Breaking
Market Expo Pro
Author

admin

Browsing
Business

Hasbro forecasts as much as $300 million impact if China tariffs don’t come down

Business 3 Mins Read

If President Donald Trump’s 145% levy against imports from China holds, Hasbro estimates it could see as much as a $300 million hit to its bottom line.

The toy maker posted better-than-expected earnings on Thursday, but investors and analysts were more focused on the ongoing trade war Trump’s White House has waged against the toy industry’s biggest manufacturer.

Hasbro maintained the full-year guidance it issued last quarter, citing the uncertainty of the current tariff environment.

“Our forecast assumes various scenarios for China tariffs, ranging from 50% to the rate holding at 145% and 10% for the rest of world,” said Gina Goetter, chief financial officer and chief operating officer at Hasbro, during Thursday’s earnings call. “This translates to an estimated $100 million to $300 million gross impact across the enterprise in 2025. Before any mitigation.”

CEO Chris Cocks said during the company’s earnings call that “while no company is insulated, Hasbro is well positioned,” noting the company’s unchanged guidance is “supported by our robust games and licensing businesses and our strategic flexibility.”

“Prolonged tariff conditions create structural costs and heighten market unpredictability,” he said, adding, “ultimately tariffs translate into higher consumer prices.”

Cocks also warned of “potential job losses as we adjust to absorb increased costs and reduced profit for our shareholders.”

The company’s U.S. games business benefits from digital and domestic sourcing, as many of its board games are made in Massachusetts. Its Wizards of the Coast division, which includes Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons, has a tariff exposure of less than $10 million, Cocks said, as much of the domestic product is made in North Carolina, Texas and Japan.

The company’s toy segment faces higher exposure, as a larger portion of those goods are made in China. Cocks said the company is exploring options for moving its supply chain to other countries.

“Some of that, though, comes with the cost,” he said. “When we manufacture board games in the U.S., it is significantly more expensive to manufacture here than it is in China.”

He added that the company can shift the sourcing of Play-Doh, for example, from China to its factory in Turkey. Under that scenario, Turkey manufacturers would redirect shipments from Europe to the U.S. and Chinese factories could fill in to supply the European market.

Other products are more difficult to triage, especially those that include electronics, high end deco and foam components, Cocks said.

“China will continue to be a major manufacturing hub for us globally, in large part due to specialized capabilities developed over decades,” he said.

Goetter said that much of the manufacturing changes would be seen in 2026 and are dependent on if those countries already have the capabilities and infrastructure in place to make certain products.

Hasbro is also accelerating its $1 billion cost savings plan in an effort to offset tariff pressures, but noted that price hikes are unavoidable.

“We are going to have to raise prices inside of 145% tariff regime with China,” Cocks said. “We’re just trying to do it as selectively as possible and minimize the burden to the fans and families that we serve.”

Both Goetter and Cocks admitted that Hasbro’s plans are flexible and will change as the tariff situation evolves. The company is hopeful for a “more predictable and favorable U.S. trade policy environment.”

“We’re trying to play both defense and offense at the same time,” Goetter said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Stock

Hidden Gems: Bullish Patterns Emerging in These Country ETFs

Stock 1 Min Read

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

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

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

Keep Reading
Stock

How to Shield Your Stocks During a Market Decline

Stock 6 Mins Read

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

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

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

Hedging With Options

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

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

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

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

Here’s how it works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scenario 1: The stock price falls below $205.

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

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

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

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

There’s More You Can Do

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Keep Reading
Investing

Coelacanth Announces 2024 Year-End Reserves

Investing 21 Mins Read

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

Keep Reading
Investing

Coelacanth Announces Q4 2024 Financial and Operating Results

Investing 20 Mins Read

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

Keep Reading
Business

Google forcing some remote workers to come back 3 days a week or lose their jobs

Business 4 Mins Read

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Business

The trucking industry hits the brakes with tariffs set to dent imports

Business 4 Mins Read

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Stock

$4,000 Gold? Analysts Eye New Highs on Inflation and Geopolitical Risk

Stock 5 Mins Read

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

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

This comparative snapshot on PerfCharts illustrates the bigger picture.

