Archive

February 2026

Browsing

The S&P 500 ($SPX) just logged its fifth straight trading box breakout, which means that, of the five trading ranges the index has experienced since the April lows, all have been resolved to the upside.

How much longer can this last? That’s been the biggest question since the massive April 9 rally. Instead of assuming the market is due to roll over, it’s been more productive to track price action and watch for potential changes along the way. So far, drawdowns have been minimal, and breakouts keep occurring. Nothing in the price action hints at a lasting change — yet.

While some are calling this rally “historic,” we have a recent precedent. Recall that from late 2023 through early 2024, the index had a strong start and gave way to a consistent, steady trend.

From late October 2023 through March 2024, the S&P 500 logged seven consecutive trading box breakouts. That streak finally paused with a pullback from late March to early April, which, as we now know, was only a temporary hiccup. Once the bid returned, the S&P 500 went right back to carving new boxes and climbing higher.

New 52-Week Highs Finally Picking Up

If there’s been one gripe about this rally, it’s that the number of new highs within the index has lagged. As we’ve discussed before, among all the internal breadth indicators available, new highs almost always lag — that’s normal. What we really want to see is whether the number of new highs begins to exceed prior peaks as the market continues to rise, which it has, as shown by the blue line in the chart below.

As of Wednesday’s close, 100 S&P 500 stocks were either at new 52-week highs or within 3% of them. That’s a strong base. We expect this number to continue rising as the market climbs, especially if positive earnings reactions persist across sectors.

Even when we get that first day with 100+ S&P 500 stocks making new 52-week highs, though, it might not be the best time to initiate new longs.

The above chart shows that much needs to align for that many stocks to peak in unison, which has historically led to at least a short-term consolidation, if not deeper pullbacks — as highlighted in yellow. Every time is different, of course, but this is something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

Trend Check: GoNoGo Still “Go”

The GoNoGo Trend remains in bullish mode, with the recent countertrend signals having yet to trigger a greater pullback.

Active Bullish Patterns

We still have two live bullish upside targets of 6,555 and 6,745, which could be with us for a while going forward. For the S&P 500 to get there, it will need to form new, smaller versions of the trading boxes.

Failed Bearish Patterns

In the chart below, you can view a rising wedge pattern on the recent price action, the third since April. The prior two wedges broke down briefly and did not lead to a major downturn. The largest pullbacks in each case occurred after the S&P 500 dipped below the lower trendline of the pattern.

The deepest drawdown so far is 3.5%, which is not exactly a game-changer. Without downside follow-through, a classic bearish pattern simply can’t be formed, let alone be broken down from.

We’ll continue to monitor these formations as they develop because, at some point, that will change.

Tartisan Nickel (CSE:TN,OTCQX:TTSRF,FSE: 8TA) is a Canadian exploration and development company focused on advancing high-quality critical mineral assets in Ontario. Its flagship asset, the Kenbridge nickel project in Northwestern Ontario, is an advanced-stage nickel sulphide deposit containing nickel, copper and cobalt.

Management’s strategy for Kenbridge is clear and execution-driven: expand and upgrade the resource through drilling, extend potential mine life, and continue systematically de-risking the project.

Tartisan Nickel has been engaging with Treaty # 3 First Nations since May 2007.

At the same time, Tartisan holds the Sill Lake silver project, a past-producing silver-lead property near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Supported by strong fundamentals for nickel, copper and silver, management positions Tartisan as a multi-asset story—providing investors with exposure to several value drivers within a single platform.

Company Highlights

  • Clear focus on drilling-driven value creation, with active programs designed to upgrade inferred resources, expand the deposit at depth, and extend mine life into the mid-teens
  • Low-capex development profile relative to many peer nickel projects, supported by a historic shaft, road access, and established infrastructure
  • Sill Lake Silver Project provides additional, underappreciated value, offering exposure to silver through a brownfields, past-producing asset with a defined historic resource
  • Experienced leadership team with deep capital markets and mine development experience, focused on disciplined capital allocation and unlocking value from opportunity-acquired assets

This Tartisan Nickel profile is part of a paid investor education campaign.*

Click here to connect with Tartisan Nickel (CSE:TN,OTCQX:TTSRF,FSE: 8TA) to receive an Investor Presentation

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Wednesday (February 11) 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$67,551.42, down 18 percent over the last 24 hours.

