Author

admin

Browsing

The New York Knicks will live to fight another day.

Facing their first closeout game of this postseason, New York responded with energy and intensity that did not wane in any quarter — something that had plagued the Knicks in the Eastern Conference finals. The Knicks also became the first team to hold the Indiana Pacers to fewer than 100 points in any game this postseason in Thursday’s 111-94 victory.

The Pacers will now get their chance to close out New York at home, at the Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, on Saturday for Game 6.

From the start of the game, when he scored the first six Knicks points, All-Star guard Jalen Brunson carried New York with 32 points on a hyper-efficient 12-of-18 shooting night that also saw him flush 4-of-7 of his attempts from beyond the arc. Center Karl-Anthony Towns, who nursed a left knee contusion heading into the game, also chipped in 24 points and 13 rebounds.

More impressive was New York’s defensive effort, as the Knicks swarmed Indiana’s backcourt, rotating with tenacity, deflecting passes and creating turnovers. The Pacers gave the ball away 19 times.

All-Star Pacers point guard Tyrese Haliburton, who was coming off of a historic 32-point, 15-assist, 12- rebound triple-double, finished with just 8 points on 2-of-7 shooting. In fact, Aaron Nesmith (8 attempts), Andrew Nembhard (8), Obi Toppin (10) and Benedict Mathurin (10) all attempted more shots than Haliburton did.

Mathurin, who played just 24:42 off the bench, led all Pacers with 23 points

The Oklahoma City Thunder awaits the winner of the series in the NBA Finals. The Thunder beat the Minnesota Timberwolves in Game 5 of the Western Conference Finals on Wednesday.

USA TODAY Sports provided full coverage of Thursday night’s Game 5. Scroll below for highlights and a full recap of the game.

Game 5 highlights: Knicks vs. Pacers

See full highlight from New York’s win over Indiana Thursday night:

Final: Knicks 111, Pacers 94

Jalen Brunson and the New York Knicks kept their NBA postseason alive with a 111-94 victory over the Indiana Pacers in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals.

The Pacers still lead the series 3-2 and will host the Knicks for Game 6 back in Indiana. 

Brunson finished with 32 points, five rebounds and five assists. Karl-Anthony Towns produced a double-double with 24 points and 13 rebounds.

It was a fairly quiet night for Tyrese Haliburton, who scored just eight points on 2-for-7 shooting from the field for the Pacers. 

Pascal Siakam had 15 points, six rebounds and five assists while Bennedict Mathurin came off the bench and finished with 23 points and nine rebounds.

The Oklahoma City Thunder awaits the winner of the series in the NBA Finals. The Thunder beat the Minnesota Timberwolves in Game 5 of the Western Conference Finals on Wednesday.

3Q: Knicks 90, Pacers 73

After a scoreless second quarter, Jalen Brunson got back to the business of getting to the hoop, scoring 10 of New York’s first 12 points of the third as part of a run to push their lead to 20.

Karl Anthony Towns (19 points, 10 rebounds) sat the last six minutes of the quarter after picking up his fourth foul and the Pacers used an 12-2 run and used the strategy of fouling Knicks center Mitchell Robinson to stop the clock, while trying to cut into the lead, but Brunson scored six points in less than a minute, capped off by a four-point play with 2:56 left as he scored 16 in the quarter.

The Pacers, who are shooting 38%, are led by Bennedict Mathurin, who has 17 points off the bench. Obi Toppin added 11 and Pascal Siakam has 11 points and five rebounds and is the only Indiana starter in double figures. Tyrese Haliburton has been a non-factor so far, scoring six points in his 26 minutes of action. 

Halftime: Knicks 56, Pacers 45

The urgency for the New York Knicks is palpable.

After struggling to stack positive quarters throughout the Eastern Conference finals, the Knicks maintained their intensity in the second period, extending their lead to 11 points.

The Knicks rode a 14-2 run in the middle of the quarter, as All-Stars Jalen Brunson (14 points) and Karl-Anthony Towns (17) carried New York. But the most obvious positive for the Knicks has been the way they have protected the ball, turning it over just 6 times. New York has also kept its defensive intensity and has attacked the rim, earning a 32-14 edge in points in the paint.