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

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

Fear Trade Tailwinds

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

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

One More Thing: The Mar-a-Lago Accord

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

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

Gold at $4,000 by 2026

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

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

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

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

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

As for “Digital Gold” (Bitcoin)…

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

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

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

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

What About the Dollar?

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

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

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

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

At the Close

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

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

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

Keep Reading
Investing

Top 5 Canadian Biotech Stocks in 2025

Investing 5 Mins Read

Biotech is a dynamic industry that is driving scientific advances and innovation in healthcare. In Canada, the biotech sector is home to companies pursuing cutting-edge therapies and medical technologies.

According to Grandview Research, the global biotech market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 13.96 percent between 2024 and 2030 to reach a value of US$3.08 trillion.

Read on to learn what’s been driving these Canadian biotech firms.

1. Bright Minds Biosciences (CSE:DRUG)

Year-on-year gain: 2,681.82 percent
Market cap: C$322.61 million
Share price: C$45.90

Bright Minds Biosciences is focused on developing novel treatments for neuropsychiatric disorders and pain.

Its portfolio consists of serotonin agonists designed to target neurocircuit abnormalities that make disorders like epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression difficult to treat. The company’s drugs have been designed to potentially retain the powerful therapeutic aspects of psychedelic and other serotonergic compounds, while minimizing their side effects, thereby creating superior drugs to first-generation compounds such as psilocybin.

In October 2024, the company’s share price surged nearly 1,500 percent in a single session after global pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck announced its intention to acquire Longboard Pharmaceuticals. Both Longboard and Bright Minds have agonists targeting the 5-HT2C receptorin their pipelines.

Bright Minds’ 5-HT2C agonist candidate, BMB-101, will target classic absence epilepsy and developmental epileptic encephalopathy. The company is currently evaluating Phase II trials in collaboration with Firefly Neuroscience (NASDAQ:AIFF).

In March of this year, Bright Minds added five world-renowned leaders in epilepsy research to its scientific advisory board.

2. ME Therapeutics Holdings (CSE:METX)

Year-on-year gain: 145.9 percent
Market cap: C$235.71 million
Share price: C$9.00

ME Therapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on developing cancer-fighting drug candidates that can increase the efficacy of current immuno-oncology drugs by targeting suppressive myeloid cells, which have been found to hinder the effectiveness of existing immuno-oncology treatments. Immuno-oncology is a relatively new area of cancer drug research and has shown promising results when used to treat cancer with low survival rates.

In December 2023, the company shared research done in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Harder at the University of British Columbia. The work suggests that ME Therapeutics’ antibody, h1B11-12, successfully blocks a protein that fuels breast and colon cancer growth (G-CSF). Trial planning efforts are ongoing, and the company expects development of a cell line for future production of the drug to be finished in the latter half of 2025.

In addition, the company is part of an ongoing collaborative effort to develop therapeutic MRNA delivery methods to myeloid cells with NanoVation Therapeutics, a privately owned biotech company that develops customized nucleic acid and lipid nanoparticle technologies to empower genetic medicine.

The collaboration has already resulted in two new MRNA formulations, for which testing began on October 4, and has demonstrated encouraging anti-cancer activity in a preclinical model of colorectal cancer.

On March 3, ME Therapeutics shared that it is exploring a listing on the Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange.

3. Hemostemix (TSXV:HEM)

Year-on-year gain: 80 percent
Market cap: C$13.36 million
Share price: C$0.09

Hemostemix is a clinical-stage biotech company focused on developing autologous stem cell therapies, an approach that uses a patient’s own cells to theoretically enhance safety and efficacy. Its main product, ACP-01, is a cell therapy derived from a patient’s blood to promote tissue repair and regeneration in areas affected by disease.

