Breaking
The Insightful Investing
Author

admin

Browsing
Investing

Freegold Provides Update on 2025 Drill Program

Investing 6 Mins Read

2025 PROGRAM

  • Drilling is now underway with three rigs

    Conversion of inferred resources into indicated & further exploration drilling.

  • Updated mineral resource end of Q2
  • Ongoing metallurgical work, focusing on flowsheet optionality with sulphide oxidation is a key part of our strategy to maximize the potential of the resource.

Freegold Ventures Limited (TSX: FVL) (OTCQX: FGOVF) (‘Freegold’ or the ‘Company ‘) is pleased to announce that three drill rigs are now operational at Golden Summit. One rig is situated in the WOW Zone (Holes GS2502, GS2505), another is operating in the Cleary Zone (Holes GS2501, GS2503), and a third is in the Dolphin Zone (GS2504). A fourth rig is anticipated to begin in early summer.

The 2025 drilling program aims to upgrade inferred mineral resources to indicated through targeted infill drilling, along with geotechnical drilling and additional metallurgical test holes. Since 2020, exploration has been highly successful.  With a discovery cost of under $4.00 per ounce and substantially increased grade and tonnage, Golden Summit has grown into one of the most significant undeveloped gold resources in North America .  Ongoing metallurgical tests indicate that a substantial portion of the mineralization is non-refractory and can be processed conventionally, although further processing of sulfides is necessary for optimal recoveries.

The September 2024 resource estimate, based on a gold price of US$1,973 , includes a flowsheet comprising grinding, gravity separation, flotation, regrinding of sulfide concentrate, and CIL treatment, achieving a 72% recovery rate at a processing cost of $14 per ton. To increase recoveries, additional sulfide processing (oxidation) is beneficial; however, this will increase costs, which higher gold recovery and higher gold prices could well offset.

Current metallurgical programs are aimed at refining the flowsheet options available for evaluation in a pre-feasibility study, including testing of sulphide-oxidizing methods such as BIOX®, POX, and Albion Process. Earlier this year, Freegold reported 93% recovery using the Albion Process. Earlier this year, Freegold reported 93% recovery using the Albion Process TM oxidation-CIL, with further test work ongoing.  Comminution tests using half PQ core have been conducted on over 50 samples from various locations and lithologies within the deposit to determine the trade-off between grind size and liberation versus power consumption with a view to optimizing power requirements and gold recoveries.

An updated mineral resource estimate based on the 2024 drilling is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2025.

Link to the Plan Map

https://freegoldventures.com/site/assets/files/6287/pr-2025-drilling-20250529.jpg

HQ Core is logged, photographed and cut in half using a diamond saw, and one-half placed in sealed bags for preparation and subsequent geochemical analysis by MSA Laboratories in Prince George, BC .  At MSALABS, the entire sample will be dried and crushed to 70% passing -2mm (CRU-CPA). A ~500g riffle split will be analyzed for gold using CHRYSOS PhotonAssay (CPA-Au1). From this, 250g will be further riffle split from the original PhotonAssay sample, pulverized, and a 0.25g sub-sample analysed for multi-element geochemistry using MSA’s IMS230 package, which includes 4-acid digestion and ICP-MS finish. MSALABS operates under ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO 9001 certified quality systems. A QA/QC program includes laboratory and field standards inserted every ten samples. Blanks are inserted at the start of the submittal, and at least one blank every 25 standards.

The Qualified Person for this release is Alvin Jackson , P.Geo., Vice President of Exploration and Development for Freegold, who has approved the scientific and technical disclosure in this news release.

About Freegold Ventures Limited  
Freegold is a TSX-listed company focused on exploration in Alaska . It holds the Golden Summit Gold Project near Fairbanks and the Shorty Creek Copper-Gold Project near Livengood through leases.

For further information:

Kristina Walcott
President and CEO
Telephone: 1.604.662.7307
jkw@freegoldventures.com

Some statements in this news release contain forward-looking information, including, without limitation, statements as to planned expenditures and exploration programs, potential mineralization and resources, exploration results, the completion of an updated NI 43-101 technical report, and any other future plans. These statements address future events and conditions and, as such, involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by the statements. Such factors include, without limitation, the completion of planned expenditures, the ability to complete exploration programs on schedule, and the success of exploration programs. See Freegold’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31st, 2024 , filed under Freegold’s profile at www.sedar.com , for a detailed discussion of the risk factors associated with Freegold’s operations. On January 30, 2020 , the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. Reactions to the spread of COVID-19 continue to lead to, among other things, significant restrictions on travel, business closures, quarantines, and a general reduction in economic activity. While these effects have been reduced in recent months, the continuation and re-introduction of significant restrictions, business disruptions, and related financial impact, and the duration of any such disruptions cannot be reasonably estimated. The risks to Freegold of such public health crises also include employee health and safety risks and a slowdown or temporary suspension of operations in geographic locations impacted by an outbreak. Such public health crises, as well as global geopolitical crises, can result in volatility and disruptions in the supply and demand for various products and services, global supply chains, and financial markets, as well as declining trade and market sentiment and reduced mobility of people, all of which could affect interest rates, credit ratings, credit risk, and inflation. As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, Freegold has implemented a COVID management program and established a full-service Camp at Golden Summit to attempt to mitigate risks to its employees, contractors, and community. While the extent to which COVID-19 may impact Freegold is uncertain, it is possible that COVID-19 may have a material adverse effect   on Freegold’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

SOURCE Freegold Ventures Limited

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2025/29/c3673.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Coelacanth Announces Q1 2025 Financial and Operating Results