Bitcoin price performance, February 11, 2026.

Chart via TradingView.

“Bitcoin appears to be entering a stabilization phase before its next directional move. In the near term, prices are likely to consolidate around the US$70,000 level as the market digests recent volatility and continued profit-taking, but the broader setup points to a gradual recovery toward the US$85,000 to US$95,000 range by mid-2026.

“The key driver is institutional behavior: ETF outflows are slowing rather than accelerating, suggesting that forced selling pressure is easing and longer-term allocators are becoming more selective instead of exiting outright. At the same time, regulatory progress — particularly around stablecoin frameworks and clearer market structure — continues to strengthen Bitcoin’s position as a maturing asset within global portfolios, especially as investors look for inflation hedges amid ongoing macro uncertainty.

“While short-term price action may remain uneven, innovation across DeFi and tokenized assets is reinforcing the underlying crypto ecosystem, creating conditions that have historically supported post-correction recoveries and attracted long-term capital back into Bitcoin.”

Ether (ETH) was priced at US$1,955.33, down by 2.8 percent over the last 24 hours.

Altcoin price update

  • XRP (XRP) was priced at US$1.38, down by 1.2 percent over 24 hours.
  • Solana (SOL) was trading at US$79.64, down by 3.5 percent over 24 hours.

Today’s crypto news to know

Robinhood shares Q4 earnings

Robinhood Markets (NASDAQ:HOOD) released its latest quarterly report on Wednesday, revealing net income totaling US$605 million for Q4 2025 and US$1.9 billion for the year.

The company reported a record US$1.28 billion in quarterly revenue, a 27 percent increase year-on-year, but shy of estimates of about US$1.36 billion. Its full‑year 2025 revenue reached US$4.5 billion, up 52 percent.

However, crypto revenue fell 38 percent to US$221 million in Q4.

Despite a fundamentally solid quarter, with record earnings per share of US$0.66 in Q4 and US$2.05 for 2025, shares dropped between 7 and 12 percent after the print and closed 9 percent lower on the day.

In other news, Robinhood launched a public testnet for Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum Layer 2 built on Arbitrum technology and designed to support tokenized real‑world and digital assets.

Developers can begin building and testing apps on it ahead of a future mainnet launch. The testnet offers network access, developer docs and compatibility with standard Ethereum tools, plus early support from infrastructure providers such as Alchemy, Chainlink and LayerZero. Robinhood also said it is committing US$1 million to the 2026 Arbitrum Open House program to encourage developer activity on the testnet and eventual mainnet.

Banks dig in on stablecoin yield as CLARITY Act stalls

US banks are hardening their position on stablecoin rules, escalating a policy clash that has left the long-awaited CLARITY Act stuck in Congress. During a White House-hosted meeting led by the administration’s crypto council, banking groups circulated a proposal calling for an outright ban on paying interest or other incentives to stablecoin holders.

The draft language states: “No person may provide any form of financial or non-financial consideration to a stablecoin holder” in connection with holding or using a payment stablecoin.

Banking groups warned that allowing yield on stablecoins could “drive deposit flight that would undercut Main Street lending,” while crypto advocates argued innovation should not be stifled. The dispute centers on whether stablecoin rewards resemble bank deposits, potentially siphoning funds from traditional lenders.

‘As we noted during the meeting, that framework can and must embrace financial innovation without undermining safety and soundness, and without putting the bank deposits that fuel local lending and drive economic activity at risk. We look forward to ongoing discussions to move market structure legislation forward,’ the American Bankers Association said in a statement following the meeting.

The standoff has become the main obstacle preventing the CLARITY Act from advancing, despite earlier passage of the GENIUS Act, which created a federal framework for dollar-backed stablecoins.

Goldman Sachs maintains US$1 billion Bitcoin ETF exposure

Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) disclosed in its latest US Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it holds just over US$1 billion in exposure to Bitcoin through exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

The exposure is split across products, including BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (NASDAQ:IBIT) and Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin ETF (NEO:FBTC). Bitcoin has dropped roughly 47 percent from its high and is trading near US$67,000, part of a broader US$2 trillion drawdown across the crypto market. ETF flows have been volatile, with more than US$6 billion exiting spot Bitcoin funds since November, according to industry data.

Despite the slump, Goldman has also expanded into Ether, XRP and Solana ETFs.

Monad launches Nitro accelerator

Blockchain company Monad announced Tuesday (February 10) launch of a new three month accelerator program, Nitro, supported by notable firms including Paradigm, Electric Capital, Dragonfly and Castle Island Ventures.

According to commentary provided in a media briefing accompanying the announcement, “The program is designed to address a common issue in crypto venture funding: teams often raise capital quickly but struggle to ship production-ready products or reach product-market fit. Nitro is structured around execution, shipping cadence, and validation, rather than short-term growth metrics or token-driven incentives.”

The press release notes that the Monad ecosystem has already seen US$108 million raised by projects.

The three month program includes an in-person first month in New York City, and will be followed by two months of focused execution, concluding with a Demo Day for crypto and tech investors.

Interactive Brokers adds Coinbase nano contracts

Interactive Brokers said it is adding “nano contracts’ from Coinbase Global’s (NASDAQ:COIN) derivatives arm to its trading platform. These contracts control fractions of a Bitcoin or Ether coin and require less upfront investment.

Clients can trade these futures, some with set expiry dates and others that track the current price over time, 24/7 within Interactive Brokers’ standard brokerage environment, alongside stocks and options.

The move is meant to make it easier and cheaper for people to get exposure to crypto prices and manage risk, while still using a regulated broker and exchange.

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

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The operator of roughly 180 Eddie Bauer stores across the U.S. and Canada has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, blaming declining sales and a litany of other industry headwinds.

The bankruptcy filing marks the third time in a little over two decades for the storied-but-now-tired brand that began as a Seattle fishing shop, later outfitted the first American to climb Mount Everest and made thousands of newfangled down jackets and sleeping bags for the military during World War II.

Eddie Bauer LLC said Monday it had entered into a restructuring pact with its secured lenders as it made the filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.

Most Eddie Bauer retail and outlet stores in the U.S. and Canada will remain open as the company winds down certain locations. It noted that it will conduct a court-supervised sales process, and if a sale can’t be executed, it will begin a wind-down of its U.S. and Canadian operations.

“This is not an easy decision,” said Marc Rosen, CEO of Catalyst Brands, which maintains the license to operate Eddie Bauer stores in the U.S. and Canada. “However, this restructuring is the best way to optimize value for the retail company’s stakeholders and also ensure Catalyst Brands remains profitable and with strong liquidity and cash flow.”

Eddie Bauer’s stores outside of the U.S. and Canada are operated by other licensees, are not included in the Chapter 11 filings, and will stay open, according to the release.

Authentic Brands Group continues to own the intellectual property associated with the Eddie Bauer brand and may license the brand to other operators, the company said. The operations of other brands in the Catalyst Brands portfolio are not affected by this filing and will continue in the normal course, according to the company.

Eddie Bauer’s e-commerce and wholesale operations will also not be impacted by the wind down, as they are operated by a company called Outdoor 5, LLC. That was a transition it made in January and became effective Feb. 2.

Eddie Bauer joins a growing list of U.S. retailers this year that are closing stores, as companies reorganize under bankruptcy protection or pare down their operations to focus on the most profitable businesses.

The parent company of Saks Fifth Avenue said last month that it was seeking bankruptcy protection, buffeted by rising competition and the massive debt it took on to buy its rival in the luxury sector, Neiman Marcus, just over a year ago. A few days later, the parent company said it was closing most of its Saks Off 5th stores.

Amazon said earlier this month that it was closing almost all of its Amazon Go and Amazon Fresh locations within days as it narrows its focus on food delivery and its grocery chain, Whole Foods Market.

Eddie Bauer’s namesake founder — an avid outdoorsman — started the company in Seattle in 1920 as Bauer’s Sports Shop, according to the brand’s website. In 1945, after making more than 50,000 jackets for the military, it launched a mail-order catalog.

“Bauer’s Sports Shop was not just a place where people purchased clothing and gear, it was a community hub where folks gathered to share their wisdom, learn, and talk about their experiences in the outdoors,” the website says.

The company created an American goose-down insulated jacket, known as the “Skyliner,” in 1936, and it became the company’s first patented jacket. It also outfitted the first American to climb Mount Everest — James W. Whittaker — with an Eddie Bauer parka in 1963.

After Bauer retired in 1968 and sold the business to his partner, the outdoor brand shifted more toward casual apparel and was bought by General Mills Inc. in 1971 and then by Spiegel Inc. in 1988. After Spiegel filed for bankruptcy in 2003 and most of its assets were sold, the remainder of the company was reorganized in 2005 as Eddie Bauer Holdings Inc.

In June 2009, Eddie Bauer filed bankruptcy and was acquired by Golden State Capital, the following month. In 2021, it was acquired by Authentic Brands and SPARC Group LLC.

A year ago, Catalyst was formed by the merger of SPARC and JCPenney, which Simon Property Group and fellow mall landlord Brookfield bought out of bankruptcy.

Rosen noted that even prior to the inception of Catalyst Brands last year, Eddie Bauer was in a “challenged situation.”

“Over the past year, these challenges have been exacerbated by various headwinds, including increased costs of doing business due to inflation, ongoing tariff uncertainty, and other factors,” he said.

He noted that while Catalyst’s leadership was able to make improvements in product development and marketing, those changes could not be implemented fast enough to fully address the problems created over several years.

Eddie Bauer had nearly 600 stores at its peak in 2001, according to CoStar Group Inc., a commercial real estate data firm.

In a note published earlier this month, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, wrote that while the Eddie Bauer name is “well known,” the brand hasn’t kept pace with rivals like Swedish outdoor brand Fjallraven and Canadian label Arc’teryx. He also cited issues with quality deteriorating, which, for an outdoor brand measured by the performance of its products, is very problematic.

“And for many younger shoppers, the brand is seen as somewhat old-fashioned and a bit irrelevant,” he said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

The S&P 500 ($SPX) just logged its fifth straight trading box breakout, which means that, of the five trading ranges the index has experienced since the April lows, all have been resolved to the upside.

How much longer can this last? That’s been the biggest question since the massive April 9 rally. Instead of assuming the market is due to roll over, it’s been more productive to track price action and watch for potential changes along the way. So far, drawdowns have been minimal, and breakouts keep occurring. Nothing in the price action hints at a lasting change — yet.

While some are calling this rally “historic,” we have a recent precedent. Recall that from late 2023 through early 2024, the index had a strong start and gave way to a consistent, steady trend.

From late October 2023 through March 2024, the S&P 500 logged seven consecutive trading box breakouts. That streak finally paused with a pullback from late March to early April, which, as we now know, was only a temporary hiccup. Once the bid returned, the S&P 500 went right back to carving new boxes and climbing higher.

New 52-Week Highs Finally Picking Up

If there’s been one gripe about this rally, it’s that the number of new highs within the index has lagged. As we’ve discussed before, among all the internal breadth indicators available, new highs almost always lag — that’s normal. What we really want to see is whether the number of new highs begins to exceed prior peaks as the market continues to rise, which it has, as shown by the blue line in the chart below.

As of Wednesday’s close, 100 S&P 500 stocks were either at new 52-week highs or within 3% of them. That’s a strong base. We expect this number to continue rising as the market climbs, especially if positive earnings reactions persist across sectors.

Even when we get that first day with 100+ S&P 500 stocks making new 52-week highs, though, it might not be the best time to initiate new longs.