The Pacers have struggled from the floor, though the starting unit, in particular, has had a rough go. The first five combined to score just 22 points in the first half, with All-Star point guard Tyrese Haliburton having a difficult time generating his shot. Haliburton did not make a single field goal, missing his 3 shot attempts.

He scored just 4 points in the half, while shooting guard Aaron Nesmith was held scoreless.

The Pacers are shooting 37.5% from the floor, compared the New York’s clip of 51.1%.

1Q: Knicks 27, Pacers 23

With their backs against the wall and facing elimination, the Knicks came out firing with Jalen Brunson scoring the team’s first six points as New York shot out to an early 10-point lead. Brunson finished the quarter with 14 points, hitting two 3-pointers as part of an 11-1 run, and Karl-Anthony Towns continued his aggressive play on both ends of the floor with five points and three rebounds. Tyrese Haliburton, who had a triple-double in Game 4, scored two points. Indiana shot 37% in the quarter.

Jalen Brunson stats

Knicks star Jalen Brunson had 32 points, five assists and five rebounds with 6:04 left in Game 5 against the Pacers. He shot 12-of-18 from the field and 4-for-7 from the 3-point line.

New York Knicks starting lineup

Karl-Anthony Towns, Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson, OG Anunoby and Mikal Bridges will start for the Knicks in Game 5 against the Pacers tonight.

Indiana Pacers starting lineup

Tyrese Haliburton, Andrew Nembhard, Aaron Nesmith, Pascal Siakam and Myles Turner will start for the Pacers in Game 5 against the Knicks tonight.

What time is Pacers vs. Knicks?

The New York Knicks will host the Indiana Pacers for Game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals at Madison Square Garden. The game is scheduled for 8 p.m. ET.

USA Today Staff predictions:

  • Scooby Axson: Pacers 115, Knicks 109
  • Cydney Henderson: Knicks 108, Pacers 102
  • Lorenzo Reyes: Pacers 116, Knicks 110
  • Heather Tucker: Knicks 97, Pacers 94
  • James H. Williams: Knicks 102, Pacers 101
  • Jeff Zillgitt: Knicks 111, Pacers 105

Indiana Pacers vs. New York Knicks predictions: Expert picks for Game 5

ESPN: Pacers have the edge

According to ESPN Analytics, Indiana has a 54% chance of winning Game 5 against the New York Knicks (46%).

 SportsBettingDime: Knicks 117.1, Pacers 115.5

The site formula predicts that New York will beat Indiana.

Sportsbook Wire: Pacers 121, Knicks 116

Ryan Dodson writes: ‘I like the Pacers here because I don’t think there’s any way they can lose both games at home after the momentum they stole in New York.’

Indiana Pacers vs. New York Knicks Game 5 odds

The New York Knicks are favored to beat the Indiana Pacers in Game 5 at Madison Square Garden, according to BetMGM (odds as of Thursday, May 29):

  • Spread: Knicks (-4.5)
  • Moneyline: Knicks (-185); Pacers (+150)
  • Over/under: 222.5

How to watch Indiana Pacers vs. New York Knicks

  • Time: 8 p.m. ET/5 p.m. PT
  • Location: Madison Square Garden (New York)
  • TV: TNT, truTV
  • Stream: Sling TV, Fubo, Max

Watch Pacers vs. Knicks Game 5 on Fubo

Aaron Nesmith injury update

Aaron Nesmith will be available for Game 5 tonight, according to Pacers coach Rick Carlisle. Nesmith has been dealing with a right ankle sprain.

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

The Pacers take on the Knicks at 8 p.m. ET with coverage on TNT, truTV and streaming on Max.

Where is Pacers-Knicks Game 5?

  • The Knicks will host the Pacers from Madison Square Garden in New York City for Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals.

Karl-Anthony Towns injury update

Karl-Anthony Towns is going to play in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals, according to Knicks. Towns went through his regular pre-game routine minutes before tipoff and did not appear to be in any obvious discomfort. The Knicks announced shortly before tipoff that Towns would be in the starting lineup along with Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson, OG Anunoby and Mikal Bridges. — Lorenzo Reyes

NBA championship odds 

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

  • 1. Oklahoma City Thunder (-750) 
  • 2. Indiana Pacers (+650) 
  • 3. New York Knicks (+2800) 

Oklahoma City Thunder reach NBA Finals

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.

More from Thunder’s Western Conference Finals win.

When are the 2025 NBA Finals? Schedule

*-if necessary

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

Pacers vs. Knicks remaining schedule: Eastern Conference Finals

  • Game 1: Pacers 138, Knicks 135 
  • Game 2: Pacers 114, Knicks 109 
  • Game 3: Knicks 106, Pacers 100 
  • Game 4, May 27: 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.*  

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

Knicks vs Pacers rivalry 

The Knicks and Pacers played six memorable playoff series against one another over an eight-season span, including two consecutive matchups in the Eastern Conference finals in 1999 and 2000. The anticipation for this latest matchup has also triggered nostalgia for those classic battles between Reggie Miller and Patrick Ewing, and how the Knicks and Pacers turned into an NBA playoffs rivalry. Here are some of the best (or infamous) moments from Knicks vs. Pacers playoff series, courtesy of Mark Giannotto.

Why is Spike Lee a Knicks fan? 

The New York Knicks’ historic postseason journey this year has not only reignited the passion of veteran Knicks fans but also attracted a new wave of supporters, uniting them in a shared sense of pride and excitement. 

Among the most enthusiastic supporters is Spike Lee, a longtime leader of the Knicks fan base. 

The film director is often seen in Knicks gear, sporting the standout orange and blue in some fashion, and he was inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame as a superfan in October 2024. 

Why is Timothee Chalamet a Knicks fan? 

This rare and exciting moment has ignited enthusiasm for New York Knicks fans everywhere, including Academy Award-nominated actor Timothée Chalamet. 

Chalamet often joins the jubilant Madison Square Garden crowd alongside Spike Lee, a prominent figure on the Knicks’ sidelines. Chalamet’s fervent support for the Knicks, as reported by the New York Times, began during his high school days at LaGuardia High School in Manhattan, when he was a budding actor striving to carve his niche. 

Who is Mariska Hargitay? 

Fans tuning in to a New York Knicks game have at some point probably seen actress Mariska Hargitay in the crowd at Madison Square Garden. 

The star of the long-running NBC show ‘Law & Order: Special Victims Unit’ is a frequent presence along the sideline at MSG, with Knicks star Jalen Brunson calling the actress ‘my favorite person ever.’ What better co-sign could a fan ask for? 

Here’s what to know about Knicks superfan Mariska Hargitay.

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 voted on the squad. View the complete list.

NBA champions by year

Winners over the last 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

The Dallas Stars got off to a bad start while being eliminated Thursday night by the Edmonton Oilers.

A careless penalty. A power-play goal in which Corey Perry was left alone in front. Another defensive breakdown on the Oilers’ second goal by Mattias Janmark at 7:09.

Stars coach Peter DeBoer called a timeout, then did something shocking: He pulled star goaltender Jake Oettinger and inserted backup Casey DeSmith.

DeBoer explained his reasoning afterward, saying he didn’t fully blame Oettinger for the goals but at the same time, he cited the ‘reality’ of the situation.

‘If you go back to last year’s playoffs, he’s lost six of seven games to Edmonton and we gave up two goals on two shots in an elimination game,’ DeBoer said. ‘It was partly to spark our team and wake them up and partly knowing that status quo had not been working. That’s a pretty big sample size.’

DeSmith gave up a quick goal to Jeff Skinner and though the Stars pulled close on a couple of occasions. they fell 6-3.

‘We didn’t roll over,’ DeBoer said.