Investing 17 Mins Read

Coelacanth Energy Inc. (TSXV: CEI) (‘Coelacanth’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce its financial and operating results for the three months ended March 30, 2025. All dollar figures are Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

FINANCIAL RESULTS Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s, except per share amounts)  2025   2024   % Change   
       
Oil and natural gas sales 2,666 3,666 (27 )
       
Cash flow from operating activities 981 3,256 (70 )
Per share – basic and diluted (1) – 0.01 (100 )
       
Adjusted funds flow (used) (1) (1,440 ) 1,078 (234 )
Per share – basic and diluted (- ) – (- )
       
Net loss (3,617 ) (1,201 ) 201
Per share – basic and diluted (0.01 ) (- ) 100
       
Capital expenditures (1) 25,701 1,263 1,935
       
Adjusted working capital (deficiency) (1) (25,710 ) 67,139 (138 )
       
Common shares outstanding (000s)      
Weighted average – basic and diluted 531,445 529,196 –
       
End of period – basic 532,202 529,392 1
End of period – fully diluted 624,877 618,165 1​

 

(1) See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures’ section.

  Three Months Ended
OPERATING RESULTS (1) March 31
   2025   2024   % Change   
       
Daily production (2)      
Oil and condensate (bbls/d) 184 300 (39 )
Other NGLs (bbls/d) 25 37 (32 )
Oil and NGLs (bbls/d) 209 337 (38 )
Natural gas (mcf/d) 3,311 3,934 (16 )
Oil equivalent (boe/d) 761 993 (23 )
       
Oil and natural gas sales      
Oil and condensate ($/bbl) 90.21 85.30 6
Other NGLs ($/bbl) 38.01 34.79 9
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 84.03 79.82 5
Natural gas ($/mcf) 3.65 3.40 7
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 38.94 40.57 (4 )
       
Royalties      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 15.95 20.77 (23 )
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.64 0.51 25
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 7.18 9.08 (21 )
       
Operating expenses      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 10.63 9.89 7
     Natural gas ($/mcf) 1.77 1.65 7
     Oil equivalent ($/boe) 10.63 9.89 7
       
Net transportation expenses (3)      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 2.27 2.45 (7 )
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.78 0.68 15
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 4.00 3.54 13
       
Operating netback (3)      
Oil and NGLs ($/bbl) 55.18 46.71 18
Natural gas ($/mcf) 0.46 0.56 (18 )
Oil equivalent ($/boe) 17.13 18.06 (5 )
       
Depletion and depreciation ($/boe) (14.30 ) (14.42 ) (1 )
General and administrative expenses ($/boe) (21.76 ) (13.86 ) 57
Share based compensation ($/boe) (18.46 ) (10.11 ) 83
Finance expense ($/boe) (12.86 ) (1.06 ) 1,113
Finance income ($/boe) 1.46 10.60 (86 )
Unutilized transportation ($/boe) (4.05 ) (2.49 ) 63
Net loss ($/boe) (52.84 ) (13.28 ) 298

 

(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 unaudited condensed interim financial statements and related Management’s Discussion and Analysis (‘MD&A’) for the three months ended March 31, 2025, which are available for review under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

OPERATIONS UPDATE

Coelacanth has reached a major milestone in its development with the completion of the Two Rivers East facility (the ‘Facility’). The Facility was completed on budget and has moved to the testing and start-up phase. The capacity of the Facility is currently 8,000 boe/d but will be expanded in Q4 2025 to 16,000 boe/d with added compression. We expect production to start flowing imminently from the 5-19 pad and ramp up through the summer. As previously released, the 5-19 pad has 9 wells that tested over 11,000 boe/d (1) that will be brought on systematically to approach the phase I capacity of the plant prior to further drilling.

Over the next few years, Coelacanth will continue with its business plan that incorporates:

  1. Systematically developing the resource using pad development and horizontal multi-frac technology to increase production and maximize cash flow and investment returns.
  2. Delineating the lands with vertical and horizontal wells to help in quantifying and understanding the commerciality of its large Montney resource base that includes up to four Montney benches over its 150 contiguous sections of land.
  3. Developing and licensing a flexible infrastructure plan that will allow for the resource to be scaled to a much larger production base.

Coelacanth has licensed additional locations on the 5-19 pad, is in the process of licensing additional development pads, delineation locations and additional infrastructure to grow beyond current plant capacity. While commodity prices and available capital will dictate the pace of execution of the business plan, we are very pleased with the results to date and look forward to reporting on new developments as they 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)
Condensate 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 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 operating activities as follows:

  Three Months Ended
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024   % Change   
Cash flow from operating activities  981 3,256 (70 )
Add (deduct):      
Decommissioning expenditures 139 148 (6 )
Change in restricted cash deposits – 424 (100 )
Change in non-cash working capital (2,560 ) (2,750 ) (7 )
Adjusted funds flow (used) (non-GAAP) (1,440 ) 1,078 (234 )

 

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
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Transportation expenses 551 545
Unutilized transportation (277 ) (225 )
Net transportation expenses (non-GAAP) 274 320

 

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
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Oil and natural gas sales 2,666 3,666
Royalties (491 ) (821 )
Operating expenses (728 ) (894 )
Net transportation expenses (274 ) (320 )
Operating netback (non-GAAP) 1,173 1,631

 

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
  March 31
($000s)  2025   2024 
Capital expenditures – property, plant, and equipment 668 393
Capital expenditures – exploration and evaluation assets 25,033 870
Capital expenditures (non-GAAP) 25,701 1,263

 

Capital Management Measures

Adjusted working capital
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) March 31,
2025 		   December 31, 2024   
Current assets 3,431 11,579
Less:     
Current liabilities  (36,009 ) (37,234 )
Working capital deficiency (32,578 ) (25,655 )
Add:     
Restricted cash deposits 4,900 4,900
Current portion of decommissioning obligations 1,968 2,118
Adjusted working capital deficiency (Capital management measure) (25,710 ) (18,637 )

 

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.

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
  March 31
Sales Volumes by Product Type  2025   2024 
     
Condensate (bbls/d)                      18                      19
Other NGLs (bbls/d)                      25                      37
NGLs (bbls/d)                      43                      56
     
Tight oil (bbls/d)                    166                    281
Condensate (bbls/d)                      18                      19
Oil and condensate (bbls/d)                    184                    300
Other NGLs (bbls/d)                      25                      37
Oil and NGLs (bbls/d)                    209                    337
     
Shale gas (mcf/d)                 3,311                 3,934
Natural gas (mcf/d)                 3,311                 3,934
     
Oil equivalent (boe/d)                    761                    993

 

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. 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/253761

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Sport

Thunder vs. Timberwolves highlights: OKC headed to NBA Finals

Sport 13 Mins Read

Four victories. That’s what the Oklahoma City Thunder need to win the franchise’s first championship since 1979 when they were the Seattle SuperSonics.

The Thunder reached the NBA Finals for the first time since 2012, beating the Minnesota Timberwolves 124-94 Wednesday in Game 5 of the Western Conference finals.

Game 1 of the NBA Finals is Thursday, June 5, in Oklahoma City (8:30 p.m. ET, ABC), and the Thunder will play the winner of the Indiana-New York series.

Oklahoma City dominated from start to finish, jumping to a 26-9 first-quarter lead and never letting up until the outcome was guaranteed. The Thunder led by as many as 39 points, and it was never a competitive game on the scoreboard.

Shop OKC Thunder NBA Finals tickets

NBA MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander got it started with a hand in the Thunder’s first 11 points, assisting on four made field goals and making the other one, and he assisted on or scored 24 of their 26 first-quarter points.

He finished with a game-high 34 points, eight assists, seven rebounds and two steals – marking his seventh game with at least 30 points in the past eight games. Chet Holmgren had 22 points, seven rebounds and three blocks, and All-NBA forward Jalen Williams generated 19 points, eight rebounds, five assists, one block and one steal.

Oklahoma City’s league-best defense stumped Minnesota again, holding the Timberwolves to 41.2% shooting.

The Timberwolves exit the conference finals for the second consecutive season, and while deep playoff runs are the sign of a quality team, the Timberwolves aren’t yet Finals material. They didn’t have the personnel – even after trading Karl-Anthony Towns to New York for Julius Randle – to stay with the Thunder. Turnovers were a problem throughout the series.

Randle scored a team-high 24 points, and All-NBA star Anthony Edwards had 19 points.

Opinion: Sorry Pacers, Knicks. Thunder are your NBA champions

The Oklahoma City Thunder are your 2025 NBA champions.

Well, not officially.

Officially, they are just the 2025 Western Conference champs after eliminating the Minnesota Timberwolves in a five-game conference finals.

But you know where this is headed. The Thunder were the best team during the NBA’s regular season. They won the Western Conference in dominating fashion. Game 5 was a demolition – a 124-94 Thunder victory that left no doubt.

Read Jeff Zillgitt’s column here.

Timberwolves vs. Thunder Game 5: Highlights

Final: Thunder 124, Timberwolves 94

Oklahoma City dominated from start to finish, jumping to a 26-9 first-quarter lead and never letting up until the outcome was guaranteed. The Thunder led by as many as 39 points, and it was never a competitive game on the scoreboard.

End of 3Q: Thunder 88, Timberwolves 62

The Timberwolves outscored the Thunder 30-23 in the third period, but Oklahoma holds a comfortable lead.

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander leads the Thunder with 28 points, shooting 12-of-23 from the field. He also has seven assists, six rebounds and two steals in 31 minutes of play.

Julius Randle added 13 of his 21 points in the quarter for the Timberwolves. He didn’t miss a shot in the period. Anthony Edwards scored 19 points through the first three quarters. He’s shot 7-of-17 from the field and has struggled from the 3-point line, going 1-for-7.

Halftime: Thunder 65, Timberwolves 32

The Thunder need just two more quarters of solid basketball, and they will be headed for the NBA Finals for the first time since 2012.

Oklahoma City did not mess around in the first half, sending a message early and taking a 65-32 lead into halftime against the Timberwolves.

NBA MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has 20 points, five assists, four rebounds and one steal. Chet Holmgren has 15 points for the Thunder, who shot 50% in the first half. Jalen Williams has 15 points and six rebounds, and Alex Caruso added eight points and three steals in 13 minutes.

Turnovers are once again a problem for Minesota, which committed 14 leading to 14 Thunder points. Anthony Edwards has a team-high nine points on 3-for-10 shooting for the Timberwolves (31.6% from the field, 27.8% on 3-pointers).

Thunder pouring it on

Another Thunder scoring spurt and another Timberwolves timeout. Minnesota called a timeout after Jalen Williams’ layup gave the Thunder a 36-14 lead with 9:04 left in the second quarter.

Oklahoma City is 14-for-27 from the field, and Minnesota is 5-for-23, including 2-for-10 on 3-pointers – and Anthony Edwards and Julius Randle are the only Minnesota starters who have scored.

1Q: Thunder 26, Timberwolves 9

The Thunder produced a dominant performance in the opening quarter, limiting the Timberwolves’ offense to just nine points. It was the fewest points the Timberwolves had scored in any quarter this season.

