Breaking
The Insightful Investing
Author

admin

Browsing
Stock

Top Sectors to Watch + The 18 SMA Setup Every Trader Should Know

Stock 1 Min Read

In this video, Joe analyzes which sectors to focus on when selecting new stocks. He demonstrates how to use the 18-period simple moving average (SMA) on monthly, weekly, and daily charts to identify the strongest stock patterns and the best timeframes to trade. He then provides chart analysis on the QQQ, IWM, and Bitcoin, before reviewing this week’s symbol requests submitted by viewers.

The video premiered on May 28, 2025. Click this link to watch on Joe’s dedicated page.

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

Keep Reading
Investing

Platinum Price Breaks Out as Chinese Demand and Global Shortfalls Ignite Rally

Investing 4 Mins Read

The platinum price has surged over 20 percent year-to-date, propelled by a sharp rebound in Chinese demand and a tightening global supply picture that analysts say may signal a prolonged market deficit.

On May 23, platinum closed at US$1,098.40 per ounce, its highest level since May 2023, and a 22 percent increase from its year-to-date low US$892, seen on April 8. The rally, which has accelerated in recent weeks, comes amid renewed investor interest in precious metals, stark supply-side constraints and a changing global demand profile.

China has emerged as a key force behind platinum’s surge, with imports in April jumping 47 percent month-on-month to 10 metric tons, the highest in a year, according to Chinese Customs data.

“In the first quarter of this year alone, given the exceptionally high gold price, gold jewelry sales in China were down 32 percent year-on-year, and platinum jewelry sales were up 26 percent,” he emphasized.

Gold touched US$3,500 per ounce last month, pricing many Chinese buyers out of the market. Platinum, currently trading at a significant discount, is increasingly being seen as an attractive alternative, both for investment and jewelry.

“China’s a market that can pivot really quickly,” Sterck added, noting that platinum bars, coins and jewelry are now being marketed aggressively across social media platforms like TikTok.

This renewed Chinese interest aligns with broader structural issues in the platinum-group metals (PGMs) market, as detailed in a recent report by research firm Metals Focus. It notes that all five PGMs — platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium and ruthenium — ended last year in physical deficit. Platinum alone saw a second consecutive year of shortfall, with Metals Focus placing total global production at 5.77 million ounces, still well below the 2010 to 2021 annual average.

Behind the deficit lies a mix of supply disruptions, weak mine productivity and building demand.

Sterck underscored the severity of the shortfall seen in Q1, saying it was the largest in six years. It was driven by flooding in South Africa, smelter outages in Zimbabwe and operational restructuring in North America.

Even though South African output rose above 4 million ounces for the first time since 2021, much of that gain was attributed to the release of built-up work-in-process inventories rather than fresh production.

The constrained supply has had ripple effects across investment channels. Platinum secondary supply — which primarily comes from recycled jewelry and autocatalysts — rose just 1 percent last year.

In Asia, jewelry recycling volumes fell, and while autocatalyst recycling improved 9 percent due to higher scrappage rates and incentives in China, it remained insufficient to close the gap.

When it comes to demand, the auto sector, traditionally the largest consumer of PGMs, saw overall fabrication demand fall 4 percent to 12.14 million ounces in 2024. This decline marked the first drop since the COVID-19 pandemic, and was largely due to a 2 percent decrease in catalyzed vehicle production amid the rise of battery electric vehicles.

Industrial demand, on the other hand, was under pressure, falling 2 percent year-on-year. The biggest hit came from a 27 percent drop in chemical applications, particularly in China’s paraxylene sector, a key component in plastic production.

Against this backdrop, speculative positions in platinum have also helped drive recent price movements.

Sterck explained that in the first quarter of 2025, a confluence of market expectations and policy shifts — particularly related to US import tariffs — created arbitrage opportunities for traders.

“There was a lot of uncertainty as to whether tariffs would apply to platinum and other PGMs,” he explained, adding that the flow of metal into the US caused strong contangos in NYMEX futures markets, boosting Q1 investment figures.

Although aboveground stocks of platinum remain elevated, they are being gradually drawn down, and continued mine cutbacks could eventually tip the market further into deficit territory.

Sterck tempered this outlook with caution: “It feels like, as that range is pinching out, we’re definitely getting to a point where it seems highly likely the price will begin to reflect the underlying deficits. So we’ll have to wait and see.”

