up their own government. The State Department told Fox News Digital, ‘The United States is deeply concerned about the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and aligned actors’ declaration of a parallel government in Sudan. This attempt to establish a parallel government is unhelpful for the cause of peace and security and risks a de facto partition of the country.’

    ‘It will only further destabilize the country, threaten Sudan’s territorial integrity, and spread wider instability throughout the region. The United States has made clear that our interest is in the restoration of peace and an end to the threats the conflict in Sudan pose to regional stability. The best path to peace and stability is an immediate and durable cessation of hostilities so that the processes of establishing a civilian government and rebuilding the country can begin,’ the spokesperson said.

    Caleb Weiss, editor of the FDD’s Long War Journal and also a Defections Program Manager at the Bridgeway Foundation, put some of the blame for not ending the Sudanese war on the Biden administration. He told Fox News Digital that it ‘stopped short of seriously facilitating any sort of meaningful peace talks/mediation/or being tough on outside backers of various groups to really get them to be serious in previous negotiation attempts. This is where the Biden administration failed.’ 

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is continuing to advocate for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program.

    ‘Waste that s—,’ the lawmaker declared to the Washington Free Beacon. ‘You’re never going to be able to negotiate with that kind of regime that has been destabilizing the region for decades already, and now we have an incredible window, I believe, to do that, to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.’

    ‘Years ago, I completely understood why Trump withdrew from the Obama deal. Today, I can’t understand why Trump would negotiate with this diseased regime. The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF,’ Fetterman noted, according to the outlet. The IDF is the Israel Defense Forces.

    Fox News Digital reached out to Fetterman’s office to request a comment from the senator on Thursday morning but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

    The lawmaker, who is a staunch supporter of Israel, had already been calling for the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program.

    Fetterman declared last week in a post on X, ‘The only purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to create weapons. We can’t allow that or negotiate with this regime. Provide our comprehensive military support and whatever else Israel requires to destroy Iran’s capabilities.’

    President Donald Trump noted earlier this week that he had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    ‘I’ve just spoken to Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, relative to numerous subjects including Trade, Iran, etc. The call went very well – We are on the same side of every issue,’ Trump said in a Tuesday post on Truth Social.

    Fetterman declared in part of an X post in January, ‘Whatever remains of Iran’s nuclear program needs to be destroyed and I fully support efforts to do so.’

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    An aversion to tax increases has long been one of the Republican Party’s core pillars, but tradition was upended in recent weeks as discussions of a potential new millionaires’ tax hike hit Capitol Hill.

    It’s baffled some members of the GOP’s old guard, though Republican operatives who spoke with Fox News Digital were less surprised. They said those conversations were largely ushered in by the party’s growing populist wing.

    ‘I’m not sure if I’m surprised anymore, because the party has changed so much in just a short period of time. But it is noteworthy,’ longtime GOP strategist Doug Heye told Fox News Digital. 

    Heye recalled his time as a senior House leadership aide in 2012, when a Republican proposal for a uniform tax rate for people making under $1 million per year was blown up ‘by a rebellion within our own ranks’ over raising taxes.

    ‘It all exploded in our faces,’ he said. ‘And now this is what more and more of those Republicans who rejected the idea in 2012 want to do.’

    Sources told Fox News Digital this month that the White House was socializing a plan among Republicans to create a new 40% tax bracket for people making more than $1 million.

    Various reported plans floated among House Republicans included raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy to rates between 38% and 40%. 

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been seeking to quash that this week, even posting a purported message from President Donald Trump himself on X that said, ‘If you can do without it, you’re probably better off trying to do so.’

    Fox News Digital reached out to the White House on Wednesday morning for comment on Gingrich’s note, including the context of the message and why Trump described that he would ‘love’ increasing taxes, but did not receive a reply.

    The top income tax rate is currently about 37% on $609,351 in earnings for a single person or $731,201 for married couples. It was lowered from just over 39% by Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

    ‘The politics are good for raising taxes on wealthy Americans,’ said John Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy and veteran of House GOP leadership staff. ‘The downside is it does have an impact on economic growth. So if you want the cheap political score, that’s the way to go. On the other hand, if you want a solid economy where people are working, you want to be careful on how you do that.’

    Asked if the discussions caught him off guard, Feehery said, ‘I’m not surprised by it because Trump is such a populist, and he has a lot of folks who are populist.’

    He signaled the appeal of higher taxes for the wealthy was born from that shift.

    ‘If you look at the constituencies, the biggest constituency, it’s really interesting because the parties have kind of changed,’ he continued. ‘It used to be the country-club Republicans and working-class Democrats; now it’s working-class Republicans and country-club Democrats.’

    Heye said when asked about the increase in tax hike talks, ‘I think it’s a mixture of Trump and populism.’

    ‘Raising taxes used to be an anathema to Republicans, and you know, when George Bush did it after saying ‘Read my lips,’ that was the beginning of the end of his presidency,’ Heye said. ‘That world just doesn’t exist anymore.’

    House GOP leaders have publicly made clear that they’re opposed to raising taxes on anyone. But Republicans must find a way to pass Trump’s budget, including new tax policies eliminating duties on tipped and overtime wages, while meeting conservatives’ demand to cut at least $1.5 trillion in government spending to make up for it.

    House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, R-Md., previously signaled that he is open to the idea if spending cuts can’t be reached by other means.

    ‘What I’d like to do is, I’d actually like to find spending reductions elsewhere in the budget, but if we can’t get enough spending reductions, we’re going to have to pay for our tax cuts,’ Harris told ‘Mornings with Maria’ on FOX Business last week.

    ‘Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the highest tax bracket was 39.6%; it was less than $1 million. Ideally, what we could do – again, if we can’t find spending reductions – we say, ‘OK, let’s restore that higher bracket, let’s set it at maybe $2 million income and above’ to help pay for the rest of the president’s agenda.’

    Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., similarly floated raising the top tax bracket to 38.6%.

    He later told Fox News Digital in a statement, ‘I believe we must help the president deliver on his promise of a tax and regulatory plan that supports pro-American economic and manufacturing growth, and delivers for the vast majority of Americans – while creating savings and promoting fiscal responsibility. Any adjustments in taxes to accomplish these goals should be considered.’

    Both Meuser and Harris declined to provide more comment for this story.

    Former Vice President Mike Pence, who refers to the 2017 tax cuts as the ‘Trump-Pence tax cuts,’ last week urged House Republicans to stand firm against raising taxes on the country’s top earners and to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. 

    One House GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital last week that reaction among their colleagues to possible tax hikes was ‘mixed.’

    But a former Republican member was skeptical on Wednesday.

    ‘Raising taxes is a short-term high, which ultimately does more harm than good,’ the former House Republican said. ‘This strategy is contrary to conservative values.’

    Meanwhile, Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said it was ‘healthy’ that lawmakers are entertaining fiscal ideas outside their party norms.

    He was wary about the push for a tax hike, however.

    ‘I’m not a fan of doing things that look fiscally good at the same time that you’re doing things that actually are fiscally bad … on top of that, I don’t think raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue,’ Goldwein said. ‘But with those two things said, I think it is very healthy move that the GOP kind of is talking about that rates actually can go in both directions.’

    Fox News Digital reached out to Gingrich for an interview for this story but did not receive a response.

    Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.

    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS