Alice Queen (AQX:AU) has announced Upsize to Tranche Two of Placement
Download the PDF here.
Alice Queen (AQX:AU) has announced Upsize to Tranche Two of Placement
Download the PDF here.
Dr. Adam Trexler, founder and president of Valaurum, shares his thoughts on gold, identifying a key issue he sees developing in the physical market.
‘There’s a crisis in the physical gold market,’ he said, explaining that sector participants need to figure out how to serve investors who want to own gold, but can’t afford current bar and coin prices.
Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
CALGARY, AB / ACCESS Newswire / February 10, 2026 / Valeura Energy Inc. (TSX:VLE,OTC:VLERF)(OTCQX:VLERF) (‘Valeura’ or the ‘Company’) announces record high proved plus probable (‘2P’) reserves, an increase in its 2P reserves life index (‘RLI’), and a third consecutive year of approximately 200% 2P reserves replacement ratio.
Highlights
Record high proved (‘1P’) reserves of 37.9 MMbbls, proved plus probable (‘2P’) reserves of 57.8 MMbbls, and proved plus probable plus possible (‘3P’) reserves of 71.2 MMbbls;
Adding, not just replacing reserves, with a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%;
2P reserves net present value (‘NPV 10 ‘) before tax of US$872 million and US$692 million on an after tax basis (1) ;
Year-end 2025 cash position of US$306 million, and a net asset value (‘NAV’) of US$998 million, equating to approximately C$13 per common share (2) ;
RLI increased to a new record of 7.5 years, on a 2P basis (3) ; and
Above volumes and values do not include the recent farm-in to blocks G1/65 and G3/65 in the Gulf of Thailand, which will be additive upon completion (4) (the ‘Farm-in Transaction’).
(1) Discounted at 10% (‘NPV 10 ‘)
(2) 2P NPV 10 after tax plus cash of US$305.7 million (no debt), using US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.3722 and 105.5 million common shares of the Company (the ‘Common Shares’) outstanding, as at 31 December 2025
(3) Based on 2P reserves divided by the mid-point of the Company’s 2026 guidance production of 21 Mbbls/d
(4) Subject to government approval
Dr. Sean Guest, President and CEO commented:
‘For the third time in a row we have added approximately double the reserves we produced during the year, achieving a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%. This outcome is especially strong given the sharp drop in oil prices in 2025, meaning our reserves were evaluated at a forward price much lower than in the prior year.
We are committed to seeing through the volatility in the global commodity market and have maintained our focus on adding to the ultimate potential and longevity of our portfolio. This is reflected in an improvement to our RLI, which is now at a new record high of 7.5 years (based on 2P reserves and anticipated 2026 production). Our RLI has increased steadily over the three years we have been operating in Thailand, and we see this as affirmation of our ability to add more years of future cash flow, for the benefit of all stakeholders.
The net asset value of our business, defined as year-end cash plus our 2P net revenue (NPV 10 ), is US$1 billion which equates to approximately C$13/Common Share.
We are mindful of the concept of portfolio renewal and therefore continue to focus on contingent resources as well, which provides the feedstock for future reserves additions. We believe our decision to redevelop the Wassana field is an excellent example of this progression. At the same time, we have added more volumes through life-extending work with our Jasmine licence and through ongoing drilling success across the portfolio. In addition, upon completion of our strategic Farm-in Transaction to blocks G1/65 and G3/65 in the Gulf of Thailand, these new volumes will be additive to the volumes we have reported today.
We believe our year-end 2025 reserves and resources demonstrate our ability to drive deeper and longer-lived value from our assets, even when faced with a correction in commodity prices. I believe this underscores both the robustness of our portfolio and the relentless commitment to value shared by our world class team.’
Independent Reserves and Resources Evaluation
Valeura commissioned Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (‘NSAI’) to assess reserves and resources for all of its Thailand assets as of 31 December 2025. NSAI’s evaluation is presented in a report dated 09 February 2026 (the ‘NSAI 2025 Report’). This follows previous evaluations conducted by NSAI for the previous three years ended 31 December 2024 (the ‘NSAI 2024 Report’), 31 December 2023 (the ‘NSAI 2023 Report’), and 31 December 2022.
NSAI 2025 Report: Oil and Gas Reserves by Field Based on Forecast Prices and Costs
|
Reserves by Field |
Gross (Before Royalties) Reserves, Working Interest Share (Mbbls) |
|||||
|
Jasmine (Light/Med.) |
Manora (Light/Med.) |
Nong Yao (Light/Med.) |
Wassana (Heavy) |
Total |
||
|
Proved |
Producing Developed |
6,465 |
1,557 |
4,751 |
1,319 |
14,091 |
|
Non-Producing Developed |
1,413 |
77 |
153 |
432 |
2,074 |
|
|
Undeveloped |
3,301 |
842 |
3,823 |
13,753 |
21,719 |
|
|
Total Proved (1P) |
11,179 |
2,476 |
8,726 |
15,504 |
37,884 |
|
|
Total Probable (P2) |
10,032 |
469 |
5,193 |
4,201 |
19,896 |
|
|
Total Proved + Probable (2P) |
21,211 |
2,945 |
13,919 |
19,705 |
57,780 |
|
|
Total Possible (P3) |
6,295 |
475 |
4,120 |
2,569 |
13,459 |
|
|
Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P) |
27,506 |
3,420 |
18,039 |
22,274 |
71,238 |
|
Summary of Reserves Replacement, Value, and Field Life
Valeura added volumes within the 1P, 2P, and 3P categories in 2025. As compared to the NSAI 2024 Report, the NSAI 2025 Report indicates an increase of 5.6 MMbbls of proved (1P) reserves and 7.8 MMbbls of proved plus probable (2P) reserves, after having produced 8.5 MMbbls of oil in 2025. This implies a 1P reserves replacement ratio of 166% and a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%. 2025 was the Company’s third consecutive year of recording new reserves additions well in excess of volumes produced. The Company’s reserves replacement ratio on a 2P basis was 245% in 2024 and 218% in 2023.
Valeura’s RLI has increased for a third year in a row. Based on the mid-point of the Company’s 2026 production guidance of 19.5 – 22.5 Mbbls/d (21.0 Mbbls/d), on a 2P reserves basis as of 31 December 2025, the Company estimates its RLI to be approximately 7.5 years. This represents an increase from the Company’s RLI of 5.6 years as at 31 December 2024 and 4.5 years as at 31 December 2023 (calculated on the same basis).
While the 2025 2P reserves increased relative to 2024, the revenue and NPV 10 associated with these reserves is slightly lower than 2024. This reduction in value is driven by the significant drop in benchmark oil prices in 2025, causing NSAI to use a much lower oil price forecast in their year-end 2025 evaluation. The Company estimates that, based on the 2P net present value of estimated future revenue after income taxes in the NSAI 2025 Report (based on a 10% discount rate), plus the Company’s 2025 year-end cash position of US$305.7 million, the Company has a 2P NAV of US$997.7 million. Using the year-end count of Common Shares outstanding (being 105,535,429 Common Shares) and 31 December 2025 foreign currency exchange rates (which reflects a stronger Canadian dollar), Valeura’s NAV equates to approximately C$13/Common Share.
