Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Investing

Syntholene Energy Corp. Closes Oversubscribed $3.75 Million Non-Brokered Private Placement

No Comments

Proceeds to be used to Accelerate Procurement and Component Assembly for Demonstration Facility Deployment in Iceland

Syntholene Energy CORP. (TSXV: ESAF,OTC:SYNTF) (FSE: 3DD0) (OTCQB: SYNTF) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Syntholene’) is pleased to announce that it has closed its previously announced non-brokered private placement for aggregate gross proceeds of $3,750,000 (the ‘Financing’).

‘We are thrilled to have successfully closed this financing, which reflects strong investor confidence in Syntholene’s technology and vision,’ said Daniel Sutton, Chief Executive Officer. ‘These proceeds will accelerate the development of our demonstration facility in Iceland as we continue to advance our mission of delivering cost-competitive, carbon-neutral synthetic fuel.’

An aggregate of 8,333,333 units (each, a ‘Unit‘) were issued at a price of $0.45 per Unit pursuant to the Financing, with each Unit comprised of one common share of the Company (a ‘Common Share‘) and one non-transferable common share purchase warrant (a ‘Warrant‘). Each Warrant is exercisable into one additional Common Share at an exercise price of $0.63 for a period of two years from the date of issuance, subject to an acceleration provision whereby the Company may accelerate the expiry date of the Warrants if the daily trading price of the Common Shares equals or exceeds $0.90 on the TSX Venture Exchange for a period of ten consecutive trading days, in which case the Warrants will expire on the 30th day after the date on which notice is given by news release (the ‘Acceleration Provision‘).

Gross proceeds from the Financing are expected to be used toward the procurement and assembly of components for the Company’s planned demonstration facility in Iceland, and toward corporate marketing initiatives, investor relations and working capital.

In connection with the Financing, the Company entered into a fiscal advisory agreement dated February 11, 2026 with Canaccord Genuity Corp. ( ‘Canaccord‘), pursuant to which the Company and Canaccord agreed to extend the right of first refusal under the agency agreement between the Company, Canaccord and other agents dated September 18, 2025 to a period ending 18 months from closing of the Financing, and for the Company to pay certain fees to Canaccord in connection with the Financing. On closing of the Financing, Canaccord was paid a cash commission of $112,032, issued 248,960 non-transferable broker warrants, 111,111 corporate finance shares and 111,111 non-transferrable corporate finance warrants. Each broker warrant is exercisable into one Common Share at $0.45 per share for a period of two years from the date of issuance. Each corporate finance warrant is exercisable into one Common Share at $0.63 per share for a period of two years from the date of issuance, subject to the Acceleration Provision.

In addition, the Company entered into a finders’ fee agreement dated March 2, 2026 with Haywood Securities Inc. (‘Haywood‘), pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay certain fees to the Canaccord in connection with the Financing. On closing of the Financing, Haywood was paid a cash commission of $7,992 and issued 17,760 non-transferrable broker warrants. Each broker warrant is exercisable into one Common Share at $0.45 per share for a period of two years from the date of issuance.

All securities issued pursuant to the Financing are subject to a statutory hold period of four months and one day from the date of issuance, in accordance with applicable securities laws. The securities offered pursuant to the Financing have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

The Financing constitutes a related party transaction within the meaning of Multilateral Instrument 61-101 – Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (‘MI 61-101‘), as certain related parties of the Company participated in the Financing as follows: John Kutsch, director and officer acquired 1,455,556 Units for $655,000, Grant Tanaka, Chief Financial Officer acquired 111,111 Units for $50,000, and Anna Pagliaro, director acquired 22,222 Units for $10,000. Pursuant to Sections 5.5(b) and 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101, the Financing is exempt from the requirement to obtain a formal valuation and minority shareholder approval in respect of this transaction as the Company is not listed on the specified markets set out in MI 61-101 and the fair market value of the consideration from the related parties participating in the Financing is not greater than 25% of the market capitalization of the Company. The aforementioned directors disclosed their interest in the Financing to the board of directors of the Company, and the disinterested members of the board approved the Financing and related party transactions under applicable corporate law. In connection with the Financing, each investor in the Financing entered into a standard form of subscription agreement with the Company containing customary terms for a private placement of the nature of the Financing. The Company did not file a material change report in respect of the Financing at least 21 days before the closing of the Financing, which the Company deems reasonable in the circumstances in order to complete the Financing in an expeditious manner.

Early Warning Disclosure – Acquisition by John Kutsch

John Kutsch, a director of the Company, acquired 1,455,556 Units pursuant to the Financing for aggregate consideration of $655,000 representing a price of $0.45 per Unit. Immediately prior to closing of the Financing, Mr. Kutsch beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, 15,583,467 Common Shares, 543,400 Options, 100,000 RSUs and 2,386,755 deferred consideration shares (‘DCSs‘), representing approximately 22.6% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a non-diluted basis and, assuming the settlement of all RSUs into Common Shares, exercise of all Options into Common Shares and issuance of all DCSs, approximately 25.86% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a partially diluted basis. Immediately following closing of the Financing, Mr. Kutsch beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, 17,039,023 Common Shares, 543,400 Options, 100,000 RSUs, 2,386,755 DCSs and 1,455,556 Warrants, representing approximately 21.96% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a non-diluted basis and, assuming the settlement of all RSUs into Common Shares, exercise of all Options and Warrants into Common Shares and issuance of all DCSs, approximately 26.23% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares on a partially diluted basis. The Common Shares held by Mr. Kutsch are held for investment purposes and were acquired for investment. Mr. Kutsch has a long-term view of the investment and may acquire additional securities of the Company either on the open market, through private acquisitions or as compensation or sell the securities on the open market or through private dispositions in the future depending on market conditions, general economic and industry conditions, the Company’s business and financial condition, reformulation of plans and/or other relevant factors. Certain securities held by Mr. Kutsch as subject to Tier 2 escrow in accordance with TSXV policies, as described in the Filing Statement dated November 30, 2025, a copy of which is filed on the Company’s profile on SEDAR+.

A copy of John Kutsch’s early warning report will be filed on the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and may also be requested by mail at Syntholene Energy Corp. Suite 1723, 595 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V7X 1J1, Attention: Corporate Secretary or phone at 604-684-6730.

About Syntholene

Syntholene is actively commercializing its novel Hybrid Thermal Production System for low-cost clean fuel synthesis. The target output is ultrapure synthetic jet fuel, manufactured at 70% lower cost than the nearest competing technology today. The company’s mission is to deliver the world’s first truly high-performance, low-cost, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuel at an industrial scale, unlocking the potential to produce clean synthetic fuel at lower cost than fossil fuels, for the first time.

Syntholene’s power-to-liquid strategy harnesses thermal energy to power proprietary integrations of hydrogen production and fuel synthesis. Syntholene has secured 20MW of dedicated energy to support the Company’s upcoming demonstration facility and commercial scale-up.

Founded by experienced operators across advanced energy infrastructure, nuclear technology, low-emissions steel refining, process engineering, and capital markets, Syntholene aims to be the first team to deliver a scalable modular production platform for cost-competitive synthetic fuel, thus accelerating the commercialization of carbon-neutral eFuels across global markets.

For further information, please contact:
Dan Sutton, CEO
comms@syntholene.com
www.syntholene.com
+1 608-305-4835

Investor Relations
KIN Communications Inc.
604-684-6730
ESAF@kincommunications.com

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

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words ‘expect’, ‘anticipate’, ‘aims’, ‘continue’, ‘estimate’, ‘objective’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘project’, ‘should’, ‘believe’, ‘plans’, ‘intends’ and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information or statements. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, including but not limited to statements regarding the proposed use of proceeds of the Financing, development of the test facility, commercial scalability, technical and economic viability, anticipated geothermal power availability, anticipated benefit of eFuel, and future commercial opportunities, are forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by the Company, including without limitation the assumption that the Company will be able to execute its business plan, including that it will use the proceeds of the Financing, if any, as described herein, that the Company will be able to advance its planned test facility, that the eFuel will have its expected benefits, that there will be market adoption, and that the Company will be able to access financing as needed to fund its business plan. Although the Company believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking statements and information are based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements and information because the Company can give no assurance that they 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 could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks, including, without limitation, Syntholene’s ability to meet production targets, realize projected economic benefits, overcome technical challenges, secure financing, maintain regulatory compliance, manage geopolitical risks, and successfully negotiate definitive terms. Syntholene does not undertake any obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities laws.

Readers are advised to exercise caution and not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

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

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/286066

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Economy

Why Do Investors Keep Buying Century Bonds?

No Comments

Every few years, the century bond returns — not exactly with a bang, but with a new, shiny calculation involved. 

As reported by the FT and Bloomberg last month, Google’s parent company has been busy tapping the bond market for everything from 3-year to 50-year bonds in several major markets (US, Switzerland, UK). Now it’s trying for the ultimate prize: a century bond.

Century bonds are exactly what they sound like: a bond, often issued by a government or a long-lived institution like a university, that runs for a hundred years, often at interest rates somewhat above prevailing market rates or reference rates. For the issuer, they make a ton of sense, generationally and actuarially: They receive funds for investments right now, lock in financing costs for a long time, and face no financing rollover risk. 

It’s more of a puzzle why buyers show up for these issuances, especially since the market participants have very recent examples of being seriously burned. As a bondholder of extremely long-dated bonds, you’re always living in financial terror, waiting for rates to rise and inflict multiplied damage on the market value of your investment. Since bond prices move inversely with interest rates, the effects are more pronounced the further into the future — the longer-dated — the bond is. The loss of market value on a hundred-year bond when interest rates increase is far greater than on a ten- or two-year bond. When it does, this “dangers of duration,” as FT journalist Robin Wigglesworth has called it, completely undermines your finances for decades on end.

The last two times century bonds popped out of academic obscurity, they got a well-deserved bad rap. In the 1990s, several large companies tried them — and locked in steep and expensive rates in the five-percent region while interest rates kept falling toward zero for decades. In the late 2010s, with ZIRP dominating the world’s financial markets and trillions of mostly government debt traded at negative yield, we started seeing new players dusting off this old idea, since money now was just so cheap to be had: Universities like UPenn, Virginia, Oxford, and Rutgers took in funds for a hundred years in the two to four percent range. Then the opportunistic governments (including Ireland, Belgium, Mexico, Argentina) also successfully placed century bonds at eye-poppingly low rates. The most extreme participant was Austria, whose perfectly timed century bonds — of 2.1 percent in 2017, and then 0.85 percent and even zero percent right on the cusp of the ‘rona inflation — saved its taxpayers a fortune. 

Logic alone dictates that if you sell debt due in 2120 for zero percent or 0.85 percent a year, and then CPI (and thus your incomes and tax revenues) rise to upward of 10 percent for a few years, you’re doing great. Indeed, bond math logic made that exercise even more painful, with some of these placements trading at cents on the euro a few years after issuance, vaporizing bondholders’ money. 

Enter Big Tech: The AI Investment Needs Meet Underwater Pension Systems

With Alphabet/Google’s placements in November, and now its Swiss franc and sterling placements, it’s the first time a big tech company has dared to come back to this perilous market since the 1990s. 

What’s so odd about this hunger for long duration is that in the 2010s and during the pre-inflation pandemic years, at least bond investors collectively were starved for yield, ready to do anything to eke out a few extra basis points of return. In 2026, there are still positive yields to be had. The mystery, then, is not why Google issued but why investors rushed in. 

The $20-billion USD placement finalized at treasury yields+95 bps, while the GBP bond of £5.5, about $7.5 billion, placed at 120 basis points above gilts; the £1 billion century bond was ten times oversubscribed, according to Reuters, and carries a coupon of 6.125 percent until 2126. With the fairly recent history of century bond investors burning obscene amounts of money on mistaken duration bets, the question remains: Why were these long-maturity debt placements massively oversubscribed, at rate spreads of only about a hundred basis points above safe assets? 

Three candidate explanations. 

First, defined-benefit pension funds are extremely hungry for long-dated debt. Reinsurers and life insurance providers, too. They have long-dated liabilities that rise and fall in (net present) value with interest rates; owning equally long-dated assets compensates somewhat for that. “Strong demand from UK pension funds and insurers has made the sterling market a go-to venue for issuers seeking longer-dated funding,” reported Tasos Vossos for Bloomberg.

Second, the large embedded rate-leverage is kind of capital efficient. Bond funds don’t buy individual issuances in isolation, but compose a portfolio with a combined desired outcome, constantly micromanaging exposure and duration vis-à-vis a benchmark index. Remarked Marcus Ashworth in an opinion piece, 

Buyers of these types of security are looking to dynamically balance the risk of an entire portfolio rather than caring about annual coupon weights. Ultra-long debt allows portfolio managers to barbell their duration needs by buying more 10-year liquid debt rather than illiquid 20- to 50-year maturities.

Which is, perversely, why riding that zero-percent Austrian century bond all the way to the basement between 2020 and 2025 could have been beneficial to certain bond portfolios that paired it with other investments. When rates fall, these bonds soar, letting market participants ride the convexity game in a broad macro rate (and now also FX) game. Under functional monetary regimes with price predictability, long-dated debt is both efficient and common — think about the perpetual British Consol, the financial instrument that made the British Empire.

Plus, there’s a ton of capital-intensive bond market efficiency involved in going way out on maturity. Explains quant researcher Navnor Bawa discussing the news on his Substack: 

A one percent decline in long-term rates generates approximately 40-50 percent capital appreciation on century bonds versus 15-20 percent on 30-year debt  —  making it the most capital-efficient duration exposure available for institutions positioning for lower long-term rates.

Third, this time is different and bond investors have inflation fatigue. Many might just believe that what happened during the pandemic was a once-in-a-generation one-off event and that central bankers will do better going forward. If inflation settles back near its more usual two to three percent, or indeed rates fall back toward zero in an easy/easier monetary policy regime, locking in long real duration today at slightly higher rates might look clever rather than reckless.

This might all work out great for the issuers, and bondholders will celebrate their contribution to the AI revolution… for a few years until we have the next bout of runaway inflation prints. Most likely, the investors in these oversubscribed bonds are setting themselves up for financial troubles, by the sudden jolt of interest rates jumping higher or the slow, gradual erosion of fiat purchasing power.

The spread over sovereign credit says something about the balance sheet strength and the optimism surrounding AI-related big tech investments, certainly with behemoths like Google. Funding operations at these rates show either incredible creditworthiness — with Google and the current wave of AI optimism, at least believable — or devastating mispricing. 

Investors got the memo about AI capacity building needs, loud and clear. With collective bond market amnesia, that was about the only meaningful bit they took away. 

by
Read More
In Economy

Six Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling

No Comments

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 opinion in the Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and if you’ve spent any time reading or watching the news in the past few days, you’ve probably seen some version of “the Court struck down Trump’s tariffs.” 

While true, the analysis also strips out almost everything that matters. Here’s what the decision actually does (and does not) mean:

1) This is not a ruling against tariffs. It’s a ruling against one way of imposing them.

First and foremost, it’s important to understand that the Court very clearly did not say that all Presidentially imposed tariffs are unconstitutional, period. It also did not say anything about the justifications that the President gave for imposing the tariffs: lowering trade deficits or curtailing fentanyl smuggling. What the Court did say is that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not, in and of itself, give the President the authority to impose tariffs. All other tariff powers remain intact. This report from the Congressional Research Service provides a useful overview of each of these powers and their limits.

While these powers could, in theory, replace many of the tariffs that President Trump originally imposed under IEEPA, they cannot replace all of the tariffs, and they each require additional hurdles or have specified limits. 

Section 122, which the President has already used, only allows tariffs up to 15 percent to address “balance-of-payment deficits.” Some have time limits, while others require reports, investigations, and consultations with foreign governments. 

Importantly, though, none allow the President to impose tariffs because he didn’t like how he was talked to by a fellow head of state.

2) The case turned on seven words

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 authorizes the President to “regulate… importation… during a declared national emergency.” The entire case turned on these seven words and whether they included the power to impose tariffs. Six justices of the Court said “no.” Justice Roberts, writing the majority’s opinion, held that tariffs are fundamentally a taxing power, not a foreign affairs power, and that they differed in kind, not just degree, from the trade tools that IEEPA explicitly authorizes.

