Author

admin

Browsing

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Coelacanth is currently:

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

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

Reserve Highlights

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

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

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

Reserves Summary

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

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

 

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

Reserves Values

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

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

 

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

Price Forecast

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

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

 

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

Reserve Life Index (‘RLI’)

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

Reserve Category RLI
Proved plus Probable Reserves 69.0
Proved Reserves 42.9

 

Reserves Reconciliation

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

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

 

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

Capital Expenditures

Capital allocation by category is as follows:

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Forward-Looking Information

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

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

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

Reserves Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry Metrics

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOE Conversions

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

Abbreviations

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

 

Test Results and Initial Production Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For further information, please contact:

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

Robert Zakresky
President and Chief Executive Officer

Nolan Chicoine
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

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

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

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

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

2024 HIGHLIGHTS

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

OPERATIONS UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

OIL AND GAS TERMS

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

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

 

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

NON-GAAP AND OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES

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

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Capital Management Measures

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

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

 

Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

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

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

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

Supplementary Financial Measures

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

PRODUCT TYPES

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

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

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

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

 

TEST RESULTS AND INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

Further Information

For additional information, please contact:

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

Mr. Robert J. Zakresky
President and Chief Executive Officer

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

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

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

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Heliostar Metals Ltd. (TSXV: HSTR) (OTCQX: HSTXF) (FSE: RGG1) (‘Heliostar’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it has appointed Mr. Stephen Soock as Vice President of Investor Relations and Development and Ms. Connie Lillico as Corporate Secretary.

Heliostar CEO, Charles Funk, commented, ‘We are delighted to add Stephen and Connie to our team as we continue to build our capacity. Stephen brings his understanding of institutional banking, sales and project knowledge from his role as an analyst at Stifel. He will lead the Company’s investor relationships and contribute to Heliostar’s strategy for production growth and reduction in our cost of capital. Connie brings a wealth of experience, having helped shepherd First Majestic from an ambitious junior to stable producer. She will lead the Company’s regulatory responsibilities in her role as Corporate Secretary. I would also like to thank Ms. Sheryl Dhillon for her diligent, professional long-term service to the Company as our Corporate Secretary.’

Mr. Soock has been in the mining industry for almost 20 years in both technical and capital markets roles. Prior to joining Heliostar, he was a Brendan Wood ranked sell side research analyst at Stifel. He covered growth and development companies in the precious metals space and brings a robust understanding of value creation from junior gold companies to his new role with Heliostar. Mr. Soock has also worked in various engineering roles at mine sites across Canada, including Vale’s Thompson Nickel operation, Mosaic’s Belle Plaine solution potash mine and Rio Tinto’s Diavik Diamond mine complex. He graduated from Queen’s University with a B.Sc. in Mining Engineering and is a CFA Charterholder.

Ms. Lillico brings 20 years of experience working with publicly traded companies in the mining industry. Ms. Lillico has worked with several TSX, TSX-V and NSYE listed companies and prior to joining Heliostar, Ms. Lillico served as the Corporate Secretary at First Majestic Silver Corp. Ms. Lillico has been involved in all aspects of administration of publicly listed companies including regulatory compliance, corporate governance, continuous disclosure requirements, equity financings, mergers and acquisitions, board and committee matters and shareholder communications.

Further, pursuant to the Company’s Omnibus Equity Incentive Compensation Plan, it has granted 700,000 stock options (‘Options’) at an exercise price of $1.05 and 150,000 restricted share units (each, an ‘RSU’) to employees and consultants of the Company. The Options are exercisable for a period of five years and will vest over the next two years. The RSUs will vest in three equal annual instalments commencing on the first anniversary of the grant date.

About Heliostar Metals Ltd.

Heliostar aims to grow to become a mid-tier gold producer. The Company is focused on increasing production and developing new resources at the La Colorada and San Agustin mines in Mexico, and on developing the 100% owned Ana Paula Project in Guerrero, Mexico.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

Charles Funk
President and Chief Executive Officer
Heliostar Metals Limited
Email: charles.funk@heliostarmetals.com
Phone: +1 844-753-0045
Rob Grey
Investor Relations Manager
Heliostar Metals Limited
Email: rob.grey@heliostarmetals.com
Phone: +1 844-753-0045

 

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

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This news release includes certain ‘Forward-Looking Statements’ within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and ‘forward-looking information’ under applicable Canadian securities laws. When used in this news release, the words ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘target’, ‘plan’, ‘forecast’, ‘may’, ‘would’, ‘could’, ‘schedule’ and similar words or expressions, identify forward-looking statements or information. These forward-looking statements or information relate to, among other things: the Company’s goal of becoming a mid-tier producer.

Forward-looking statements and forward-looking information relating to the terms and completion of the Facility, any future mineral production, liquidity, and future exploration plans are based on management’s reasonable assumptions, estimates, expectations, analyses and opinions, which are based on management’s experience and perception of trends, current conditions and expected developments, and other factors that management believes are relevant and reasonable in the circumstances, but which may prove to be incorrect. Assumptions have been made regarding, among other things, the receipt of necessary approvals, price of metals; no escalation in the severity of public health crises or ongoing military conflicts; costs of exploration and development; the estimated costs of development of exploration projects; and the Company’s ability to operate in a safe and effective manner and its ability to obtain financing on reasonable terms.

These statements reflect the Company’s respective current views with respect to future events and are necessarily based upon a number of other assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by management, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, political, and social uncertainties and contingencies. Many factors, both known and unknown, could cause actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from the results, performance or achievements that are or may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information and the Company has made assumptions and estimates based on or related to many of these factors. Such factors include, without limitation: precious metals price volatility; risks associated with the conduct of the Company’s mining activities in foreign jurisdictions; regulatory, consent or permitting delays; risks relating to reliance on the Company’s management team and outside contractors; risks regarding exploration and mining activities; the Company’s inability to obtain insurance to cover all risks, on a commercially reasonable basis or at all; currency fluctuations; risks regarding the failure to generate sufficient cash flow from operations; risks relating to project financing and equity issuances; risks and unknowns inherent in all mining projects, including the inaccuracy of reserves and resources, metallurgical recoveries and capital and operating costs of such projects; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties; laws and regulations governing the environment, health and safety; the ability of the communities in which the Company operates to manage and cope with the implications of public health crises; the economic and financial implications of public health crises, ongoing military conflicts and general economic factors to the Company; operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities; employee relations, labour unrest or unavailability; the Company’s interactions with surrounding communities; the Company’s ability to successfully integrate acquired assets; the speculative nature of exploration and development, including the risks of diminishing quantities or grades of reserves; stock market volatility; conflicts of interest among certain directors and officers; lack of liquidity for shareholders of the Company; litigation risk; and the factors identified under the caption ‘Risk Factors’ in the Company’s public disclosure documents. Readers are cautioned against attributing undue certainty to forward-looking statements or forward-looking information. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be anticipated, estimated or intended. The Company does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements or forward-looking information to reflect changes in assumptions or changes in circumstances or any other events affecting such statements or information, other than as required by applicable law.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/249614

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Brunswick Exploration Inc. (TSX-V: BRW, OTCQB: BRWXF; ‘ BRW ‘ or the ‘ Company ‘) is pleased to report the first results from the 2025 Mirage winter drilling campaign where it drilled an additional twenty-four holes targeting extensions of known mineralized zones. The Mirage Project is located in the Eeyou Istchee-James Bay region of Quebec, approximately 40 kilometers south of the Trans-Taiga Road. This release focuses on the Central Zone including the MR-6, MR-3 dykes and Stacked Dyke area where BRW has continued to intersect wide and well mineralized intervals along strike and at depth.

Highlights include:

  • Significant interval of 36 meters at 1.51% Li2O in hole MR-24-102 within the Stacked Dyke area extending mineralization to the south-east and where an additional 13 dykes measuring between 1.3 and 9.35 meters were intercepted in the same hole.
  • New interval at the MR-6 Dyke with 1.32% Li2O over 28 meters in hole MR-24-101 extending the dyke to the northwest.
  • The MR-3, MR-6 and staked dyke system can now be traced together into a major swarm of spodumene bearing pegmatites covering a surface area of over 1,000 meters by up to 450m.
  • A total of 24 drill holes prioritizing near surfaces mineralization in the extension of the staked dyke area were completed during the winter. Assays are pending for a further 16 holes.

Mr. Killian Charles, President and CEO of BRW, commented: ‘To date, every drill campaign has demonstrated the significant exploration upside at Mirage and these first results from our winter 2025 campaign are no different. We have successfully extended the MR-6 pegmatite and continue to rapidly add considerable intercepts in the neighboring Stacked Dyke area. Interestingly, this high potential target area has continued to return multiple significant mineralized intercepts over the entirety of each drill hole and the Stacked Dyke area remains open in multiple directions.

Brunswick Exploration remains one of the most active lithium exploration companies globally and looks forward to releasing more drill results from Mirage and the restart of prospecting in Greenland. With its unique portfolio, the Company expects to have a milestone rich year.’

Mirage Project Drilling Overview

The Mirage Project comprises 427 claims located roughly 40 kilometers south of the Trans-Taiga Highway in Quebec’s James Bay region and 34 kilometers northeast of Winsome Resources’ Adina Project.

The 2025 winter drilling campaign focused on extending the mineralized Stacked Dyke area to the northeast. Highlights discussed in this release are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Collars are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1 : Central Zone of the Mirage Project

The holes MR-25-96 and MR-25-98 extended the MR-3 dyke 150m to the South with 0.79% Li2O over 12.2 meters from 55.8 meters to 68 meters and 1.26% Li2O over 7 meters from 176 meters to 183 meters. The hole MR-25-95 also confirmed the present of MR-3 and intersect a new dyke from 123.9 to 132 meters that returned 0.76% Li2O over 8.31 meters. This new shallow dipping mineralized pegmatite is located between MR-3 and MR-6 and is open in all directions. From 290 to 307 meters, the hole MR-25-95 holes also intersected three mineralized dykes that could be extensions to MR-6 at depth, dipping to the east.

The hole MR-25-102 extends the Staked Dyke area to the south with 14 mineralized dykes intercepted with the largest grading 1.51% Li2O over 35.65 meters from 166.6 meters to 202.25 meters. MR-23-32ext was drilled to connect the Stacked Dyke area to MR-6. Multiple dykes were intercepted in this hole and confirmed the presence of three new sub horizontal dykes under MR-6 with the largest returning 1.02% Li2O over 7.75 meters from 158.25 meters to 166 meters.

MR-25-101 confirmed the plunge to the north of MR-6 with an intercept of 28 meters at 1.32% Li2O from 173 meters to 201 meters and extends the MR-6 pegmatite by 100 meters. The hole MR-25-99 and MR-25-100 also intercepted the MR-6 dyke over 14.3 meters and 19.4 meters but showed signs of heavy alteration and no spodumene was identified.

Table 1 : 2025 Drilling Program Mentioned in this Release

Hole ID From (m) To (m) Length (m) Li2O (%)
MR-23-32-ext

143.55 145.55 2.00 2.26
147.55 150.00 2.45 1.41
158.25 166.00 7.75 1.02
MR-25-95

49.50 56.75 7.25 0.55
123.90 132.00 8.10 0.79
225.25 228.25 3.00 1.61
290.00 291.00 1.00 1.44
299.00 300.90 1.90 1.20
303.50 307.20 2.70 1.33
MR-25-96

55.80 68.00 12.20 0.79
147.60 150.90 3.30 0.90
160.55 163.20 2.65 0.27
MR-25-97 18.40 23.20 4.80 1.25
MR-25-98 176.00 183.00 7.00 1.26
MR-25-101 173.00 201.00 28.00 1.32
MR-25-102

17.25 21.00 3.75 1.33
65.70 69.00 3.30 2.66
96.15 105.50 9.35 0.75
117.50 119.50 2.00 1.34
132.75 134.65 1.90 1.81
138.90 140.30 1.40 0.88
157.60 159.85 2.25 1.10
166.60 202.25 35.65 1.51
212.20 214.85 2.65 1.24
239.70 243.60 3.90 1.33
247.95 250.75 2.80 1.74
254.70 256.50 1.80 1.68
292.15 296.10 3.95 1.52
299.00 305.10 6.10 1.19


Table 2
: 2025 Drilling Collars Mentioned in this Release

Hole ID Azimut Dip Length (m) UTM NAD83 z18 East UTM NAD83 z18 North
MR-23-32-ext 320 -73 162 683263 5941204
MR-25-95 30 -60 369 682821 5940489
MR-25-96 30 -90 207 682821 5940989
MR-25-97 320 -65 48 683503 5941233
MR-25-98 315 -60 301.45 682784 5940878
MR-25-99 320 -90 168 682912 5941336
MR-25-100 320 -90 201 682832 5941326
MR-25-101 320 -60 285 682912 5941336