|
NAV Estimate |
1P NPV 10 |
2P NPV 10 |
3P NPV 10 |
|||
|
Before Tax |
After Tax |
Before Tax |
After Tax |
Before Tax |
After Tax |
|
|
NPV 10 (US$ million) |
401.1 |
370.6 |
871.9 |
692.0 |
1,304.6 |
947.9 |
|
Cash at 31 December 2025 (US$ million) (1) |
305.7 |
305.7 |
305.7 |
305.7 |
305.7 |
305.7 |
|
Net Asset Value (US$ million) |
706.8 |
676.3 |
1,177.6 |
997.7 |
1,610.3 |
1,253.6 |
|
Common shares (million) (2) |
105.5 |
105.5 |
105.5 |
105.5 |
105.5 |
105.5 |
|
Estimated NAV per basic share (C$ per share) (3) |
9.2 |
8.8 |
15.3 |
13.0 |
20.9 |
16.3 |
(1) Cash at 31 December 2025 of US$305.7 million
(2) Issued and outstanding Common Shares as at 31 December 2025
(3) US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.3722 at 31 December 2025
The NSAI 2025 Report indicates a further extension in the anticipated end of field life for the Jasmine, Wassana and Manora fields, and a slight reduction in the anticipated end of field life for the Nong Yao field.
|
Fields |
Gross (Before Royalties) 2P Reserves, |
End of Field Life |
2P NPV10 After Tax |
||||||
|
31 December 2024 (MMbbls) |
2025 Production (MMbbls) |
Additions (MMbbls) |
31 December 2025 (MMbbls) |
Reserves Replacement Ratio (%) |
NSAI 2024 Report |
NSAI 2025 Report |
31 December 2024 |
31 December 2025 |
|
|
Jasmine |
16.8 |
(3.0) |
7.4 |
21.2 |
249% |
Aug-31 |
Oct-34 |
163.9 |
177.2 |
|
Manora |
3.4 |
(0.8) |
0.4 |
2.9 |
47% |
Apr-30 |
Aug-31 |
45.7 |
17.2 |
|
Nong Yao |
16.9 |
(3.6) |
0.6 |
13.9 |
16% |
Dec-33 |
Sep-33 |
416.1 |
257.4 |
|
Wassana |
12.9 |
(1.2) |
7.9 |
19.7 |
686% |
Dec-35 |
Dec-41 |
126.6 |
240.1 |
|
Total |
50.0 |
(8.5) |
16.3 |
57.8 |
192% |
752.2 |
692.0 |
||
2P reserves by field, and their associated after-tax 2P NPV 10 values are indicated below. The year-on-year change between the NSAI 2024 Report and NSAI 2025 Report indicates an increase in both 2P reserves volumes and the associated after-tax value for both the Jasmine and Wassana fields, reflecting the conversion of 2C resources to 2P reserves in both instances, bolstered in particular by the Company’s decision to proceed with redevelopment of the Wassana field, for which the final investment decision was announced in May 2025.
Reserves volumes and associated after-tax 2P values for the Manora and Nong Yao fields have decreased between the NSAI 2024 Report and NSAI 2025 Report, driven primarily by the significantly reduced forecast oil pricing applied in the year-end 2025 evaluation vs the year-end 2024 evaluation. In the case of Nong Yao, the year-on-year decline in NPV 10 is also influenced by the valuation ‘roll-forward’ effect: following the field’s expansion in 2024, Nong Yao delivered strong production in 2025, effectively bringing forward and monetising a meaningful portion of the value previously reflected in NSAI 2024 Report. This value realisation was partially offset by reserves replacement at Nong Yao, with NSAI reporting additions during 2025 that helped replenish the reserve base and support ongoing field life.
|
Fields |
Gross (Before Royalties) 2P Reserves, |
2P NPV 10 After Tax (US$ million) |
||||
|
31 December 2023 |
31 December 2024 |
31 December 2025 |
31 December 2023 |
31 December 2024 |
31 December 2025 |
|
|
Jasmine |
10.4 |
16.8 |
21.2 |
81.8 |
163.9 |
177.2 |
|
Manora |
2.2 |
3.4 |
2.9 |
21.2 |
45.7 |
17.2 |
|
Nong Yao |
12.4 |
16.9 |
13.9 |
185.6 |
416.1 |
257.4 |
|
Wassana |
12.9 |
12.9 |
19.7 |
139.9 |
126.6 |
240.1 |
|
Total |
37.9 |
50.0 |
57.8 |
428.5 |
752.2 |
692.0 |
Near-term forecast oil prices in the NSAI 2025 Report are 19% lower than in the NSAI 2024 Report. The Brent crude oil reference prices used in estimating the future net revenue from oil reserves have been revised downward in accordance with the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook requirements, which mandates the use of forward curve prices in near-term forecasts.
|
Report |
Brent crude oil reference price for the year ended |
|||||
|
31 December 2026 |
31 December 2027 |
31 December 2028 |
31 December 2029 |
31 December 2030 |
Thereafter |
|
|
NSAI 2024 Report (US$/bbl) |
78.51 |
79.89 |
81.82 |
83.46 |
85.13 |
2% inflation |
|
NSAI 2025 Report (US$/bbl) |
63.92 |
69.13 |
74.36 |
76.10 |
77.62 |
2% inflation |
|
Difference (US$/bbl) |
(14.59) |
(10.76) |
(7.46) |
(7.36) |
(7.51) |
– |
|
Difference (%) |
(19%) |
(13%) |
(9%) |
(9%) |
(9%) |
(9%) |
Net present values of future net revenue from oil reserves are based on cost estimates as of the date of the NSAI 2025 Report, and the forecast Brent crude oil reference prices as indicated above. Specific price forecasts for each of the Company’s fields are adjusted for oil quality and market differentials, as guided by actual recent price realisations for each of the fields’ crude oil sales.
All estimated costs associated with the eventual decommissioning of the Company’s fields are included as part of the calculation of future net revenue. As in previous years, this can result in a negative future net revenue estimate for the 1P Proved Producing Developed category as these most conservative volumes are encumbered with the entire decommissioning cost for the field.
|
Future Net Revenue by Field |
Before Tax NPV 10 (US$ million) |
|||||
|
Jasmine (Light/Med.) |
Manora (Light/Med.) |
Nong Yao (Light/Med.) |
Wassana (Heavy) |
Total |
||
|
Proved |
Producing Developed |
(53.7) |
(8.1) |
25.7 |
34.3 |
(70.5) |
|
Non-Producing Developed |
63.6 |
4.5 |
7.0 |
20.0 |
95.2 |
|
|
Undeveloped |
(5.4) |
3.4 |
98.6 |
279.8 |
376.4 |
|
|
Total Proved (1P) |
4.4 |
(0.2) |
131.3 |
265.5 |
401.1 |
|
|
Total Probable (P2) |
222.5 |
18.9 |
177.4 |
52.0 |
470.8 |
|
|
Total Proved + Probable (2P) |
226.9 |
18.7 |
308.7 |
317.6 |
871.9 |
|
|
Total Possible (P3) |
201.6 |
19.4 |
150.5 |
61.2 |
432.7 |
|
|
Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P) |
428.6 |
38.2 |
459.1 |
378.8 |
1,304.6 |
|
|
Future Net Revenue by Field |
After Tax NPV 10 (US$ million) |
|||||
|
Jasmine (Light/Med.) |
Manora (Light/Med.) |
Nong Yao (Light/Med.) |
Wassana (Heavy) |
Total |
||
|
Proved |
Producing Developed |
(59.0) |
(8.1) |
25.7 |
(34.3) |
(75.8) |
|
Non-Producing Developed |
58.9 |
4.5 |
7.0 |
20.0 |
90.5 |
|
|
Undeveloped |
2.5 |
3.4 |
97.1 |
253.0 |
356.0 |
|
|
Total Proved (1P) |
2.4 |
(0.2) |
129.7 |
238.7 |
370.6 |
|
|
Total Probable (P2) |
174.9 |
17.4 |
127.7 |
1.4 |
321.3 |
|
|
Total Proved + Probable (2P) |
177.2 |
17.2 |
257.4 |
240.1 |
692.0 |
|
|
Total Possible (P3) |
124.5 |
14.7 |
92.4 |
24.3 |
255.9 |
|
|
Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P) |
301.7 |
31.9 |
349.8 |
264.4 |
947.9 |
|
Contingent Resources
NSAI assessed the Company’s contingent resources of its Thailand assets for additional reservoir accumulations and reported estimates in the NSAI 2025 Report, as it has done in each of the preceding three years. Contingent resources are heavy crude oil and light/medium crude oil, and are further divided into three subcategories, being Development Unclarified, Development Not Viable, and Development on Hold (see oil and gas advisories). Each subcategory is assigned a percentage risk, reflecting the estimated chance of development. Aggregate totals are provided below.