The above chart shows that much needs to align for that many stocks to peak in unison, which has historically led to at least a short-term consolidation, if not deeper pullbacks — as highlighted in yellow. Every time is different, of course, but this is something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

Trend Check: GoNoGo Still “Go”

The GoNoGo Trend remains in bullish mode, with the recent countertrend signals having yet to trigger a greater pullback.

Active Bullish Patterns

We still have two live bullish upside targets of 6,555 and 6,745, which could be with us for a while going forward. For the S&P 500 to get there, it will need to form new, smaller versions of the trading boxes.

Failed Bearish Patterns

In the chart below, you can view a rising wedge pattern on the recent price action, the third since April. The prior two wedges broke down briefly and did not lead to a major downturn. The largest pullbacks in each case occurred after the S&P 500 dipped below the lower trendline of the pattern.

The deepest drawdown so far is 3.5%, which is not exactly a game-changer. Without downside follow-through, a classic bearish pattern simply can’t be formed, let alone be broken down from.

We’ll continue to monitor these formations as they develop because, at some point, that will change.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Questcorp Mining Inc. (CSE: QQQ,OTC:QQCMF) (OTCQB: QQCMF) (FSE: D910) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Questcorp’) is pleased to announce an upsize to its previously announced non-brokered private placement to up to 15,000,000 units (each, a ‘Unit’) at a price of $0.20 per Unit for gross proceeds of up to $3,000,000 (the ‘Offering’). Each Unit will consist of one common share of the Company (each, a ‘Share’) and one-half-of-one share purchase warrant (each whole share purchase warrant, a ‘Warrant’). Each Warrant will entitle the holder to acquire an additional common share of the Company at a price of $0.30 for a period of thirty-six months following closing of the Offering, provided that holders will not be permitted to exercise Warrants until 60 days following closing of the Offering.

The Company expects to utilize the proceeds of the Offering for exploration work at the Company’s La Union Gold and Silver Project and North Island Copper Project, and for general working capital purposes.

The Units to be issued under the Offering will be offered for sale pursuant to the listed issuer financing exemption under Part 5A of National Instrument 45-106 – Prospectus Exemptions, as amended by CSA Coordinated Blanket Order 45-935 – Exemptions from Certain Conditions of the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption (collectively, the ‘Listed Issuer Financing Exemption‘), in all provinces of Canada, except Quebec, and other qualifying jurisdictions, including the United States. The Units offered under the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption will be immediately ‘free-trading’ under applicable Canadian securities laws.

There is an offering document (the ‘Offering Document‘) related to this Offering that can be accessed under the Company’s profile at www.sedarplus.ca and at the Company’s website at https://questcorpmining.ca/. Prospective investors should read this Offering Document before making an investment decision.

In connection with completion of the Offering, the Company may pay finders’ fees to eligible third-parties who have introduced subscribers to the Offering. Completion of the Offering remains subject to receipt of regulatory approvals.

This press release is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities in the United States or in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to qualification or registration under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The securities being offered have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and such securities may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent registration or an applicable exemption from U.S. registration requirements and applicable U.S. state securities laws.

About Questcorp Mining Inc.

Questcorp Mining Inc. is engaged in the business of the acquisition and exploration of mineral properties in North America, with the objective of locating and developing economic precious and base metals properties of merit. The Company holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 1,168.09 hectares comprising the North Island Copper Property, on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, subject to a royalty obligation. The Company also holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 2,520.2 hectares comprising the La Union Project located in Sonora, Mexico, subject to a royalty obligation.

Contact Information

Questcorp Mining Corp.

Saf Dhillon, President & CEO

Email: saf@questcorpmining.ca
Telephone: (604) 484-3031

This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking statements’ under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the intended use of proceeds from the Offering; closing of the Offering; and filing of the Offering Document. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties, uncertain capital markets; and delay or failure to receive board or regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities 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/283532

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Rising geopolitical tensions, intensifying competition for critical minerals and the accelerating breakdown of the postwar global order were some of the key themes at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC) in late January, as investors grappled with what a volatile world means for capital, commodities and security of supply.