Oettinger was one of three U.S. goalies at the 4 Nations Face-Off who could also be the netminders for the 2026 Olympics. Top goalie Connor Hellebuyck had some tough games on the road for the Winnipeg Jets in the playoffs. Oettinger had a 3.93 goals-against average and .853 save percentage in the conference final. Boston’s Jeremy Swayman missed the playoffs but helped the USA win a rare gold medal at the world championships.

The Stars have now lost three consecutive trips to the Western Conference final.

‘Our group needs to go – you know, coaches, players – and reflect in the summer on what we can do when we get to this point against the best teams,’ DeBoer said.

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

Don’t call it a comeback! Three-time Stanley Cup winner Jonathan Toews, 37, has not played in the NHL since 2023, but he’s reportedly interested in returning to the league as soon as the 2025-26 season.

Just two months after Toews had told The Athletic’s Mark Lazerus that he was not done with hockey, it appears his return may be sooner than expected. The Athletic’s Pierre LeBrun reports that Toews informed his agent, Pat Brisson, that he’s ‘100% committed’ to returning to the NHL.

LeBrun also says that Brisson informed him that he will be taking calls from NHL teams regarding Toews’ future before the start of the NHL free agency period on July 1. Toews has also reportedly been working out for several months now in an effort to fuel his return.

When did Toews last play?

Toews’ last game came on April 13, 2023 against the Philadelphia Flyers. The Blackhawks lost 5-4 in overtime, but Toews did tally a goal in the contest.

During his final season, Toews put up 15 goals and 16 assists across 53 games. Toews missed significant time that season, failing to participate in any Blackhawks’ games in February or March 2023, due to a long COVID-related illness.

Why did Toews step away originally?

Following the 2023 season, Toews announced on Instagram that he would be taking an indefinite break from professional hockey due to health concerns. Toews had struggled with COVID for most of his career post-2020. He missed the entirety of the shortened 2020-21 campaign due to the illness, and issues sustained through 2023. Toews also revealed he’d received a diagnosis of CIRS (Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) at the tail end of the 2021 season.

Jonathan Toews career accomplishments

  • Three-time Stanley Cup champion (2010, 2013, 2015)
  • Conn Smythe Trophy recipient (2010)
  • Selke Trophy recipient (2013)
  • Mark Messier Leadership Award recipient (2015)
  • 6x All-Star (2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017)
  • 372 career goals
  • 511 career assists
  • 2x Olympic gold medalist (2010, 2014)
  • Named to NHL’s 100 greatest players list for league’s 100th anniversary
This post appeared first on USA TODAY

MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. – The man with the tan came with a plan.

Mississippi coach Lane Kiffin, his skin so bronzed he looked as if he just came off the sunny beach here, entered his session with reporters on Tuesday ready to pitch his idea for a 16-team College Football Playoff.

Kiffin’s playoff plan looks like this:

Sixteen teams. Four rounds. No automatic bids. Every team must earn at-large selection. The selection process would involve analytics, combined with a human element.

This wasn’t my first time hearing Kiffin’s idea. He ran this plan past me when we spoke in March. At the time, I didn’t love Kiffin’s idea. I detect no irreparable flaw with the current 12-team playoff. I didn’t hate his idea, though. And I’m starting to like it more.

In the months since Kiffin first floated his idea, the possibility a 16-team playoff beginning as soon as 2026 has gained steam across conferences. While the future format continues to be debated, it’s clear that expansion is likely coming, in some shape and form. I’m beginning to relinquish my grip on the 12-team playoff and accept the reality of a 16-team future.

As I listened to SEC muckety-mucks debate the merits of the leading 16-team ideas at the conference’s spring meetings here this week, it struck me that maybe Kiffin’s proposal remains the best 16-team proposal.

Kiffin’s idea certainly trumps the 4+4+2+2+1 model the Big Ten favors. That rigged math equation would preassign four auto-bids to the Big Ten, plus four more to the SEC, two to the Big 12, two to the ACC, one to the top remaining conference champion, and then leave three at-large bids. This crock of a plan would reward preseason conference prestige as much as in-season results. No thanks. Someone, please shove this Big Ten brainchild into the woodchipper, and scatter the ashes on the surface of the sun.