|
Contingent Resources |
NSAI 2023 Report |
NSAI 2024 Report |
NSAI 2025 Report |
|||
|
Unrisked (MMbbls) |
Risked (MMbbls) |
Unrisked (MMbbls) |
Risked (MMbbls) |
Unrisked (MMbbls) |
Risked (MMbbls) |
|
|
Low Estimate (1C) |
15.2 |
6.5 |
29.4 |
9.2 |
29.9 |
10.3 |
|
Best Estimate (2C) |
19.9 |
8.9 |
48.5 |
13.5 |
39.5 |
7.0 |
|
High Estimate (3C) |
27.9 |
11.6 |
72.1 |
18.0 |
58.9 |
8.9 |
During 2025, Valeura successfully converted a substantial portion of its Best Estimate (2C) Contingent Resources to Reserves.
The above Contingent Resources do not include any resources from the Farm-in Transaction, where Valeura expects to earn a 40% non-operated working interest in Gulf of Thailand blocks G1/65 and G3/65. The Farm-in Transaction is subject to government approval, which is anticipated in due course, following completion of Thailand’s general election.
Further Disclosure
Valeura intends to disclose a summary of the NSAI 2025 Report to Thailand’s upstream regulator later in February 2025. Thereafter, the Company will publish its estimates of reserves and resources in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 51-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities along with its annual information form for the year ended 31 December 2025, in March 2026.
For further information, please contact:
Valeura Energy Inc. (General Corporate Enquiries) +65 6373 6940
Sean Guest, President and CEO
Yacine Ben-Meriem, CFO
Contact@valeuraenergy.com
Valeura Energy Inc. (Investor and Media Enquiries) +1 403 975 6752 / +44 7392 940495
Robin James Martin, Vice President, Communications and Investor Relations
IR@valeuraenergy.com
Contact details for the Company’s advisors, covering research analysts and joint brokers, including Auctus Advisors LLP, Beacon Securities Limited, Canaccord Genuity Ltd (UK), Cormark Securities Inc., Research Capital Corporation, Roth Canada Inc., and Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited, are listed on the Company’s website at www.valeuraenergy.com/investor-information/analysts/.
About the Company
Valeura Energy Inc. is a Canadian public company engaged in the exploration, development and production of petroleum and natural gas in Thailand and in Türkiye. The Company is pursuing a growth-oriented strategy and intends to re-invest into its producing asset portfolio and to deploy resources toward further organic and inorganic growth in Southeast Asia. Valeura aspires toward value accretive growth for stakeholders while adhering to high standards of environmental, social and governance responsibility.
Additional information relating to Valeura is also available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
Oil and Gas Advisories
Reserves and contingent resources disclosed in this news release are based on an independent evaluation
conducted by the incumbent independent petroleum engineering firm, NSAI with an effective date of 31 December 2025. The NSAI estimates of reserves and resources were prepared using guidelines outlined in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook and in accordance with National Instrument 51-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities . The reserves and contingent resources estimates disclosed in this news release are estimates only and there is no guarantee that the estimated reserves and contingent resources will be recovered.
This news release contains a number of oil and gas metrics, including ‘NAV’, ‘reserves replacement ratio’, ‘RLI’, and ‘end of field life’ which do not have standardised meanings or standard methods of calculation and therefore such measures may not be comparable to similar measures used by other companies. Such metrics are commonly used in the oil and gas industry and have been included herein to provide readers with additional measures to evaluate the Company’s performance; however, such measures are not reliable indicators of the future performance of the Company and future performance may not compare to the performance in previous periods.
‘NAV’ is calculated by adding the estimated future net revenues based on a 10% discount rate to net cash, (which is comprised of cash less debt) as of 31 December 2025. NAV is expressed on a per share basis by dividing the total by basic Common Shares outstanding. NAV per share is not predictive and may not be reflective of current or future market prices for Valeura.
‘Reserves replacement ratio’ for 2025 is calculated by dividing the difference in reserves between the NSAI 2025 Report and the NSAI 2024 Report, plus actual 2025 production, by the assets’ total production before royalties for the calendar year 2025.
‘RLI’ is calculated by dividing reserves by management’s estimated total production before royalties for 2026.
‘End of field life’ is calculated by NSAI as the date at which the monthly net revenue generated by the field is equal to or less than the asset’s operating cost.
Reserves
Reserves are estimated remaining quantities of commercially recoverable oil, natural gas, and related substances anticipated to be recoverable from known accumulations, as of a given date, based on the analysis of drilling, geological, geophysical, and engineering data, the use of established technology, and specified economic conditions, which are generally accepted as being reasonable. Reserves are further categorised according to the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub-classified based on development and production status.
Proved reserves are those reserves that can be estimated with a high degree of certainty to be recoverable. It is likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will exceed the estimated proved reserves.
Developed reserves are those reserves that are expected to be recovered from existing wells and installed facilities or, if facilities have not been installed, that would involve a low expenditure (e.g., when compared to the cost of drilling a well) to put the reserves on production.
Developed producing reserves are those reserves that are expected to be recovered from completion intervals open at the time of the estimate. These reserves may be currently producing or, if shut in, they must have previously been on production, and the date of resumption of production must be known with reasonable certainty.
Developed non-producing reserves are those reserves that either have not been on production, or have previously been on production, but are shut in, and the date of resumption of production is unknown.
Undeveloped reserves are those reserves expected to be recovered from known accumulations where a significant expenditure (e.g., when compared to the cost of drilling a well) is required to render them capable of production. They must fully meet the requirements of the reserves classification (proved, probable, possible) to which they are assigned.
Probable reserves are those additional reserves that are less certain to be recovered than proved reserves. It is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater or less than the sum of the estimated proved plus probable reserves.
Possible reserves are those additional reserves that are less certain to be recovered than probable reserves. It is unlikely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will exceed the sum of the estimated proved plus probable plus possible reserves. There is a 10% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of the estimated proved plus probable plus possible reserves.
The estimated future net revenues disclosed in this news release do not necessarily represent the fair market value of the reserves associated therewith.
The estimates of reserves and future net revenue for individual properties may not reflect the same confidence level as estimates of reserves and future net revenue for all properties, due to the effects of aggregation.
Contingent Resources
Contingent resources are those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations using established technology or technology under development, but which are not currently considered to be commercially recoverable due to one or more contingencies. Contingencies are conditions that must be satisfied for a portion of contingent resources to be classified as reserves that are: (a) specific to the project being evaluated; and (b) expected to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
Contingent resources are further categorised according to the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub‐classified based on a project maturity and/or characterised by their economic status. There are three classifications of contingent resources: low estimate, best estimate and high estimate. Best estimate is a classification of estimated resources described in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook as the best estimate of the quantity that will be actually recovered; it is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater or less than the best estimate. If probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 50 percent probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the best estimate.
The project maturity subclasses include development pending, development on hold, development unclarified and development not viable. The contingent resources disclosed in this news release are classified as either development unclarified, development not viable, or development on hold.
Development unclarified is defined as a contingent resource that requires further appraisal to clarify the potential for development and has been assigned a lower chance of development until commercial considerations can be clearly defined. Chance of development is the likelihood that an accumulation will be commercially developed.
Conversion of the development unclarified resources referred to in this news release is dependent upon (1) the expected timetable for development; (2) the economics of the project; (3) the marketability of the oil and gas production; (4) the availability of infrastructure and technology; (5) the political, regulatory, and environmental conditions; (6) the project maturity and definition; (7) the availability of capital; and, ultimately, (8) the decision of joint venture partners to undertake development.
The major positive factor relevant to the estimate of the contingent development unclarified resources referred to in this news release is the successful discovery of resources encountered in appraisal and development wells within the existing fields. The major negative factors relevant to the estimate of the contingent development unclarified resources referred to in this news release are: (1) the outstanding requirement for a definitive development plan; (2) current economic conditions do not support the resource development; (3) limited field economic life to develop the resources; and (4) the outstanding requirement for a final investment decision and commitment of all joint venture partners.
Development not viable is defined as a contingent resource where no further data acquisition or evaluation is currently planned and hence there is a low chance of development, there is usually less than a reasonable chance of economics of development being positive in the foreseeable future. The major negative factors relevant to the estimate of development not viable referred to in this news release are: (1) current economic conditions do not support the resource development; and (2) availability of technical knowledge and technology within the industry to economically support resource development.
Development on hold is defined as a contingent resource where there is a reasonable chance of development, but there are contingencies to be resolved before the project can move forward.
If these contingencies are successfully addressed, some portion of these contingent resources may be reclassified as reserves.
Of the best estimate 2C contingent resources estimated in the NSAI 2025 Report, on a risked basis: 63% of the estimated volumes are light/medium crude oil, with the remainder being heavy oil; 42% are categorised as Development Unclarified, with the remainder being Development Not Viable. Development Unclarified 2C resources have been assigned an average chances of development for the four fields ranging from 5% to 85%, while 2C Development Not Viable resources have been assigned an average chance of development ranging from 10% to 15%.
Contingent resources within the Development on hold category are only in the 1C certainty estimate (low or conservative). The main contingencies are licence extensions and continuation of drilling beyond five years. These contingencies are considered to have a high chance of positive resolution and are therefore not applied in the best estimates of respective reserves and resources (2P and 2C).
|
Resources Project Maturity subclass |
Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development Unclarified) |
Chance of Development (%) |
|||
|
Unrisked |
Risked |
||||
|
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
||
|
Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Unclarified |
1,812 |
1,698 |
380 |
355 |
10% – 85% |
|
Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Unclarified |
2,334 |
2,190 |
528 |
494 |
10% – 85% |
|
Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Unclarified |
3,418 |
3,216 |
793 |
744 |
10% – 85% |
|
Resources Project Maturity subclass |
Heavy Crude Oil (Development Unclarified) |
Chance of Development (%) |
|||
|
Unrisked |
Risked |
||||
|
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
||
|
Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Unclarified |
4,163 |
3,924 |
1,836 |
1,730 |
5% – 60% |
|
Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Unclarified |
6,006 |
5,661 |
2,393 |
2,256 |
5% – 60% |
|
Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Unclarified |
9,324 |
8,788 |
3,149 |
2,968 |
5% – 60% |
|
Resources Project Maturity subclass |
Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development Not Viable) |
Chance of Development (%) |
|||
|
Unrisked |
Risked |
||||
|
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
||
|
Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Not Viable |
16,808 |
15,460 |
2,521 |
2,319 |
5% – 15% |
|
Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Not Viable |
30,057 |
27,577 |
3,870 |
3,552 |
5% – 15% |
|
Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Not Viable |
45,326 |
41,543 |
4,801 |
4,400 |
5% – 15% |
|
Resources Project Maturity subclass |
Heavy Crude Oil (Development Not Viable) |
Chance of Development (%) |
|||
|
Unrisked |
Risked |
||||
|
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
||
|
Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Not Viable |
1,256 |
1,183 |
188 |
178 |
15% |
|
Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Not Viable |
1,114 |
1,050 |
167 |
158 |
15% |
|
Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Not Viable |
847 |
799 |
127 |
120 |
15% |
|
Resources Project Maturity subclass |
Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development on Hold) |
Chance of Development (%) |
|||
|
Unrisked |
Risked |
||||
|
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
||
|
Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development on Hold |
4,224 |
3,738 |
3,850 |
3,409 |
90% – 95% |
|
Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development on Hold |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development on Hold |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Resources Project Maturity subclass |
Heavy Crude Oil (Development on Hold) |
Chance of Development (%) |
|||
|
Unrisked |
Risked |
||||
|
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
Gross (Mbbls) |
Net (Mbbls) |
||
|
Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development on Hold |
1,659 |
1,564 |
1,506 |
1,420 |
90% – 95% |
|
Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development on Hold |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development on Hold |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
The NSAI estimates have been risked, using the chance of development, to account for the possibility that the contingencies are not successfully addressed.
Glossary
|
bbls |
barrels of oil |
|
Mbbls |
thousand barrels of oil |
|
MMbbls |
million barrels of oil |
Advisory and Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information
Certain information included in this news release constitutes forward-looking information under applicable securities legislation. Such forward-looking information is for the purpose of explaining management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes, such as making investment decisions. Forward-looking information typically contains statements with words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘expect’, ‘plan’, ‘intend’, ‘estimate’, ‘propose’, ‘project’, ‘target’ or similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.
Forward-looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, management’s anticipation that completion of the Farm-in Transaction will be additive to volumes and values; management’s expectation of receiving governmental approval of the Farm-in Transaction and the timing thereof; management’s continued focus on contingent resources and the anticipated growth of resources; the ability to add more years of future cash flow, for the benefit of all stakeholders; the ability to drive deeper and longer-lived value from the Company’s assets, even when faced with a correction in commodity prices; the Company’s anticipated 2026 production guidance of 19.5 – 22.5 Mbbls/d; dates for the anticipated end of field life of Valeura’s assets; forecast oil prices; the Company’s intention to disclose a summary of the NSAI 2025 Report to Thailand’s upstream regulator and the anticipated timing thereof; and the anticipated filing date of the Company’s annual information form along with its estimates of reserves and resources.
Forward-looking information is based on management’s current expectations and assumptions regarding, among other things: political stability of the areas in which the Company is operating; continued safety of operations and ability to proceed in a timely manner; continued operations of and approvals forthcoming from governments and regulators in a manner consistent with past conduct; future drilling activity on the required/expected timelines; the prospectivity of the Company’s lands; the continued favourable pricing and operating netbacks across its business; future production rates and associated operating netbacks and cash flow; decline rates; future sources of funding; future economic conditions; the impact of inflation of future costs; future currency exchange rates; interest rates; the ability to meet drilling deadlines and fulfil commitments under licences and leases; future commodity prices; the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; royalty rates and taxes; future capital and other expenditures; the success obtained in drilling new wells and working over existing wellbores; the performance of wells and facilities; the availability of the required capital to funds its exploration, development and other operations, and the ability of the Company to meet its commitments and financial obligations; the ability of the Company to secure adequate processing, transportation, fractionation and storage capacity on acceptable terms; the capacity and reliability of facilities; the application of regulatory requirements respecting abandonment and reclamation; the recoverability of the Company’s reserves and contingent resources; future growth; the sufficiency of budgeted capital expenditures in carrying out planned activities; the impact of increasing competition; the ability to efficiently integrate assets and employees acquired through acquisitions; global energy policies going forward; future debt levels; and the Company’s continued ability to obtain and retain qualified staff and equipment in a timely and cost efficient manner. In addition, the Company’s work programmes and budgets are in part based upon expected agreement among joint venture partners and associated exploration, development and marketing plans and anticipated costs and sales prices, which are subject to change based on, among other things, the actual results of drilling and related activity, availability of drilling, offshore storage and offloading facilities and other specialised oilfield equipment and service providers, changes in partners’ plans and unexpected delays and changes in market conditions. Although the Company believes the expectations and assumptions reflected in such forward-looking information are reasonable, they may prove to be incorrect.
Forward-looking information involves significant known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Exploration, appraisal, and development of oil and natural gas reserves and resources are speculative activities and involve a degree of risk. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by the Company including, but not limited to: the ability of management to execute its business plan or realise anticipated benefits from acquisitions; the risk of disruptions from public health emergencies and/or pandemics; competition for specialised equipment and human resources; the Company’s ability to manage growth; the Company’s ability to manage the costs related to inflation; disruption in supply chains; the risk of currency fluctuations; changes in interest rates, oil and gas prices and netbacks; potential changes in joint venture partner strategies and participation in work programmes; uncertainty regarding the contemplated timelines and costs for work programme execution; the risks of disruption to operations and access to worksites; potential changes in laws and regulations, the uncertainty regarding government and other approvals; counterparty risk; the risk that financing may not be available; risks associated with weather delays and natural disasters; and the risk associated with international activity. See the most recent annual information form and management’s discussion and analysis of the Company for a detailed discussion of the risk factors.
The forward-looking information contained in this new release is made as of the date hereof and the Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless required by applicable securities laws. The forward-looking information contained in this new release is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.
This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction, including where such offer would be unlawful. This news release is not for distribution or release, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Ireland, the Republic of South Africa or Japan or any other jurisdiction in which its publication or distribution would be unlawful.
Neither the Toronto Stock Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Toronto Stock Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.
This information is provided by Reach, the non-regulatory press release distribution service of RNS, part of the London Stock Exchange. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.
SOURCE: Valeura Energy Inc.
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia
Gold often dominates conversations at the annual Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC), but silver’s price surge, which began in 2025 and continued into January, placed the metal firmly in the spotlight.
At this year’s silver forecast panel, Commodity Culture host and producer Jesse Day sat down with Maria Smirnova, senior portfolio manager and senior investment officer Sprott (TSX:SII,NYSE:SII); GoldSeek President and CEO Peter Spina; Peter Krauth, editor of Silver Stock Investor and Silver Advisor; and Silver Tiger Metals (TSXV:SLVR,OTCQX:SLVTF) President and CEO Glenn Jessome to discuss silver’s meteoric performance and where it could be headed next.
Over the past five years, the silver price has largely stagnated, trading between US$20 and US$25 per ounce until mid-2024 when the white metal crossed the US$30 mark. Even then, the price mostly held steady until 2025, when it crossed the US$35 mark in June, then passed US$40 in September and US$50 in October.
However, the most significant rise came at the start of December, when momentum took over, sending silver on a historic run that pushed it to a record high of US$116 by the end of January.
Behind these meteoric gains was a highly volatile silver market, which, despite strong fundamentals, became highly speculative and attractive to investors seeking an alternative to gold, which is also trading at all-time highs.
“You buy gold to prevent losing money, and you buy silver to make money, to buy more gold,” Spina said.
Silver is in the midst of a six-year structural supply deficit, with the expectation that it will continue through 2026.
A key driver of this deficit is silver’s growing role in industrial applications. Although its biggest gains have come from its use in solar panel production, it’s also important to several other sectors, including automotive and defense.
“We wouldn’t have a modern civilization without silver. It’s used in a myriad of different places, and what is interesting now is that silver is very critical to the national defense of the US, of China, of big superpowers. So it’s becoming weaponized,” Spina explained. He noted that the US designated silver a critical mineral in 2025, placing it alongside copper for strategic purposes, and suggested that stockpiling is likely underway.
In addition to demand driving the silver price, Spina also noted that investors who had been absent from the market for many years moved into net-buying positions last year, which has helped to accelerate the market.
“Its more serious than the gold market, because silver is so essential in our daily lives,” Spina said.
While demand increases, a serious situation is developing on the supply side. The majority of silver produced today comes as a byproduct from mining other metals like copper and zinc.
Jessome outlined how perilous the supply side is, noting that in 2025 there were just 52 primary silver mines worldwide; by the end of 2026, that number is expected to fall to 46, and in 2027 to 39.
With so few mines and high prices, the expectation is that there would be new production set to come online, and although there are some in the pipeline, including Jessome’s Silver Tiger, the reality is that starting a new mine is fraught with challenges. He noted that, from the first drill hole to production, the average time is 17 years.
“From that first drill hole to a commercial mine, it’s one in 1,000. So if you think that we’re going to solve this 39 in the next year, it’s not easy, it’s hard,” Jessome told the VRIC audience.
He continued to explain that, regardless of what happens with the price, people don’t realize there’s not enough silver.
Even though silver’s fundamentals support high prices, the questions on many lips throughout VRIC were: ‘Is it too much too soon?’ and ‘Is it a bull market or is it a bubble?’
The consensus was that the metal remains in a bull market, but is exhibiting some bubble-like characteristics; investors can expect corrections, but silver will likely maintain momentum.
“We’re multiple percent above the 200 day moving average. This is not something that’s sustainable. If we continue at this pace, it would suck all the money from the markets into this one asset. It’s not likely to continue,” Krauth said just days prior to a significant correction that took the silver price back below US$70.
He pointed to the 2001 to 2011 bull market: silver rose from US$4 to nearly US$50, but along the way, there were corrections. “There were five corrections of 15 percent or more. The average correction was 30 percent. That would take us to US$75, US$80 right now,” Krauth emphasized to the audience at VRIC.
While the expert explained that a silver correction of that magnitude wouldn’t be shocking, he also pointed out that miners would still be pretty happy at those prices.
Given the market volatility, Spina echoed much of Krauth’s belief that there is reason for investors to be excited but also urged caution, commenting, “I would be very, very cautious in trying to trade this, especially with leverage or anything like that, but I do think that we’re in the revaluation phase. Silver could go a lot higher, but along the way, we can get some very vicious pullbacks, and so one has to be ready for those events.’
Smirnova urged calm, and that she was hopeful for a correction, agreeing with Krauth that the parabolic trajectory of silver wasn’t sustainable, and saying she sees gold market as more steady.
She also suggested that, rather than chasing opportunities, investors should be patient and wait for them to come to them, rather than being fearful in such a volatile market.
“I would urge people to think, sit back, and think about the reasons why silver ran in the first place, and whether those reasons are continuing right now, and they will. I think the fundamentals haven’t changed for silver, using corrections as opportunities to reload, to enter, to buy things that you know you like as an investor,” Smirnova said.
Overall, the panel was in agreement that the main factors fueling a strong silver market, supply and demand, investment, and a bifurcated market, aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Demand for silver goes beyond investment and is set to play a crucial role in the energy transition, AI and technology, and national defense. However, they also agreed that it’s probably run up to fast, and needs a correction, which started to happen on January 29, but none expected the bull market to come to an end.
Smirnova did an excellent job of putting the changing silver market into perspective for investors.