Anthony Edwards scored six points and Julius Randle scored three points in the first quarter for the Timberwolves. Jaden McDaniels went 0-for-6 from the field and 0-for-3 from the 3-point line.

Mike Conley was optimistic about the Timberwolves’ outlook for the final three quarters of play when talking with ESPN.

“It’s all heart right now. … That’s all we are preaching right now to try and get back into this game,” Conley said.

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander continues to meet the standard as the regular season MVP, leading the game with 12 points, five assists and three rebounds for the Thunder. Chet Holmgren added seven points.

Thunder off to fast start

The Thunder have an 11-3 lead with 7:11 remaining in the first quarter, forcing Timberwolves coach Chris Finch to call a timeout after Chet Holmgren’s second dunk of the game. Holmgren has seven quick points, and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is responsible for all 11 points. He has assisted on four of the Thunder’s five made field goals and made the other shot.

What time is Timberwolves vs. Thunder?

Game 5 of the Western Conference finals between the Minnesota Timberwolves and Oklahoma City Thunder will tip at 8:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City.

What channel is the NBA game on tonight? How to watch NBA playoffs

The Thunder take on the Timberwolves at 8:30 p.m. ET with coverage on ESPN.

Timberwolves vs. Thunder predictions: Expert picks for Game 5

USA TODAY: Thunder is the unanimous pick

  • Scooby Axson: Thunder 121, Timberwolves 114
  • Jordan Mendoza: Thunder 116, Timberwolves 104
  • Lorenzo Reyes: Thunder 124, Timberwolves 97
  • Heather Tucker: Thunder 112, Wolves 90
  • Jeff Zillgitt: Thunder 119, Timberwolves 104

Fox Sports: Thunder 118, Timberwolves 107

Fox Sports expects the Thunder to not only win but cover the -8.5 spread in Wednesday’s Game 5. They point at Oklahoma City’s 83.3% win rate as the favorites this season as a big reason they are riding with the Thunder.

Dimers: Thunder 114, Timberwolves 106

The Thunder are expected to win the series against the Timberwolves according to Dimers. Their model gives the Thunder a staggering 76% chance to win Wednesday night, leaving the Timberwolves just a 24% chance of extending the series.

Timberwolves vs. Thunder odds, lines:

The Thunder are favored to beat the Timberwolves in Game 5, according to BetMGM.  Here is a look at the latest spread, moneyline and points total for the contest:

All odds as of Wednesday, May 28.

  • Spread: Thunder (-8.5)
  • Moneyline: Thunder (-375); Timberwolves (+290)
  • Over/under: 221.5

Where to watch Timberwolves vs. Thunder Game 5: TV, stream

  • Time: 8:30 p.m. ET
  • Location: Paycom Center in Oklahoma City
  • TV: ESPN
  • Stream:  ESPN+, Fubo

Watch Timberwolves vs. Thunder Game 5 on Fubo

Minnesota Timberwolves Game 5 starting lineup

  • Jaden McDaniels
  • Julius Randle
  • Rudy Gobert
  • Anthony Edwards
  • Mike Conley

Oklahoma City Thunder Game 5 starting lineup

  • Jalen Williams
  • Chet Holmgren
  • Isaiah Hartenstein
  • Lu Dort
  • Shai Gilgeous-Alexander

Timberwolves star duo must step up

Anthony Edwards and Julius Randall were limited to just a combined 21 points in the Game 4 loss to the Thunder. The Timberwolves managed to get the best of the Thunder of in Game 3 after the duo combined for 54 points.

Timberwolves face difficult scenario

The odds are against the Timberwolves who trail 3-1 in the West finals. Just 13 teams have come back from a 3-1 deficit to win a series. Denver was the last team to do it, eliminating two 3-1 deficits in the 2020 bubble playoffs. The last team to do it in a normal season is Cleveland in the 2016 NBA Finals against Golden State.

“I don’t sense any panic in the group,’ Timberwolves coach Chris Finch said before Game 5. ‘A lot of positivity, a lot of connectivity, a lot of belief.’

Thunder keeping focus on Game 5

The Thunder are one victory from reaching the NBA Finals. But OKC coach Mark Daigneault isn’t concerned about that.

“It’s a distraction,” Daigneault said about two hours before tip-off. “It’s obviously something positive, but it’s a distraction nonetheless because it’s something that can take us out of the present moment, the next possession, the next game and that’s how you stack up to whatever you want to accomplish. That’s what we have to do tonight. This team’s done a great job of growing through those types of experiences and staying present in those types of circumstances. Tonight’s a new challenge, and that’s what we have to do if we want to win the game.”

Where is Timberwolves-Thunder Game 5?

  • The Thunder will host the Timberwolves from Paycom Center in Oklahoma City for Game 5 of the Western Conference finals. 

NBA championship odds 

BetMGM odds forNBA Finals winner as of Wednesday, May 28: 

  • 1. Oklahoma City Thunder (-425) 
  • 2. Indiana Pacers (+450) 
  • 3. New York Knicks (+3000) 
  • 4. Minnesota Timberwolves (+5000) 

When are the 2025 NBA Finals? Schedule

*-if necessary

  • Game 1, June 5: 8:30 p.m. ET, ABC
  • Game 2, June 8: TBD, ABC
  • Game 3, June 11: TBD, ABC
  • Game 4, June 13: TBD, ABC
  • Game 5, June 16: TBD, ABC*
  • Game 6, June 19: TBD, ABC*
  • Game 7, June 22: TBD, ABC*

NBA conference finals bracket 

Eastern Conference finals 

  • No. 3 New York Knicks vs. No. 4 Indiana Pacers (Indiana leads series 3-1) 

Western Conference finals 

  • No. 1 Oklahoma City Thunder vs. No. 6 Minnesota Timberwolves (OKC leads series 3-1) 

NBA conference finals schedule 

New York Knicks vs. Indiana Pacers (Pacers lead series 3-1)

  • Game 1: Pacers 138, Knicks 135 
  • Game 2: Pacers 114, Knicks 109 
  • Game 3: Knicks 106, Pacers 100 
  • Game 4: Pacers 130, Knicks 121
  • Game 5, May 29: Pacers at Knicks | TNT, Sling TV | 8 p.m. 
  • Game 6, May 31: Knicks at Pacers | TNT, Sling TV | 8 p.m.* 
  • Game 7, June 2: Pacers at Knicks | TNT, Sling TV | 8 p.m.* 

Oklahoma City Thunder vs. Minnesota Timberwolves (Thunder win series 4-1)

  • Game 1: Thunder 114, Timberwolves 88 
  • Game 2: Thunder 118, Timberwolves 103 
  • Game 3: Timberwolves 143, Thunder 101 
  • Game 4: Thunder 128, Timberwolves 126 
  • Game 5: Thunder 124, Timberwolves 94

NBA’s new era of parity

If the impending NBA Finals matchup of the league’s 23rd and 27th-ranked media markets is supposed to spell doom for the league, it is a doom the NBA’s owners intentionally brought on themselves. 

While two glitz-free Midwestern cities in the Finals might not have the celebrity pull the NBA has largely enjoyed through its historically successful franchises, it was an inevitable outcome once the league designed a collective bargaining agreement that dismantled its traditional cycle of superteams and dynasties. 

Welcome to the new NBA, where championship windows are smaller, the life cycle of a roster is shorter and the number of teams that can win a title in any given year is beyond anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes. — Dan Wolken

Timberwolves’ Anthony Edwards in Game 4

Edwards had 16 points on 5-for-13 shooting and was just 1-for-7 on 3s. That’s not enough – the Timberwolves need more shooting and scoring from Edwards. It’s the second time Edwards, who averaged 27.6 points during the regular season, has scored fewer than 20 points in this series.

Oklahoma City executed another strong defensive gameplan, keeping Edwards from dominating.

Jalen Williams shines before Game 5

Williams surpassed his previous playoff high (32 points against Denver in overtime earlier this month) with 34 points – 14 coming in the fourth quarter when the Thunder needed his offense to hold off a Minnesota rally. He was 13-for-24 from the field and 6-for-9 on 3-pointers, including a key 3 with 3:34 left in the fourth quarter that pushed OKC’s lead to 116-109 and another with 1:21 to play that gave the Thunder a 123-116 lead. He also had five assists, three rebounds and three steals.

Find out more about Thunder-Timberwolves winners and losers with Jeff Zillgitt’s breakdown of Game 4.

Anthony Edwards pushes back against struggle narrative

After going just 1-of-7 Monday night, Edwards is 5-of-24 (20.8%) across the three Timberwolves series losses.

It’s difficult to see the Timberwolves becoming the 14th team in NBA playoff history to overcome a 3-1 deficit without Edwards drastically improving his 3-point efficiency.

Minnesota must also fix its turnovers issue, after committing 23 Monday night, five by Edwards.

“I don’t look at it like I struggled,” Edwards told reporters after the game. “They had a good game plan, making us get off the ball — especially for me, man, they was super in gaps. I made the right play all night. So I don’t look at it like I struggled. I didn’t get enough shots to say I struggled. That might be how you guys look at it, but, yeah, I didn’t struggle at all, I made the right play.” More from Lorenzo Reyes on Anthony Edwards in Game 4.

NBA star Russell Westbrook expands role in giving back to Oklahoma City

Westbrook, despite leaving in 2019 to join the Houston Rockets in a trade, continues to shape the future of Oklahoma City. His partnership with Echo, a multi-strategy investment firm, helps to continue to grow the city’s sports and entertainment investments, particularly its future professional soccer team’s stadium. He has also taken on an expanded role as the creative director for the stadium district. — Elizabeth Flores

2025 All-NBA team 

Oklahoma City Thunder guard and league Most Valuable Player Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Denver Nuggets center Nikola Jokic were unanimous selections from a panel of 100 global reporters and broadcasters who cover the NBA and voted on the squad. View the complete list. 

NBA champions by year

Winners over the past 20 years. For a full list of champions, visit NBA.com.

  • 2023-24 — Boston Celtics 
  • 2022-23 — Denver Nuggets
  • 2021-22 — Golden State Warriors
  • 2020-21 — Milwaukee Bucks 
  • 2019-20 — Los Angeles Lakers 
  • 2018-19 — Toronto Raptors 
  • 2017-18 — Golden State Warriors 
  • 2016-17 — Golden State Warriors 
  • 2015-16 — Cleveland Cavaliers 
  • 2014-15 — Golden State Warriors 
  • 2013-14 — San Antonio Spurs 
  • 2012-13 — Miami Heat 
  • 2011-12 — Miami Heat 
  • 2010-11 — Dallas Mavericks 
  • 2009-10 — Los Angeles Lakers 
  • 2008-09 — Los Angeles Lakers 
  • 2007-08 — Boston Celtics
  • 2006-07 — San Antonio Spurs 
  • 2005-06 — Miami Heat 
  • 2004-05 — San Antonio Spurs 
This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Baylor defensive lineman Alex Foster dies after shooting

Sport 3 Mins Read

Baylor defensive lineman Alex Foster has died after being shot multiple times in Greenville, Mississippi, the Washington County Coroner’s Office confirmed to the Clarion Ledger, part of the USA TODAY Network. He was 18.