The company announced its first sales orders for ACP-01 on January 29 and has been working to expand internationally and attract new investment.

Hemostemix is currently collaborating with Firefly Neuroscience on a Phase 1 clinical trial of ACP-01 for vascular dementia. As of writing, efforts to fully enroll the trial to its target size are underway.

4. Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals (TSX:EPRX)

Year-on-year gain: 17.07 percent
Market cap: C$173.51 million
Share price: C$5.28

Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals focuses on developing locally delivered therapeutics for patients with unmet medical needs. Its primary focus has been orthopedics and oncology. Eupraxia acquired EpiPharma Therapeutics in late 2023, absorbing the company’s lead candidate EP-104GI.

In February, the company released positive data from the sixth cohort of its Phase 1b/2a trial for EP-104GI in eosinophilic esophagitis. It plans to release additional data periodically, with 12 week data for the trial’s seventh cohort expected in late Q2 2025.

5. Microbix Biosystems (TSX:MBX)

Year-on-year gain: 4.48 percent
Market cap: C$48.17 million
Share price: C$0.35

Microbix Biosystems manufactures antigens and quality control products used in the development of diagnostic tests. They also develop products to ensure test accuracy.

In January, Microbix partnered with the American Proficiency Institute to launch a pilot program to validate the accuracy of molecular assays in testing the H5N1 strain of the influenza A virus.

In March, the company joined the EPICC HPV Elimination Partnership to support test accuracy by supplying materials to support the accuracy of HPV testing efforts. These strategic collaborations highlight the company’s commitment to ensuring reliable and accurate diagnostic testing worldwide.

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

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

Keep Reading
Investing

Nickel Price Update: Q1 2025 in Review

Investing 6 Mins Read

Nickel prices have largely trended down since breaking US$20,000 per metric ton in May 2024.

The decline has been attributed to refined nickel oversupply, driven by high output from Indonesia, which mined an estimated 2.2 million metric tons of nickel in 2024 and accounted for more than 50 percent of global output.

The threat of US tariffs has also weighed heavily on markets that are reliant on nickel and its downstream products, such as the stainless steel and electric vehicle battery industries.

These factors pushed nickel to five year lows in the US$15,000 range in Q1.

What happened to the nickel price in Q1?

Nickel price, January 2 to April 22, 2025.

Chart via Trading Economics.

While nickel has trended down for the past year, 2025 began with upward momentum. It opened the year at US$15,040 on January 2 and rose to US$16,080 before declining to close out the month at US$15,230.

Nickel prices started to gain briefly at the beginning of February, increasing to US$15,875 on February 6 before experiencing volatility until the end of the month, finishing at US$15,590 on February 28.

The start of March saw upward movement, and nickel hit a year-to-date high of US$16,720 on March 12.

Prices for the base metal remained above the US$16,000 mark until the end of March, when substantial pressures caused levels to plunge to US$14,150 on April 8.

What factors impacted nickel in Q1?

Over the past several years, oversupply has presented a significant headwind for nickel prices.

Due to heavy investment from China, Indonesia has emerged as the world’s dominant nickel supplier. However, even though its refined output has remained high, Indonesia has faced a tight nickel ore market because of reduced quotas, which have compelled smelters to import record volumes from the Philippines.

A recent Filipino government proposal to follow Indonesia’s lead in banning exports of raw nickel products could disrupt the situation and introduce further challenges for refiners, impacting global supply chains.

The proposal arose amid rumors of higher mining royalties that have circulated since the start of the year. This speculation boosted nickel prices as higher production costs started to be factored into prices.

The royalty hikes were approved on April 11, and will raise the current 10 percent rate to between 14 and 19 percent, depending on the nickel price. Lower-quality nickel mattes used in battery production will incur a 2 percent royalty.