“We mine and produce, between scrap and mining supply, 1 billion ounces a year at US$30. That was a US$30 billion market. At US$100 it’s a US$100 billion market. It’s nothing. We have companies trading at trillion-dollar valuations in the market. The whole silver market is $100 billion a year, so it really does not take a lot of money to move the price, and that’s why I think it’s gone from US$30 to US$100 in no time at all,” she said.
While these price shifts don’t require significant capital inflows, they make a significant difference across the sector. Krauth noted that the price of silver hasn’t really been factored in for silver developers or producers because their projections are currently based on prices that are two-thirds lower.
“Almost nobody ever uses spot prices. They’re arguably two-thirds below spot price,’ he said.
‘So when the next few quarters come in and the market starts to realize what kind of cash these projects are generating, I think that’s when the reality will start to set in,” Krauth added.
The panel was largely optimistic that opportunities will continue to arise in the silver market. They noted that physical silver prices tend to be more volatile, but there are safer options for investors who don’t want to miss out.
Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Locksley Resources (LKY:AU) has announced Underground Mapping Reveals Major New Target at Mojave
Download the PDF here.
Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Friday (February 6) as of 9:00 p.m. UTC.
Get the latest insights on Bitcoin, Ether and altcoins, along with a round-up of key cryptocurrency market news.
Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$70,178.66, up by 11.3 percent over 24 hours.
Bitcoin price performance, February 6, 2026.
Chart via TradingView.
Bitcoin has stopped behaving as an alternative safe-haven asset and has re-aligned with the risk-asset cycle. Its high correlation with traditional financial markets, including a broad sell-off in technology stocks, precious metals, and equities, suggests a scenario of systemic stress and scarce liquidity.
Downward pressure intensified after breaking key technical levels, causing nearly US$770 million in leveraged long positions to be liquidated in 24 hours, suggesting the market’s ‘cleansing phase’ is ongoing. The decline was exacerbated by a strong dollar and rising bond yields, which reduced the appeal of non-yielding assets like cryptocurrencies, prompting a rotation into defensive assets.
In the short term, price action will be limited and vulnerable to renewed selling pressure as long as restrictive financial conditions and a defensive tone prevail in global markets. Stabilization requires an improvement in global financial conditions and Bitcoin’s ability to rebuild solid technical support.
Ether (ETH) was priced at US$2,052.03, up by 10 percent over the last 24 hours.
Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
We also break down next week’s catalysts to watch to help you prepare for the week ahead.
Tech stocks extended their selloff into their second week, with the Nasdaq Composite (INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC) posting its steepest two‑day decline since last April.
Monday (February 2) saw an early rotation out of tech ahead of Palantir Technologies (NASDAQ:PLTR) earnings report. NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) slipped on news that its proposed OpenAI‑backed investment hit a snag, dragging AI‑chip names like Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD), Broadcom (NASDAQ:AVGO) and other semiconductor leaders.
Palantir’s earnings, which beat expectations and included an aggressive revenue growth guide, lifted shares in an early surge on Tuesday (February 3); however, Nvidia’s OpenAI‑investment‑snag news, plus general AI‑disruption worries and positioning, weighed on the broader tech stack, sparking a tech‑growth selloff that impacted NVIDIA, Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and other software‑heavy names.
The Nasdaq fell deeper on Wednesday (February 4) as influential tech names such as AMD and other chip and software stocks reversed post‑earnings gains. AMD saw a sharp intraday plunge following its after‑hours earnings print on Tuesday. Its losses dragged the broader index lower.
Tech selloffs extended into Thursday (February 5), with the Nasdaq closing down 1.6 percent as major tech stocks saw profit‑taking and forward‑looking capex‑related concerns, later crystallized by Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) aggressive 2026 spending plans.
The Nasdaq made an impressive recovery on Friday (February 6) as a rally in chip stocks helped pare earlier week losses, despite ongoing volatility in the mega‑caps.
After reporting Q4 2025 earnings results and strong AI-driven guidance on Monday, the stock rose sharply. The semiconductor‑test and robotics‑automation company makes equipment used to test chips, including AI‑related compute and memory and industrial robots.
The analog and RF‑semiconductor company, which designs and manufactures components used in smartphones, 5G infrastructure, automotive and IoT devices, reported Q1 fiscal 2026 results on Tuesday, beating expectations and guiding up, which helped it outperform the broader tech selloff.
Apple’s strong performance this week was driven by a wave of analyst upgrades and bullish notes that reinforced the positive narrative from last week’s record‑breaking Q1 print, especially around iPhone demand and China‑market strength.
Skyworks Solutions, Teradyne and Apple performance, February 2 to 6, 2025.
Chart via Google Finance.
Tech exchange-traded funds (ETFs) track baskets of major tech stocks, meaning their performance helps investors gauge the overall performance of the niches they cover.
This week, the iShares Semiconductor ETF (NASDAQ:SOXX) advanced by 1.89 percent, while the Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF (NASDAQ:SOXQ) advanced by 1.66 percent.
The VanEck Semiconductor ETF (NASDAQ:SMH) also increased by 0.75 percent.
Next week is another earnings‑heavy, tech‑adjacent stretch, with a mix of big‑name reports and key macro data that will like keep markets sensitive to AI capex and earnings.
Coinbase (NASDAQ:COIN) and Robinhood Markets (NASDAQ:HOOD) will be among the most‑watched names tied to crypto and retail trading. Cisco (NASDAQ:CSCO) also reports midweek.
In addition to US wholesale inventories, Employment Cost Index and CPI reports, the FOMC minutes will be released on February 11, so rate policy and inflation will stay front‑of‑mind.
Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Statistics Canada released January’s jobs report on Friday (February 6). The data showed that the Canadian workforce shrank by 25,000, or 0.1 percent.
Manufacturing experienced the largest decline, losing 28,000 workers, followed by education with 24,000, and the public sector, which decreased by 10,000. These declines were balanced by increases of 17,000 across information, culture, and recreation; 14,000 in business, building and support services; and 11,000 in agriculture.
Despite the declines, the unemployment rate fell 0.3 percentage points to 6.5 percent. While the rate was the lowest since September 2024, the agency notes that the decrease was driven by fewer people looking for work through the month, and coincided with a 0.4 percent drop in the labor force participation rate, which came in at 65 percent.
The release came just a day after the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its job opening report on Thursday (February 5) that showed that labor demand had decreased to its lowest level since September 2020, as December’s figures fell by 386,000 openings.
The report differs from the employment situation summary, which is typically released on the first Friday of each month. The report has been delayed due to the extended US government shutdown in late 2025 and will be released next Wednesday, February 11.
Employment data is an important metric for assessing the overall health of the Canadian and US economies and plays a significant role in helping central banks set interest rate policy.
For more on what’s moving markets this week, check out our top market news round-up.
Canadian equity markets were mixed this week.
The S&P/TSX Composite Index (INDEXTSI:OSPTX) gained 1 percent over the week to close Friday at 32,470.98, while the S&P/TSX Venture Composite Index (INDEXTSI:JX) shed 5.38 percent to 1,015.34. The CSE Composite Index (CSE:CSECOMP) dropped 1.22 percent to 167.56.
The gold price gained 4.84 percent to close at US$4,951.69 per ounce on Friday at 4:00 p.m. EST. The silver price didn’t fare as well, closing the week down 1.78 percent at US$77.32 on Friday.
In base metals, the Comex copper price recorded a 0.85 percent rise this week to US$5.93.
On the other hand, the S&P Goldman Sachs Commodities Index (INDEXSP:SPGSCI) was down 3.7 percent to end Friday at 587.55.
How did mining stocks perform against this backdrop?
Take a look at this week’s five best-performing Canadian mining stocks below.