‘We are heartbroken by the unexpected loss of Alex Foster, a beloved teammate, friend and a cherished part of the Baylor Family,’ vice president and director of athletics Mack B. Rhoades and head football coach Dave Aranda said in a joint statement on Wednesday. ‘Our thoughts and prayers are with Alex’s family and all those who loved him.’

Authorities responded to a call of shots fired in the early morning of May 28 at 12:11 a.m., the Greenville Police Department confirmed to the Clarion Ledger. Officers found a male victim who had been shot multiples times in a car at the scene. He was transferred to Delta Health Center, where he died from his injuries less than an hour later.

‘In this time of deep sorrow, we draw strength from our faith and the unwavering love of the Baylor community,’ the university added in a statement. ‘Our immediate focus is on supporting Alex’s family and his teammates through this devastating loss. Alex’s memory will forever be a part of Baylor University.’

The 6-foot-5, 292-pound defensive lineman is a native of Greenville, Mississippi and attended St. Joseph High School, where he was a three-star recruit and the No. 13 overall recruit in Mississippi, according to 247sports. Foster received offers from multiple colleges, including Georgia Tech, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Kentucky and Texas before ultimately signing with the Baylor Bears in July 2023. He redshirted his freshman year and was set to enter his sophomore year this season.

John Baker, head coach of the St. Joseph Catholic football, told the Clarion Ledger that Foster was back home in Greenville for summer break. Baker added that Foster was scheduled to return to Baylor in Waco, Texas this weekend.

‘He was just a great guy,’ Baker told the newspaper. ‘Real quiet, soft-spoken guy, you know. Had his head on right and was wanting to make it out. He was a good dude, man.’

In a follow-up posted on X, Aranda described Foster as a ‘beloved member of our Baylor Family.’ He added, ‘In his time at Baylor he made a long-lasting impact on all of us in the program. Our hearts are broken, and our prayers are with his family, friends and all those who loved him so deeply.’

The Big 12 also shared condolences, writing, ‘The Big 12 Conference extends its deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Baylor football student-athlete Alex Foster. We are deeply saddened by his passing and join the entire Baylor community during this time of mourning.’

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

SEC will likely delay 2026 football schedule decision. Here’s why.

Sport 3 Mins Read

MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. – SEC officials arrived here this week with a goal of zeroing in on a conference schedule format for football for 2026 and beyond. And they probably will leave here Thursday without approving a format.

Two factors continue to hold up a vote on a schedule format.

One: There’s not consensus behind a model. Some stakeholders want to stay at eight games. Others want to move to nine. Generally, the SEC’s coaches sound mostly interested in staying at eight, while the conference’s athletic directors seem to leave the door cracked a little wider toward nine. But, even within those groups, there’s not consensus.

LSU’s Brian Kelly said he’d favor nine conference games. Arkansas’ Sam Pittman prefers eight.

Texas athletic director Chris Del Conte would like nine, but he acknowledged he doesn’t speak for the room.

Back and forth the Ping-Pong ball goes.

The other element delaying the vote? The SEC is not up against a hard deadline. The conference’s 2025 schedule is set, and it retains some runway to drag out the decision for 2026. Amid the pandemic in 2020, the SEC scrapped its schedule and devised a new one less than six weeks before kickoff.

Don’t expect the SEC to repeat that 2020 timeline, but also don’t expect that all these diverging opinions will coalesce behind a solution within the conference’s spring meetings that end here Thursday.

Also affecting the decision: The College Football Playoff format for 2026 and beyond remains undecided, and multiple SEC coaches and administrators expressed reluctance to decide the conference schedule model until more information comes to light about the future playoff format and selection process.

Even Kelly, a proponent of nine conference games, says he’d slow-play this conference schedule vote, if it were up to him, and not give up that chip before knowing more about the playoff’s future.

The SEC has considered increasing to nine conference games for many years but consistently stayed at eight. The Big Ten and Big 12 play nine conference games. The ACC plays eight.

Around the conference, there remains “a variety of perspectives,” Sankey said.

“Some would say, ‘Let’s just go play nine games. More SEC games is better,’’ Sankey said. ‘Some would say, ‘Wait a second, I’m looking at bowl qualification, and it’s going to be harder to get to that six-win threshold as I build my program.’

“And then you have some who look at last year and say, ‘Our interpretation is, under the current selection criteria, losing weighs more (on the committee’s decision) than winning a solid game. Losing a game is more problematic, and until we have a better understanding on the future criteria or entry points for the CFP, we’re not willing to go to nine games.’

“I think those are three philosophies, but I think there are some who are ready to go to (nine).”

A majority vote would be required to reach a decision.

Will the SEC break camp on Thursday without making a decision?

“That’s my expectation,” Sankey said on “The Paul Finebaum Show.”

And, so, the can is kicked, a little further down the road. In the past, this familiar road always ends at eight.

Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network’s national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

Jalen Ramsey’s cryptic posts spark speculation about trade, release

Sport 2 Mins Read

Jalen Ramsey and the Miami Dolphins mutually agreed to seek a trade for the veteran cornerback in the weeks ahead of the 2025 NFL Draft.

Despite this, Ramsey remains on Miami’s roster. That may not be the case for long, if some of Ramsey’s recent social media posts are to be believed.

Ramsey took to X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday and made a few cryptic posts about his future. His final one ended with him saying ‘a new chapter awaits.’