In a wide-ranging panel moderated by Jesse Day, legendary mining financier Frank Giustra joined retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor and geopolitical analyst Dr. Pascal Lottaz to examine flashpoints from Iran to Greenland, and why resource investors can no longer separate geopolitics from the metals that underpin modern economies.

Giustra, president and CEO of Fiore Group and co-chair of the International Crisis Group, opened the discussion by warning that tensions with Iran are approaching a critical threshold, driven by competing US and Israeli objectives.

“Israel would like to see Iran taken out as a major regional power,” Giustra said. “The US would like to see a different Iran — one it could do business with and that has stable relations with its neighbours. Those objectives are not the same.”

He added that the presence of a US carrier strike group in the region underscores the risk of escalation, but questioned whether military action would achieve Washington’s goals. “Iran is simply too large for a strike to have the intended effect,” he said, pointing to the absence of a coherent long-term policy.

Colonel Macgregor was more blunt, warning the US is “on the precipice of war” with Iran and arguing that Washington’s strategic thinking mirrors failed efforts elsewhere.

“This is the same mindset that committed us to war in Ukraine,” Macgregor said. “Destroy the country, divide it, dominate it, and take its resources. It failed there, and it will fail in Iran.”

Dr. Lottaz, an adjunct researcher at Waseda University in Tokyo and host of the ‘Neutrality Studies’ channel, said unpredictability has become the defining feature of US foreign policy.

“What Israel does is done in conjunction with the US — they are effectively one team,” Lottaz said. “Carrier groups sitting offshore are not just deterrence. They are also sitting ducks. Ships can sink.”

Greenland, minerals and power politics

The panel then turned to Greenland, a region increasingly viewed through the lens of critical minerals and Arctic security.

Giustra dismissed claims that Greenland poses an immediate security risk from Russia or China, arguing instead that resource competition is the real driver. “Greenland has always been open for business,” he said.

“The idea that the US needs to own it to access minerals is simply false.”

Instead, Giustra described Washington’s posture as coercive. “It’s essentially putting a gun to Greenland’s head and saying, ‘We want to buy you.’”

For mining investors, Greenland represents both opportunity and risk.

The island hosts significant deposits of rare earth elements, graphite and other strategic metals essential to clean energy technologies, defence systems and advanced manufacturing. But political uncertainty, including pressure from major powers, complicates development timelines and capital allocation.

Macgregor argued that US ambitions in Greenland and Venezuela reflect more optics than strategy. “This administration loves big gestures,” he said. “But unless you control what happens on the ground, nothing really changes.”

Europe’s energy crisis and deindustrialization

Lottaz traced Europe’s economic strain, particularly Germany’s deindustrialization, back to energy policy decisions, including the shutdown of nuclear power and the loss of Russian gas supplies.

“Political leadership in Europe is increasingly detached from national interests,” he said. “What matters more is positioning within EU and transatlantic institutions.”

That disconnect has direct consequences for resource markets, particularly energy-intensive industries such as metals refining, steel production and battery manufacturing, which depend on stable, affordable power.

Macgregor added that many global institutions, including NATO and the European Union, are approaching “block obsolescence,” forcing investors to rethink long-held assumptions about stability.

Critical minerals and the risk of conflict

As the discussion widened, Giustra pointed to critical minerals as one of the most dangerous fault lines in the emerging world order.

“The intense competition between China and the West over critical minerals is a major factor,” he said. “These are not just economic assets — they’re strategic weapons.”

China currently dominates processing of rare earth elements, lithium chemicals and battery-grade materials, giving it leverage over Western supply chains. Efforts by the US, Europe and allies to secure alternative sources — from Greenland to Africa to South America — are reshaping investment flows across the mining sector.

Giustra warned that history shows transitions between declining and rising powers are rarely peaceful. “The danger of conflict during a shift in world order is extremely high,” he said. “We may already be setting the stage for something far worse.”

Is there room for optimism?

Despite the grim outlook, Lottaz offered cautious optimism, arguing that even strained international systems retain some restraining influence.

“Everyone still claims to operate under the UN Charter, even when they violate it,” he said. “That tells us the idea of international law still matters.”