QAQC

All drill core samples were collected under the supervision of BRW employees and contractors. The drill core was transported by helicopter and by truck from the drill platform to the core logging facility in Val-d’Or. Each core was then logged, photographed, tagged, and split by diamond saw before being sampled. All pegmatite intervals were sampled at approximately 1-meter intervals to ensure representativity. Samples were bagged; duplicated on reject, blanks and certified reference materials for lithium were inserted every 20 samples. Samples were bagged and groups of samples were placed in larger bags, sealed with numbered tags, in order to maintain a chain of custody. The sample bags were transported from the BRW contractor facility to the AGAT laboratory in Val-d’Or. All sample preparation and analytical work was performed by AGAT by sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-OES and ICP-MS finish. All results passed the QA/QC screening at the lab and all inserted standard and blanks returned results that were within acceptable limits. All reported drill intersections are calculated based on a lower cutoff grade of 0.3% Li2O, with maximum internal dilution of 5 meters. Host basalts adjacent to the dykes may grade up to 0.3% Li2O but were excluded from the reported intersections.

Qualified Person

The scientific and technical information contained in this press release has been reviewed and approved by Mr. Simon T. Hébert, VP Development. He is a Professional Geologist registered in Quebec and is a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

About Brunswick Exploration

Brunswick Exploration is a Montreal-based mineral exploration company listed on the TSX-V under symbol BRW. The Company is focused on grassroots exploration for lithium in Canada, a critical metal necessary to global decarbonization and energy transition. The company is rapidly advancing the most extensive grassroots lithium property portfolio in Canada and Greenland.

Investor Relations/information

Mr. Killian Charles, President and CEO ( info@brwexplo.ca )

Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information

This news release contains ‘forward-looking information’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation based on expectations, estimates and projections as at the date of this news release. Forward-looking information involves risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to, delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required governmental, environmental or other project approvals; uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future; changes in equity markets; inflation; fluctuations in commodity prices; delays in the development of projects; the other risks involved in the mineral exploration and development industry; and those risks set out in the Corporation’s public documents filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. Although the Corporation believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking information in this news release are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The Corporation disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by law. Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/ea65ea8b-aa40-40d8-9be0-f901db569529

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Pope Francis’ death fires the starting gun on what many see as a battle for the soul of the church – pitting those who want to continue his progressive reforms against a small but powerful group who want to reverse them.

Francis dramatically reshaped the group of prelates who will soon cast their votes for his successor in front of Michelangelo’s fresco of The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.

Only cardinals under the age of 80 have a vote, and he chose most of them.

The first pontiff from the Global South, he decided to rip up the old, unwritten rule book which saw bishops of certain dioceses – most of them in Italy, Europe and the United States – automatically being made cardinals.

Instead, Francis sought to internationalize the College of Cardinals, giving red hats to a host of countries that had never been represented by a cardinal before, such as Tonga, Myanmar, Mongolia, the Central African Republic and Haiti.

His reforms made the body more representative of the global Catholic community, while the cardinals he selected, by and large, share his vision of the Church. All of this makes it more likely that the cardinals will choose a pope who represents continuity with Francis.

But conclaves can throw up surprises and, despite the reforms Francis made, there is a small, yet determined, minority unhappy with the most recent papacy, who will be looking for ways to change course.

Some of the opposition is well funded and the pre-conclave maneuvering has been going on for several years. These cardinals were concerned by Francis’s openness to giving communion to divorced and remarried couples, his welcome to LGBTQ+ Catholics and his strong criticism of what he described as “backwardist” Catholics wanting to take the Church back to a different way.

His critiques of economic inequality and focus on migrants’ rights and the climate crisis jarred with Catholics who wanted a pope to lay down the law on moral teachings.

While in hospital, the pope signed off on a three-year reform process, including how to give greater roles to women in the Catholic Church, including ordaining them as deacons, and the greater inclusion of laity in governance and decision making.

The reforms have been examined through a structure called the Synod of Bishops, which has been the primary vehicle through which the pope has implemented his pastoral agenda during his papacy. In recent years he’s sought to involve Catholics from across the globe in the renewal process.

The big question is how the next pope will continue this process, which is scheduled to continue until 2028.

The debate will likely heat up in earnest after Pope Francis’ funeral on Saturday, as attention then turns to the coming conclave – the start date for which has not been confirmed.

A group to watch carefully are the cardinals over the age of 80 who, while unable to vote, can play an important part in the vital pre-conclave meetings and informal discussions taking place in Roman trattorias or cardinals’ apartments.

A portion of these retired cardinals were not appointed by Francis, and some have opposed the direction in which the first Latin American pope tried to take the Church.

Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago and Cardinal Oswald Gracias, the retired archbishop of Bombay could both exercise this “kingmaker” role, as could Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the former papal ambassador to the United States or Cardinal Arthur Roche, a British Vatican official. Then there is Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, who is hugely experienced, multilingual and will be supporting a candidate who is in keeping with Francis’ pastoral priorities.

Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Canadian prelate who for years ran the Vatican’s office for appointing bishops, is also a figure likely to influence proceedings, as could Ghanian Cardinal Peter Turkson, who runs the pontifical academy of sciences, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. Some of the most critical voices come from among the retired cardinals such as Joseph Zen from Hong Kong, who has been a vocal critic of Francis and the Vatican’s diplomatic rapprochement with China.

There is also a sizeable number of cardinals who may wish to follow the Francis reforms but to do so with a pope who is more predictable and with less of the “shock and awe” of the late pontiff.

Open opposition to reforms

During the Francis pontificate, a group of cardinals took the highly unusual step of publicly challenging the pope over his decision to allow communion for divorced and remarried Catholics while, on two occasions, anonymous memos from unnamed cardinals strongly criticizing Francis were published.

The first was released under the pseudonym “Demos” and later turned out to have been written by Australian Cardinal George Pell, whom Francis had appointed as Vatican treasurer. The second, “Demos II,” accused the late pope of governing in an autocratic style and said the next pontiff must work for the “recovery and reestablishment of truths that have been slowly obscured or lost among many Christians.”

The forthcoming conclave will take place amid the glare of social media and the cardinals will need to make sure they vet candidates closely. One church historian has written about the possible “catastrophe” of a newly elected pope being forced to resign in an imagined scenario where allegations of failing to deal with a sexual abuse complaint suddenly surface online. This papal election takes place in an atmosphere where one allegation, if it sticks, could quickly torpedo a candidacy.

Then there are plenty of forces in the church seeking to influence the vote, many of them well funded, organized and with ties to the United States. In December 2024, a website, titled “The College of Cardinals Report,” was launched giving a breakdown on where the cardinals stand on blessing same-sex couples, ordaining women deacons and “Vatican-China secret accords.” The site comes from groups who are deeply opposed to the Francis pontificate.

And six years earlier, it emerged that a group in the United States was seeking more than $1 million to compile dossiers on candidates in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the conclave that elected Francis. When members of this group, “The Red Hat Report,” presented their project, they portrayed it as an attempt to improve governance and accountability within the Church and said “we may not have had Pope Francis” had it been in existence then.

For several years before the pope’s death, those opposed to his papacy had been discussing how to influence the next conclave. In 2020 two books, both titled “The Next Pope,” were published, both by authors known to be critics of Francis. One of them was even circulated among his peers by Dolan, the US cardinal, despite church laws that say prelates must not publicly discuss possible papal candidates.

A driving force behind some of the pre-conclave maneuvers was Pell, who had a formidable network of contacts and was politically skilled: the Australian prelate had reportedly pushed conservative Hungarian Cardinal Péter Erdő as a papal candidate.

After his conviction for child sex abuse was overturned by the High Court of Australia, Pell returned to Rome and took on an active role preparing for the next conclave. However, Pell’s death in January 2023 at the age of 81 left the opposition to Francis without an obvious leader.

Dividing lines

When the cardinals decide who should be elected pope, various factors will be taken into consideration. A potential dividing line might emerge over the pope’s decision to allow same-sex blessings, with several bishops in Africa and Eastern Europe strongly resisting this move. Would the African and Eastern European cardinals vote as a bloc for a candidate who is sympathetic to their views on this topic?

Francis’ choice of cardinals from very different parts of the world means that some of the papal electors do not know each other that well. Some also do not speak Italian, the working language of the Vatican (although English and Spanish are widely used). This would give an advantage to any candidate who has been able to get to know the cardinals well and has a role convening or leading them during the pre-conclave period.

In 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s guidance of the pre-conclave meetings, his linguistic abilities and the homily he preached at a Mass ahead of the vote played a key part in his election as Pope Benedict XVI.

After the action-packed Francis papacy, there may be other cardinals who, although supportive of the late pope, want someone who is less of a newsmaker and disruptor. They might opt to go for someone low-key.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that whoever is chosen as pope will be expected by Catholics across the world to continue with the major reforms that Francis began, and to try to continue to “institutionalize” the changes that he called for in the Catholic Church.

But don’t discount the determination of those seeking to find any way they can to slam the brakes on the Francis project.

This post appeared first on cnn.com