The timing of Ramsey’s posts is noteworthy. They came just days ahead of June 1, which is a key date on the NFL’s yearly calendar.

Once June 1 passes, NFL teams are able to split a player’s dead-cap hit – which is guaranteed money allocated to a player no longer on a roster – over two seasons. Players traded or released before June 1 see all of their dead-cap hit accelerate onto the current year’s salary cap, unless an NFL team uses one of its two post-June 1 release designations on a player.

With that in mind, it would be more palatable for Miami to trade Ramsey after June 1, if possible. The Dolphins would actually save $5.9 million in cap space by trading Ramsey after that date, per Spotrac. If they move him before June 1, it would cost them more than $12.5 million in 2025 cap space.

The cost to release Ramsey would also decrease after June 1. The Dolphins would lose just $14.3 million in 2025 cap space by cutting him after that date instead of the roughly $32.8 million it would cost them to do so before then.

Given the timing of Ramsey’s social media posts – including one that just read ‘5…,’ five days ahead of June 1 – his status will be worth monitoring over the coming days.

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fast. Download for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Sport

California state track meet makes changes after Trump’s objections

Sport 5 Mins Read

There could be two winners in some girls events this weekend at the California state high school track and field meet − a transgender athlete and a cisgender athlete.

The scenario is part of rule changes made after President Donald Trump demanded a transgender athlete not be allowed to compete in girls track and field events.

The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the state’s governing body for high school athletics, clarified the new rules in a press release May 28.

A new division will not be created to separate transgender athletes from cisgender athletes. But athletes assigned female at birth will receive medals based on where they would have finished if a transgender athlete had not competed in the same event − part of what the CIF is calling a ‘pilot entry process.”

Governor Gavin Newsom’s spokesman, Izzy Gardon, in a statement provided to USA TODAY Sports, said, “CIF’s proposed pilot is a reasonable, respectful way to navigate a complex issue without compromising competitive fairness. The Governor is encouraged by this thoughtful approach.”

AB Hernandez, a 16-year-old transgender athlete, won titles in the triple jump and long jump at the southern California regional championship last weekend and is scheduled to compete in those events and the high jump in girls’ varsity.

On May 27, Trump threatened to withhold federal funds from California if the state does not follow an executive order seeking to bar transgender athletes from women’s sports. His post on social media referred to a trans athlete who competes in girls track and field.

Later in the day, the CIF changed the rules for the championship, which will be held May 30-31 in Clovis.

‘The CIF values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code,” the federation said in a statement. ‘With this in mind, the CIF will be implementing a pilot entry process for the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships.

As part of the changes, additional female athletes were invited to compete in the 2025 state championships.

Medals at the state meet

Hernandez, a top contender in the girls triple jump and long jump, could end up standing on the medal podium next to the athlete who finishes second in the overall standings. Both would receive a first-place medal.

A duplicate medal would be created to accomodate the two athletes.

Hernandez would receive a medal based on her finish in the overall standings while the other athletes will receive medals based on their finish in the standings excluding Hernandez’s results.

The CIF awards nine medals to the top boys and girls finishers in each event. (By contrast, other states create up to five divisions for each event to accomodate the athletes representing schools with a wide range of enrollments.)

Hernandez also is expected to contend for a medal in the high jump.

Also, as part of the rule changes, the CIF said in a statement that it would invite ‘any biological female student-athlete who would have earned the next qualifying mark’ to compete in the state championships.

“Under this pilot entry process, any biological female student-athlete who would have earned the next qualifying mark for one of their Section’s automatic qualifying entries in the CIF State meet, and did not achieve the CIF State at-large mark in the finals at their Section meet, was extended an opportunity to participate in the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships,” the CIF said in a statement. “The CIF believes this pilot entry process achieves the participation opportunities we seek to afford our student-athletes.”

The CIF did not say how many athletes that could impact.

Trump’s post on social media

Although the CIF did not cite Trump, the rule changes took place hours after his social media post that in part read, ‘THIS IS NOT FAIR, AND TOTALLY DEMEANING TO WOMEN AND GIRLS.’

Trump isn’t the only one who has sounded off on the matter. So has Hernandez.

 “I’m still a child, you’re an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person,’’ she told Capital & Main in a story published May 15.

Certain things remain unknown. Such as how many female athletes will be impacted by the new rules and whether they’ll be applied only in events in which Hernandez is competing.

The CIF did immediately respond to requests for information submitted by USA TODAY Sports.

In March, Newsom said on his podcast that it is ‘deeply unfair’ to allow transgender girls and women to compete in women’s sports.

California law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, including at schools. State law also allows trans student athletes to compete on sports teams that align with their gender identity.

Last month Democratic state lawmakers blocked two bills that would have banned transgender athletes from girls sports.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Keep Reading
Stock

The Best Five Sectors, #20

Stock 5 Mins Read

Technology Back in Top-5

Last week’s market decline of 2-2.5% (depending on the index) has led to some notable shifts in sector performance and rankings.

This pullback, coming after a strong rally, is changing the order of highs and lows on the weekly chart — a particularly significant development, at least for me.

Let’s dive into the details and see what’s flying around in the market.

The composition of the top five sectors has seen some notable changes. Here’s how it stands now:

The big surprise here is Technology making its way into the top five, displacing Consumer Staples (now at #6). This shift suggests a gradual move from a more defensive positioning to sectors that are more cyclical and economically sensitive.

Another eye-catching move comes from Consumer Discretionary, jumping from #10 to #7 — a significant leap, albeit still in the bottom half of the ranking. Real Estate and Materials saw minor shifts, while Energy dropped to #10 and Health Care remains at #11.