Stocks data for this article was retrieved at 4:00 p.m. EST on Friday using TradingView’s stock screener. Only companies trading on the TSX, TSXV and CSE with market caps greater than C$10 million are included. Mineral companies within the non-energy minerals, energy minerals, process industry and producer manufacturing sectors were considered.
Weekly gain: 69.57 percent
Market cap: C$27.51 million
Share price: C$0.39
Giant Mining is an exploration company working to advance its Majuba Hill District copper, silver and gold project north of Reno in Nevada, US.
The site consists of 403 federal lode mining claims and four private property parcels that cover an area of 3,919 hectares. Mining at the property took place between 1900 and 1950, resulting in the production of 2.8 million pounds of copper, 184,000 ounces of silver and 5,800 ounces of gold.
Extensive exploration work has been carried out at Majuba Hill, with 89,930 feet being drilled since 2007.
The most recent news from Giant came on January 30, when it reported that it planned to drill up to 10,000 feet in a multi-phase drill program at Majuba Hill, targeting three breccia zones.
Following the first phase of 5,000 feet of drilling, the program will include underground and surface sampling to support follow-up drill targeting for the remaining holes.
Weekly gain: 64.71 percent
Market cap: C$66.02 million
Share price: C$0.28
CGX Energy is an oil and gas exploration company with 27.48 percent ownership of a portfolio of wells in the Corentyne block off the coast of Guyana. Frontera Energy (TSX:FEC) is the company’s joint venture partner in the Corentyne block and also holds 76.05 percent interest in CGX.
The Kawa-1 exploration well was drilled in 2021 and 2022 and encountered an active hydrocarbon system extending to a depth of 6,000 feet, mirroring trends in the Guyana-Suriname Basin. CGX’s Wei-1 well was drilled in late 2022 and is located on-trend between the Kawa-1 well and Exxon’s (NYSE:XOM) Pluma discovery.
CGX and Frontera are currently in a legal dispute with the government of Guyana, which believes the petroleum prospecting license for Corentyne expired in 2024, a stance the joint venture disagrees with. The most recent update on the matter mentioned plans to meet and discuss the situation, with potential dates in November or December of last year.
Shares in CGX posted gains this week, but the company has not released news since November 13, when it announced its third-quarter financial statements. However, Frontera announced on January 30 that it divested its producing Colombian assets while retaining its interests in Guyana, news that may signal that the Corentyne block permitting situation could still be resolved.
Weekly gain: 61.11 percent
Market cap: C$12.07 million
Share price: C$0.29
Saba Energy is an oil and gas exploration company with operations in British Columbia, Canada, as well as the Philippines.
The company’s primary Canadian operations consist of the producing Boundary Lake and Laprise oil and gas fields, which have a net present value of C$43 million as of its September quarterly report.
The most recent news from Saba came on January 27, when it announced a heads-of-agreement with Nido Petroleum for a farm-in arrangement on a pair of offshore assets in the Philippines.
Saba will earn 60 percent of Service Contract 54 (SC54). SC54 covers an area of 550 square kilometers to depths of 50 to 110 meters and hosts three discovery wells and one production well, which previously produced 270,000 barrels at 19,000 barrels per day before it was closed due to water encroachment.
The company will also earn a 52.73 percent share in the DPPSC Cadlao, which covers an area of 914 square kilometers to depths of 93 meters. The site has 6.8 million barrels in reserves and produced 11.1 million barrels between 1982 and 1992.
If the transaction is completed, Saba will become the operator of both assets. The company plans to open a US$7.5 million convertible debenture private placement to achieve the requirement of raising US$7 million by mid-April.
Weekly gain: 60.66 percent
Market cap: C$157.77 million
Share price: C$0.98
Copper Giant Resources is an exploration company advancing its Mocoa copper-molybdenum project in Southern Colombia. It changed its name from Libero Copper and Gold last year.
The property covers 1,324 square kilometers and hosts a copper porphyry system originally discovered in 1973.
A November 2025 mineral resource estimate significantly increased its resource. Mocoa now holds an inferred resource of 7.6 billion pounds of copper and 1 billion pounds of molybdenum, at 0.31 percent copper and 0.039 percent molybdenum, from 1.12 billion metric tons of ore. The upgrade made the project South America’s largest undeveloped molybdenum deposit.
The most recent news from Copper Giant came on January 29, when it reported results from the first drill hole at the La Estrella target. While assays returned low-grade mineralization, the company noted that the significance was geological, as it confirmed continuity of the porphyry system beyond the established deposit.
The release also reported results from a second hole at the southern edge of the Mocoa footprint, which the company said were stronger than previously interpreted at the southern margin of the deposits. Grades in the hole were 0.13 percent copper and 0.01 percent molybdenum over 804 meters starting from surface, which included an intersection of 0.44 percent copper and 0.05 percent molybdenum over 33 meters.
Weekly gain: 50.46 percent
Market cap: C$749.9 million
Share price: C$3.25
Benz Mining is a gold exploration company that is focused on advancing projects in Québec, Canada, as well as Western Australia.
Its Eastmain project consists of an 8,000 hectare property located in Central Québec within the Upper Eastmain Greenstone belt. The most recent resource estimate from May 2023 reported an indicated resource of 384,000 ounces of gold from 1.3 metric tons of ore grading 9 g/t gold, and an inferred resource of 621,000 ounces of gold from 3.8 metric tons grading 5.1 g/t.
In 2025, Benz acquired the Glenburgh and Mount Egerton gold projects in Western Australia from Spartan Resources (ASX:SPR). It spent much of 2025 exploring Glenburgh, which covers an area of 786 square kilometers and features 50 kilometers of strike. The site hosts six priority extension targets and 5 kilometers of exploration trend with over 100 parts per billion gold.
A November 2024 resource estimate for Glenburgh showed an indicated and inferred resource of 510,000 ounces of gold from 16.3 million metric tons of ore with an average grade of 1 g/t gold.
On January 28, the company announced a shallow, high-grade discovery at the Glenburgh project’s Icon trend. Assays returned grades including 29 g/t gold over 13 meters starting at a depth of 60 meters. Additionally, results showed wide mineralization as well, including 200 meters grading 1 g/t gold starting at 76 meters.
The most recent news from Benz came the next day, when it announced it received firm commitments for a AU$75 million bought deal placement, which it said was led by strong demand from two global institutional fund. The company said the investment increases its pro forma cash position to AU$94 million, which will be allocated across its portfolio, particularly focused on the Glenburgh project.
The TSX, or Toronto Stock Exchange, is used by senior companies with larger market caps, and the TSXV, or TSX Venture Exchange, is used by smaller-cap companies. Companies listed on the TSXV can graduate to the senior exchange.
As of December 2025, 898 mining companies and 71 oil and gas companies are listed on the TSXV, combining for more than 60 percent of the 1,531 total companies listed on the exchange.
As for the TSX, it is home to 175 mining companies and 51 oil and gas companies. The exchange has 2,089 companies listed on it in total.
Together, the TSX and TSXV host around 40 percent of the world’s public mining companies.
There are a variety of different fees that companies must pay to list on the TSXV, and according to the exchange, they can vary based on the transaction’s nature and complexity. The listing fee alone will most likely cost between C$10,000 to C$70,000. Accounting and auditing fees could rack up between C$25,000 and C$100,000, while legal fees are expected to be over C$75,000 and an underwriters’ commission may hit up to 12 percent.
The exchange lists a handful of other fees and expenses companies can expect, including but not limited to security commission and transfer agency fees, investor relations costs and director and officer liability insurance.
These are all just for the initial listing, of course. There are ongoing expenses once companies are trading, such as sustaining fees and additional listing fees, plus the costs associated with filing regular reports.