He also pointed to restraint in conflicts such as Ukraine, noting that NATO has avoided direct war with Russia. “There is still rationality at work. No one wants Armageddon.”

Macgregor closed with a stark reminder for investors and policymakers alike. “Rules only exist if someone enforces them,” he said. “As American power recedes, we’re entering a far more competitive and uncertain world.”

For the resource sector, that uncertainty translates into higher geopolitical risk, but also strategic opportunity. As governments scramble to secure supply chains for energy transition metals, defence materials and critical infrastructure, mining projects once considered peripheral are moving to the centre of global power politics.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

LOS ANGELES — The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements for the first, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, begin this week.

Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

“Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

José Castañeda, a Google Spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”

The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being.

In New Mexico, opening statements begin Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

Prosecutors have said that New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for its content but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful, saying they uncovered internal documents in which Meta employees estimate that about 100,000 children every day are subjected to sexual harassment on the company’s platforms.

Meta denies the civil charges while accusing Torrez of cherry-picking select documents and making “sensationalist” arguments. The company says it has consulted with parents and law enforcement to introduce built-in protections to social media accounts, along with settings and tools for parents.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

The S&P 500 ($SPX) just logged its fifth straight trading box breakout, which means that, of the five trading ranges the index has experienced since the April lows, all have been resolved to the upside.

How much longer can this last? That’s been the biggest question since the massive April 9 rally. Instead of assuming the market is due to roll over, it’s been more productive to track price action and watch for potential changes along the way. So far, drawdowns have been minimal, and breakouts keep occurring. Nothing in the price action hints at a lasting change — yet.

While some are calling this rally “historic,” we have a recent precedent. Recall that from late 2023 through early 2024, the index had a strong start and gave way to a consistent, steady trend.

From late October 2023 through March 2024, the S&P 500 logged seven consecutive trading box breakouts. That streak finally paused with a pullback from late March to early April, which, as we now know, was only a temporary hiccup. Once the bid returned, the S&P 500 went right back to carving new boxes and climbing higher.

New 52-Week Highs Finally Picking Up

If there’s been one gripe about this rally, it’s that the number of new highs within the index has lagged. As we’ve discussed before, among all the internal breadth indicators available, new highs almost always lag — that’s normal. What we really want to see is whether the number of new highs begins to exceed prior peaks as the market continues to rise, which it has, as shown by the blue line in the chart below.

As of Wednesday’s close, 100 S&P 500 stocks were either at new 52-week highs or within 3% of them. That’s a strong base. We expect this number to continue rising as the market climbs, especially if positive earnings reactions persist across sectors.

Even when we get that first day with 100+ S&P 500 stocks making new 52-week highs, though, it might not be the best time to initiate new longs.

The above chart shows that much needs to align for that many stocks to peak in unison, which has historically led to at least a short-term consolidation, if not deeper pullbacks — as highlighted in yellow. Every time is different, of course, but this is something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

Trend Check: GoNoGo Still “Go”

The GoNoGo Trend remains in bullish mode, with the recent countertrend signals having yet to trigger a greater pullback.

Active Bullish Patterns

We still have two live bullish upside targets of 6,555 and 6,745, which could be with us for a while going forward. For the S&P 500 to get there, it will need to form new, smaller versions of the trading boxes.

Failed Bearish Patterns

In the chart below, you can view a rising wedge pattern on the recent price action, the third since April. The prior two wedges broke down briefly and did not lead to a major downturn. The largest pullbacks in each case occurred after the S&P 500 dipped below the lower trendline of the pattern.

The deepest drawdown so far is 3.5%, which is not exactly a game-changer. Without downside follow-through, a classic bearish pattern simply can’t be formed, let alone be broken down from.

We’ll continue to monitor these formations as they develop because, at some point, that will change.

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,
Working Interest Share

End of Field Life

2P NPV10 After Tax
(US$ million)

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,
Working Interest Share (MMbbls)

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
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest Share

NSAI 2024 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest share

NSAI 2025 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest Share

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com