  1. (1) Industrials – (XLI)
  2. (4) Communication Services – (XLC)*
  3. (3) Utilities – (XLU)
  4. (2) Financials – (XLF)*
  5. (6) Technology – (XLK)*
  6. (5) Consumer Staples – (XLP)*
  7. (10) Consumer Discretionary – (XLY)*
  8. (7) Real-Estate – (XLRE)*
  9. (8) Materials – (XLB)*
  10. (9) Energy – (XLE)*
  11. (11) Healthcare – (XLV)

Weekly/Daily RRG Analysis

The weekly Relative Rotation Graph (RRG) provides some interesting insights:

  • Utilities maintains very high readings, but Consumer Staples (highest on RS-Ratio ranking) is likely to be pushed down by weak daily chart readings.
  • Industrials continues to push further into the leading quadrant with stable momentum.
  • Financials and Communication Services are inside the weakening quadrant but have room to curl back towards leading.
  • Technology, despite having the second-lowest RS-Ratio reading, is rapidly improving with a strong RS-Momentum heading over recent weeks.

Remember, the ranking combines daily and weekly readings.

Technology’s high daily chart reading is propelling it into the top five, while Consumer Staples’ weak daily reading is pushing it out.

Industrials: The Leader Holding Strong

XLI is now pushing against its all-time high, just below 145. After two weeks of attempts, last week’s slight market decline confirms that this resistance level has worked.

We’re now looking for where any potential decline might stop and form a new low. The gap area from two weeks ago seems to be a good support area to watch.

The relative strength line breaking out of its consolidation formation continues to drag the RRG lines higher. XLI, for good reason, remains the strongest sector at the moment.

Communication Services: Stable Relative Uptrend

XLC is continuing its move higher with remarkable stability. The uptrend in the RS line is still valid, currently testing the lower boundary of the rising channel.

Due to the lack of upward relative momentum in recent weeks, both RRG lines are now pointing lower.

However, the RS-Ratio line remains well above 100, keeping the XLC tail on the right-hand side of the RRG.

Utilities: Testing Resistance

XLU is pushing against overhead resistance but has yet to manage a decisive break higher.

With defensive sectors under pressure, it’s questionable whether this breakout will happen in the short term.

The RS line versus SPY is dropping back into its trading range, unable to break away decisively. This drop is causing the RS-Momentum line to roll over and start pointing lower.

It’s the recent strength in relative strength that’s keeping Utilities inside the leading quadrant for now.

Financials: At a Crossroads

The Financial sector seems to be respecting the old rising support line as resistance, with the market dropping off that line last week and now trading around $50.

This move is affecting the relative strength line, which has returned to the lower boundary of the rising channel — a level that needs to hold to maintain a positive outlook for XLF.

The RS-Ratio line is stable around 102.50, high enough to keep Financials on the right-hand side of the graph.

The RS-Momentum line has just dropped below 100, positioning the XLF tail inside the weakening quadrant, but with enough room to curl back up before hitting lagging.

Technology: The Week’s Winner

XLK saw a significant jump two weeks ago and has since returned to test the old resistance area as support. If last week’s decline continues, there’s a bit more room to the downside — $220 seems to be a good level to watch for support, marking the bottom of the gap range from two weeks ago.

The jump has pushed the relative strength line above its falling resistance line, a good sign that seems to be breaking the relative downtrend in place since mid-last year.

This is changing the characteristics of the relative strength move for the Technology sector.

For now, it has only pushed the RS-Momentum line above 100, moving XLK into the improving quadrant on the weekly RRG, but it’s already starting to drag the RS-Ratio line higher.

Portfolio Performance

We’re clawing back some of the losses from recent weeks. The underperformance of almost 6% last week has now shrunk to 4.6%. Still behind the benchmark, but closing in again and narrowing the gap.

It’s a long-term game, so we keep pushing forward. So far, nothing out of the ordinary. Let’s wait and see whether we’ve seen the low in underperformance and how long it will take to return to SPY’s performance since inception.

#StayAlert –Julius

Keep Reading
Stock

Is It A Pullback? Or is More Downside Ahead?

Stock 1 Min Read

Get the latest stock market update with Mary Ellen McGonagle. Learn key downside signals, how to manage pullbacks, and which earnings reports could impact the market next week.

In this week’s episode, Mary Ellen reviews where the markets currently stand and what to watch for to signal further downside. She also highlights ways to combat inevitable pullbacks and shares the key earnings reports that are likely to move the markets in the upcoming week.

This video originally premiered May 23, 2025. You can watch it on our dedicated page for Mary Ellen’s videos.

New videos from Mary Ellen premiere weekly on Fridays. You can view all previously recorded episodes at this link.

If you’re looking for stocks to invest in, be sure to check out the MEM Edge Report! This report gives you detailed information on the top sectors, industries and stocks so you can make informed investment decisions.

Keep Reading
Stock

Mixed Signals on the Charts? RRG Reveals Market Rotation Tension

Stock 1 Min Read

Confused by mixed market signals? Follow along as Julius analyzes sector rotation, asset rotation, and global market trends using daily and weekly Relative Rotation Graphs (RRGs).

In this video, Julius puts the current sector rotation in perspective on both weekly and daily Relative Rotation Graphs (RRGs). He also examines asset rotation and the position of the U.S. markets in relation to international equities.

This video was originally published on May 27, 2025. Click on the icon above to view on our dedicated page for Julius.

Past videos from Julius can be found here.

#StayAlert, -Julius

Keep Reading