Metals Focus projects an average platinum price of US$970 for 2025 — a modest increase from last year’s average — but notes that volatility could return if investor sentiment sharpens or supply disruptions worsen.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Fintech Firm Velocity Raises US$10 Million for Enterprise Stablecoin Infrastructure

Investing 3 Mins Read

In what is believed to be the largest European pre-seed funding round of the year, UK fintech startup Velocity has emerged with US$10 million in early backing to develop a stablecoin infrastructure platform.

The initiative is aimed squarely at large enterprises grappling with outdated cross-border financial systems.

The round, led by US-based Activant Capital, brings together global investors and fintech insiders, underscoring growing confidence in stablecoins as a practical tool for enterprise-grade settlement — not just crypto speculation.

Founded by payments veterans Tom Greenwood (Volt, IFX) and Eric Queathem (Worldpay, McKinsey & Company), Velocity aims to modernize the back-end plumbing of global money movement.

Rather than displacing traditional finance, the startup sees itself as a connective layer between banks and the blockchain, offering modular infrastructure that enables businesses to operate seamlessly across fiat and digital currencies.

“We’re not chasing crypto hype,” Greenwood, who serves as CEO, said in a statement. “We’re leveraging stablecoins to remove friction, accelerate settlement, and drive improved performance in real-world financial operations.”

That friction remains a massive challenge in today’s corporate finance landscape.

Large businesses routinely rely on patchwork systems for international payments, liquidity and currency management — often involving multiple banking partners, outdated software and opaque fees.

Velocity says it is addressing that complexity with a programmable, artificial intelligence-enabled platform that integrates stablecoins into traditional financial operations without requiring companies to overhaul their existing systems.

Greenwood and Queathem bring decades of experience to the table. Greenwood previously founded Volt, a fintech firm focused on real-time payments, and IFX, a foreign exchange and payments firm. Queathem spent nearly 10 years at Worldpay, where he led global strategy during its expansion into both legacy and crypto-enabled markets.

“We’ve experienced first-hand the financial complexity of operating a global business — the fragmentation of providers, the lack of transparency, and the workarounds,” said Queathem, who holds the position of president.

“Velocity is built to eliminate that friction with infrastructure that scales, adapts, and solves the real-world problems large enterprises face every day when moving and managing money around the world.”

Their pitch appears to have resonated with investors who see a broader shift underway. Fuel Ventures (LSE:FVV), Triton Capital, Fabric Ventures, Commerce Ventures and Preface Ventures all joined the round, alongside strategic angels from companies like Visa (NYSE:V), PayPal (NASDAQ:PYPL), Circle and Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL).

For lead investor Activant Capital, the startup’s timing aligns with what it sees as a generational opportunity to reshape how capital flows. “Tom and Eric bring the rare technical depth and regulatory fluency needed to build and scale a product like this,” said Andrew Steele, partner at Activant, in Wednesday’s (May 28) release.

“We’ve shared this vision for years — and now is the time to bring it to life.”

Far from being a headwind, Velocity sees that regulatory movement as validation that the infrastructure moment for stablecoins has arrived. While Velocity hasn’t disclosed specific clients or product launch dates, early pilot programs are underway, with large enterprises exploring digital treasury functions and cross-border liquidity optimization.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Quimbaya Gold Announces Strategic Private Placement of up to $2,000,000 Led by Co-Founder of Gran Colombia Gold, Serafino Iacono

Investing 7 Mins Read

Strategic financing deepens alignment with industry leader as Quimbaya advances drill-ready Colombian gold portfolio

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWS WIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Quimbaya Gold Inc. (CSE: QIM) (OTCQB: QIMGF) (FSE: K05) (‘Quimbaya Gold’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it intends to complete a non-brokered private placement of up to 5,714,286 units of the Company (each, a ‘Unit’), at a price of C$0.35 per Unit, to raise gross proceeds of up to approximately C$2,000,000 (the ‘Offering’), including a lead order of C$500,000 from Mr. Serafino Iacono, an influential figure in Colombian mining, Co-founder of Gran Colombia Gold Corp. (now Aris Mining Corporation) and Executive Chairman of Denarius Metals Corp.

Each Unit will be comprised of one common share in the capital of the Company (a ‘Share‘) and one common share purchase warrant (a ‘Warrant‘). Each Warrant will entitle the holder to acquire one Share at a price of C$0.60 per Share for a period of 36 months from the issuance date of the Offering. The remaining Units issued under the Offering will be limited to other strategic investors with deep experience in Latin American exploration and project development.

‘Seeing our hard work over the past few years recognized by industry leaders like Serafino Iacono is a real validation of our strategy and our assets,’ said Alexandre P. Boivin, CEO of Quimbaya Gold. ‘With strong exploration results, a drill-ready portfolio, and the right people around the table, we’re incredibly excited about what lies ahead, especially as we prepare to kick off drilling at Tahami South. This is a pivotal moment for Quimbaya, and we’re just getting started.’