Investors can trade on the TSXV the way they would trade stocks on any exchange. This means they can use a stock broker or an individual investment account to buy and sell shares of TSXV-listed companies during the exchange’s trading hours.
Article by Dean Belder; FAQs by Lauren Kelly.
Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Securities Disclosure: I, Lauren Kelly, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
It’s been a wild couple of weeks for gold and silver.
After surging to record highs at the end of January, prices for both precious metals saw significant corrections, creating turmoil for market participants.
This week brought some relief, with gold bouncing back from its low point and even trading above US$5,000 per ounce for a brief period of time.
Silver, which is known for outperforming gold on both the upside and the downside, was more volatile, but seems to have found support around the US$70 per ounce level.
Why did gold and silver drop, and more importantly, what’s next? As always, there are a variety of different factors at play, but I’ll give you a rundown of what I’ve been hearing.
Starting with the pullback, I spoke with Joe Cavatoni of the World Gold Council, who pointed to speculative players as a key reason for gold’s price decline. Here’s how he explained it:
‘At the end of this, you’re looking at a lot of people who were pushing the price higher — speculative in nature — pulling back and taking money off the table. That’s why I think we’re seeing a correction in the price. I don’t think that we have an issue with, fundamentally, what’s going on in the gold market.’
Gary Savage of the Smart Money Tracker newsletter made a similar comment, saying that there are times when sentiment gets so bullish that eventually there’s no one left to buy.
However, on the silver side he saw signs of market manipulation as well:
‘Some of it is just (that) we got way too bullish, ran out of buyers. We were due for some kind of correction anyway, and I think the banks took advantage of that and coordinated a huge overnight attack that dropped silver … I think it was almost 30 percent, or maybe it was 30 percent, almost overnight. That allowed them to get out of their shorts, because a lot of those contracts were going to stand for delivery, and they were going to have to buy physical silver at US$120 an ounce to to deliver.’
Adding more nuance to the silver story this week was the news that billionaire Chinese trader Bian Ximing has reportedly established the largest net short position on the Shanghai Futures Exchange, with his bet against the white metal clocking in at US$300 million.
Bloomberg analysis of exchange data shows he started ‘ramping up silver shorts’ in the last week of January, although he initially began shifting from a long silver stance this past November.
Aside from silver, Bian is known for his moves in gold and copper.
There’s also been commentary suggesting that the nomination of Kevin Warsh for the US Federal Reserve chair position has weighed on gold and silver prices.
President Donald Trump announced his choice on January 30, with market watchers quickly pointing to Warsh’s hawkish reputation and questioning whether he will fall in line with Trump’s calls for lower interest rates. Rates have been a sticking point between Trump and current Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
However, in the days since the news broke, the tone has shifted, with Trump himself saying that Warsh wouldn’t have gotten the job if he said he wanted to raise rates.
Taking a step back from what’s happening now, I want to emphasize that the majority of the experts I’ve been speaking with recently don’t believe gold and silver are topping.
In a January 25 interview, Adrian Day of Adrian Day Asset Management said exactly that, pointing to previous bull markets where both metals moved steeply down before continuing up. This quote is from before last week’s correction, but I think you’ll see why it’s still relevant:
‘A pullback is always in the cards. And people forget, everybody talks about … 1974 to 1975, when gold dropped almost 50 percent. But people forget, the same thing happened in 2006. Halfway through the bull market, you had a 30 percent correction in gold, which of course means a much bigger correction for gold stocks.
‘So a pullback at some point is always not just a possibility, but it’s almost a certainty. But if we rephrase the question to, ‘Is this a top?’ You know, absolutely not. In my view, we are absolutely nowhere near a top.’
With that said, a point that’s come up repeatedly in my interviews lately is personalization — while it’s valuable to listen to other people’s views, what’s really important is to form your own opinions and understand why you own the assets in your portfolio. If you can do that, you’ll be better equipped to weather any storms, and to buy and sell when it’s time.
Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
For years, blockchain had promise in the finance industry, but lacked the liquidity and connectivity to scale.
Yuval Rooz, CEO and co-founder of Canton Network, believes that era is now ending.
Traditional banking still depends on millions of costly, slow and error-prone messages as institutions attempt to reconcile fragmented records across systems.
Repurchase agreement (repo) trades highlight the problem. Moving cash and collateral typically requires multiple intermediaries, manual checks and settlement delays that can stretch for days.
Public blockchains such as Ethereum offer speed, but their full transparency creates a different obstacle, exposing sensitive transaction data that banks cannot legally or competitively disclose.
At the heart of the issue is a structural trade off. Banks need shared networks to scale efficiency, yet legacy infrastructure and open ledgers force a choice between operating in isolation or revealing too much information. The result has been a patchwork of private systems that protect data sovereignty, but sacrifice interoperability and efficiency.
Explaining how Canton’s technology removes that trade off, Rooz said:
“Banks built walled gardens because there was no way to share infrastructure without giving up control or privacy. What we’re seeing now is a gradual shift away from isolated systems toward shared rails where institutions retain sovereignty over their data, while still achieving interoperability.
‘That doesn’t mean internal systems disappear overnight, but it does mean the center of gravity shifts toward networks where counterparties can transact in real time.”
Canton has created a shared ledger where institutions maintain private blockchains, yet synchronize seamlessly.
“I think critics misunderstand what financial institutions actually need,” Rooz explained. “Banks don’t want a system where everything is hidden, and they don’t want one where everything is public. They need a way to work together on shared processes, while keeping sensitive details private. That’s what Canton was designed for.”
In practice, JPMorgan keeps its ledger sovereign, while plugging into LSEG for atomic delivery-versus-payment (DvP) settlements, all without revealing private data. Sub-transaction privacy ensures only trade participants see details; to others, it’s invisible. This network of networks lets banks achieve interoperability without sacrificing control.
“(This) gives institutions a shared record they can trust, with configurable privacy at the protocol level to divulge transactional information only with involved parties. And because it’s built to connect different applications, firms can link markets and workflows together without sacrificing confidentiality,’ said Rooz.
“This combination is something traditional systems cannot offer and is why you’re seeing institutions move from pilots into production onchain,’ the expert added.
JPM Coin’s native integration is a strong signal that the market is maturing.
JPMorgan’s blockchain rail, with over US$1 trillion in processed volume, has fueled settlements across Canton’s ecosystem. Paired with LSEG’s tokenized deposits, which power live repo activity, there are now synchronized markets where DvP happens in seconds, not days.
Rooz highlighted the deeper impact, commenting, “Everyone notices the speed, but the collateral mobility is the substance beyond the headline. In legacy markets, collateral spends most of its life idle because moving it safely across systems requires messaging, reconciliation and time. Atomic settlement collapses those steps into a single transaction.’
He added, ‘When repos settle in seconds, collateral stops being static and becomes reusable. That improves liquidity, balance sheet efficiency and risk management.”
JPM Coin and LSEG repos demonstrate Canton’s shift from pilots to production.
“We measure success by utilization,” said Rooz, adding, “Having Canton be the network where real transactions are taking place, and regulated assets are moving.’
He envisions steady expansion powering this transformation. Indeed, similar efforts are already live elsewhere, such as BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, which has tokenized US$1.7 billion in treasuries for 24/7 yields, and DRW Cumberland’s weekend repos, which use tokenized collateral with instant DvP settlements.
“I’d like to see more asset classes brought on to Canton, and the corresponding transaction volume we’re already seeing will continue to grow in the year ahead,’ said Rooz.
He sees this convergence accelerating across markets.
“Our ‘North Star’ is to drive the convergence of TradFi and DeFi onchain to create a new AllFi reality,’ he said.
Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.