Jason Sappor, senior analyst for metals and mining research at data provider S&P Global Commodity Insights, noted that the increase will pose another challenge for the industry.

Indonesian nickel miners previously asked the government to reconsider the change.

In a letter to government officials, industry stakeholders stated that the increases to mining royalty levels in the country are “unrealistic and do not reflect the current state of the industry.”

Another factor that impacted the nickel industry during the first quarter of the year was the threat and eventual implementation of US tariffs against China, the world’s largest consumer of nickel.

Ewa Manthy, commodities strategist with ING, suggested tariffs will further impact a beleaguered nickel market.

“London Metal Exchange (LME) nickel has been mostly rangebound amid heightened trade tensions,’ she said.

Manthy’s prediction has held true so far, with nickel prices plummeting 11.5 percent in the week following US President Donald Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2. The move has sparked fears among investors who worry that the escalating trade war will push the world into a global recession.

Even though nickel rebounded after Trump put a pause on larger reciprocal tariffs, there is still a high level of uncertainty regarding nickel demand, especially as the effective tariff rates on China have grown to 145 percent.

Tariffs set to weigh on weak nickel demand

Tariffs are unlikely to affect nickel supply in the short term; however, they could significantly impact demand. The effects will be more pronounced in the US, as tariffs will more than double the costs of goods from China for importers.

The primary destination for nickel is the production of stainless steel.

While long-term global demand is expected to remain robust, with refined nickel projected to see a 4.6 percent compound annual growth rate between 2023 and 2035, there are more immediate headwinds.

Demand for stainless steel in China’s housing sector and slower growth in home appliances has dragged down overall nickel demand in the Asian nation. Although the overall effects could be worse, government policy and stimulus have only provided marginal support. Chinese stainless steel markets were also affected as new carbon tariffs and anti-dumping duties from Europe’s carbon border adjustment mechanism came into effect.

This has led analysts to predict another year of surpluses in China’s stainless steel market, with production increasing by 10.6 percent year-on-year in the first quarter and March output coming to 3.58 million metric tons. Even so, stockpiles stand at 155,000 metric tons, down significantly from 333,000 metric tons in Q1 2024.

The size of the stainless steel market may help moderate a decline in demand from the electric vehicle battery market, which is another significant destination for nickel. According to an April 14 report from S&P Global, the fall in battery demand comes despite growing demand for electric vehicles in both China and Europe; this has been attributed to producers transitioning to nickel-free battery chemistries, particularly lithium-iron-phosphate.

Producers see a greater cost advantage in this composition, and the switch has caused demand for nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries to shrink by 19 percent from January to February.

Due to this fallout, battery precursor producer CNGR Advanced Material (SZSE:300919) said it would be pausing investment in its South Korean nickel smelting project.

The battery sector represented 11.5 percent of total nickel demand in 2024.

Nickel price forecast for 2025

The short term for nickel could very well hinge on how Trump’s tariffs affect the global economy.

“A slowdown in global economic activity would have a detrimental impact on China’s exports of nickel-containing consumer goods, denting global primary nickel demand in a market already grappling with oversupply due to expanding production in top primary nickel producers Indonesia and China,” Sappor said.

He added that weaker fundamentals will likely increase bearishness in the nickel market and ultimately work to further depress prices for the base metal on the LME.

“Considering these potential dynamics as well as further evolutions in the Trump administration’s trade tariff policies, we expect nickel prices to remain volatile in the near term,” Sappor stated.

Manthy is also pessimistic about a market turnaround in the near to medium term.

“The main downside risk to our supply and demand outlook is further downgrades to nickel demand from the electric vehicle sector, but this could be offset by no growth in Indonesian supply. The medium-term supply and demand balance is not supportive of a significant rise in nickel prices,” she said.

For investors, a bear market might provide opportunities, but the risk is that nickel prices may still have a ways to go before they bottom out. The next quarter could offer more certainty in global financial markets.

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

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

Keep Reading