Strategic Alignment and Validation

The participation of Mr. Iacono, who played a pivotal role in the revival of the Colombian gold sector, signals high conviction in Quimbaya’s assets and leadership. His investment marks a strong endorsement of the Company’s solid Portfolio and in particular its drill-ready Tahami Project in the Middle Cauca Belt, one of Colombia’s most prolific gold districts.

‘I believe Quimbaya is uniquely positioned at the intersection of geology, timing, and leadership. The team is aligned, the land is exceptional, and in this rising gold environment the moment is now,’ said Mr. Iacono. ‘I’m excited to support a company that understands what it takes to build a real gold story in Colombia.’

The net proceeds raised from the sale of the Units will be used for general exploration expenses and for general working capital purposes. Completion of the Offering is subject to applicable regulatory approvals. All securities issued pursuant to the Offering will be subject to a four-month and one-day hold period in accordance with applicable securities laws. The Offering is expected to close on or about June 6th 2025.

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

About Quimbaya

Quimbaya aims to discover gold resources through exploration and acquisition of mining properties in the prolific mining districts of Colombia. Managed by an experienced team in the mining sector, Quimbaya is focused on three projects in the regions of Segovia (Tahami Project), Puerto Berrio (Berrio Project), and Abejorral (Maitamac Project), all located in Antioquia Province, Colombia.

Contact Information

Alexandre P. Boivin, President and CEO apboivin@quimbayagold.com

Jason Frame, Manager of Communications jason.frame@quimbayagold.com +1-647-576-7135‎

Quimbaya Gold Inc.
Follow on X @quimbayagoldinc
Follow on LinkedIn @quimbayagold
Follow on Instagram @quimbayagoldinc
Follow on Facebook @quimbayagoldinc

Cautionary Statements

Certain statements contained in this press release constitute ‘forward-looking information’ as that term is defined in applicable Canadian securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included herein are forward-looking information. Generally, but not always, forward-looking statements and information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as ‘intends’, ‘expects’ or ‘anticipates’, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘would’ or ‘occur’. Forward-looking statements herein include statements and information regarding the Offering, including its timing, intended closing date, intended use of proceeds and intended gross proceeds, any expected issuance of the Units or the Shares and Warrants which comprise them, a commitment by any person to purchase Units pursuant to the Offering, receipt by the Company of any applicable regulatory approval, the future plans for the Company, future expectations for the gold sector generally, the Colombian gold sector more particularly, or how global or local market trends may affect the Company, intended exploration on any of the Company’s properties and any results thereof, the strength of the Company’s mineral property portfolio, aims and goals of the Company, and other forward-looking information. Forward-looking information by its nature is based on assumptions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Quimbaya to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or information. These assumptions include, but are not limited to, that the Offering as described herein will close on terms materially similar to the terms described herein. The future outcomes that relate to forward-looking statements may be influenced by many factors, including but not limited to: future planned development and other activities on the Company’s mineral properties; an inability to finance the Company; obtaining required permitting on the Company’s mineral properties in a timely manner; any adverse changes to the planned operations of the Company’s mineral properties; failure by the Company for any reason to undertake expected exploration programs; achieving and maintaining favourable relationships with local communities; mineral exploration results that are poorer or better than expected; prices for gold remaining as expected; currency exchange rates remaining as expected; availability of funds for the Company’s projects; prices for energy inputs, labour, materials, supplies and services (including transportation); no labour-related disruptions; no unplanned delays or interruptions in scheduled construction and production; all necessary permits, licenses and regulatory approvals are received in a timely manner; the Offering proceeds being received as anticipated; all requisite regulatory and stock exchange approvals for the Offering are obtained in a timely fashion; investor participation in the Offering; and the Company’s ability to comply with environmental, health and safety laws. Although Quimbaya’s management believes that the assumptions made and the expectations represented by such information are reasonable, there can be no assurance that the forward-looking information will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, should one or more of the risks, uncertainties or other factors materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in forward-looking statements or information. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information as there can be no assurance that the plans, intentions or expectations upon which they are placed will occur. Forward-looking information contained in this news release is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. The forward-looking information contained in this news release represents the expectations of Quimbaya as of the date of this news release and, accordingly, is subject to change after such date. Except as required by law, Quimbaya does not expect to update forward-looking statements and information continually as conditions change.

Neither CSE nor its Regulation Services Provider 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/253731

News Provided by Newsfile 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
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
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

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

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

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