Kiffin’s plan more closely resembles the 5+11 model that the Big 12 publicly supports. The ACC also reportedly favors a 5+11 system, and some SEC coaches took a shine to the idea this week, even while SEC athletic directors collectively seem more interested in the auto-bid plan favored by the Big Ten.

In the 5+11 model, the top five conference champions would secure bids, leaving 11 at-large bids.

That model would produce brackets that likely would resemble Kiffin’s plan, but the Ole Miss coach prefers no auto-bids. So, let’s play out his idea with a look in the rearview mirror.

Here’s how the bracket would have looked in Kiffin’s model last season, using the final CFP rankings as the guide for determining the 16 qualifiers.

No. 16 Clemson at No. 1 Oregon

Critics of a 16-team playoff say there aren’t 16 teams deserving of playoff and that too many first-round games would be duds. But, here we have the Big Ten champion against the ACC champion. Dan Lanning vs. Dabo Swinney. This would have been appointment viewing, not a dud.

No. 15 South Carolina at No. 2 Georgia

SEC expansion and the elimination of divisions took the Georgia-South Carolina rivalry off the schedule in 2024. Could a red-hot Gamecocks team have upset a Georgia squad starting Gunnar Stockton? It’s plausible.

No. 14 Ole Miss at No. 3 Texas

Conferences are so big now that teams don’t play half the other teams in their own league. Here we have another matchup of two SEC teams that didn’t play in the regular season. The Jekyll-and-Hyde Rebels whipped Georgia but lost to Kentucky. If the good version of Ole Miss showed its face, this game could have been a doozy.

No. 13 Miami at No. 4 Penn State

Are you liking these matchups yet? How about this one, pitting Cam Ward against Penn State’s stout defense. In the playoff that actually happened, Penn State waltzed to the semifinals by beating SMU and Boise State. This billing with Miami would have been a better matchup.

No. 12 Arizona State at No. 5 Notre Dame

In the playoff, the Sun Devils gave Texas all it could handle in an overtime loss in the playoff quarterfinals. In this revised bracket, Cam Skattebo would have tested the strength of Notre Dame’s defense. Chalk this up as another game I would’ve enjoyed seeing.

No. 11 Alabama at No. 6 Ohio State

Holy, moly. What a dream matchup of two college football monsters. Ohio State proved throughout the postseason it was the nation’s best team. If Alabama couldn’t score a touchdown against Oklahoma, I don’t see how it could have solved Ohio State’s defense. The game probably wouldn’t have lived up to the hype.

No. 10 SMU at No. 7 Tennessee

The Vols looked pitiful in a playoff loss at Ohio State, but this draw at Neyland Stadium probably would have produced a much different fate. The committee flubbed by awarding SMU a playoff spot. Ten-win Brigham Young, which beat SMU during the regular season, possessed better credentials, but I digress. Alas, we’ll live with the committee’s choice and figure SMU-Tennessee at least wouldn’t have been any worse than what we saw in the playoff with SMU-Penn State or Tennessee-Ohio State.

No. 9 Boise State at No. 8 Indiana

I detect upset potential. Indiana built its playoff case by consistently beating bad or mediocre teams. That’s not nothing, but Boise State showed in a 37-34 loss at Oregon in September it’s up for a challenge. This matchup featuring Heisman Trophy runner-up Ashton Jeanty would have pitted an O.G. Cinderella, Boise State, against the 2024 slipper-wearing Hoosiers.

No perfect College Football Playoff plan

The Kiffin plan and the 5+11 model would have produced the same qualifiers last season. In the 5+11 construct, auto bids would have gone to Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, Arizona State and Clemson.

Once I assigned teams to Kiffin’s idea and saw the matchups, I liked his plan more. I daresay these first-round matchups, on the whole, would have been better in quality than those served up in last season’s 12-team playoff.

“There’s still flaws in every system,” Kiffin said, “but the best system should be 16, and it should be the 16 best” teams.

“Get rid of automatics, and figure out a system to get the best 16 teams in.”

Doesn’t sound half bad.

The man with the tan cooked up a worthy plan.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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