The Court also pointed out that no President had ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs before. While this is not in and of itself a winning argument (there is, after all, a first time for everything), it is still meaningful. Whenever an administration claims new power from a decades-old statute, the major questions doctrine throws up a red flag.

3) The Major Questions Doctrine is here to stay

This ruling is the latest, and possibly the most consequential, application of the major questions doctrine to date. Briefly, this relatively new doctrine contends that any time “an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear congressional authorization,” (emphasis original). 

In their 2001 opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., the Court said, “Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions — it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.”

Justice Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, put this clearly, writing, “the President claims, Congress passed that power on to him in IEEPA, permitting him to impose tariffs on nearly any goods he wishes, in any amount he wishes, based on emergencies he himself has declared. He insists, as well, that his emergency declarations are unreviewable. A ruling for him here, the President acknowledges, would afford future Presidents the same latitude he asserts for himself. So another President might impose tariffs on gas-powered automobiles to respond to climate change. Or, really, on virtually any imports for any emergency any President might perceive. And all of these emergency declarations would be unreviewable. Just ask yourself: What President would willingly give up that kind of power?”

It is for this reason, the Court’s majority held, that Congress must clearly give the power to the President. The President cannot simply assert that he has Article I powers.

4) The Dissent Deserves a Fair Hearing

Justice Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, accepts the validity of the major questions doctrine, but questions whether it applies in this particular case. He cites Justice Gorsuch’s four “telling clues” from West Virginia v. EPA (which can be found on pages 746–748) and argues on pages 35–44 of the Court’s opinion that at least three of them do not apply. 

For example, he argues that in 1976, Congress and the Court understood that the phrase “adjust the imports” found in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allowed the use of fees to do so despite this word not appearing in the Act. Since IEEPA was passed one year later in 1977, Justice Kavanaugh argues that the phrase “regulate… imports” also authorizes the imposition of fees, of which tariffs are but one option. Indeed, as he writes, “Any citizens or Members of Congress in 1977 who somehow thought that the ‘regulate… importation’ language in IEEPA excluded tariffs would have had their heads in the sand.”

The majority had responses to this, primarily pointing out the difference in the scale of what President Trump was doing versus what Presidents Ford or Nixon had done. Likewise, reasonable people can debate whether tariffs are a “tax” or a “fee” (hint: they’re a tax) and the semantic/legal differences therein. But as Kavanaugh points out, this is in direct opposition to the Court’s previous stance that the major questions doctrine is not a “magic words” test, whereby the Court is essentially requiring that Congress use very specific words to allow very specific actions by agencies, including the President. 

5) Refunds Are a Possibility

In addition to the above, Justice Kavanaugh is also the only Justice to bring up the issue of refunds in the Court’s ruling, and he does so only four times. He notes that “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” and that “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the US Treasury.” In a sense, he’s saying that American importers write the tariff check but pass on at least some of the tariff burden to American consumers in the form of higher prices. If the refund process happens, the refunds will all go to the American importers, not the end consumers. This process, as he acknowledges, will be “a mess.”

Indeed, we’re already seeing tariff refund cases submitted. FedEx has filed with the US Court of International Trade, and there are reasons to believe that they will not be alone. Will companies seeking refunds all be required to file individual lawsuits, and if so, in which court? Or will they be allowed to file a class-action lawsuit?

6) This Is Exactly What Checks and Balances Look Like

The easy, attention-grabbing headline that this is a win for free traders or a setback for economic nationalists is tempting, but misleading. The more important insight from this, whether you agree with the majority or the dissent, is that this is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

The White House pushed the boundaries of a statute beyond what its text and history would allow. Private parties challenged that action in court. The judicial branch reviewed it and overturned the White House.

Justice Gorsuch, on page 46, summarizes it nicely: “For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason… In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

The question before the Court was never “are tariffs good or bad?” The question was whether one person should be allowed to impose or alter tariffs against any nation at any time and for any reason he alone determines is an “emergency,” with no Congressional approval or judicial review. And the answer to that question, for now at least, is “no.”

That said, let’s not confuse this legal victory for an economic one. The President has already implemented new tariffs under Section 122, has promised that other countries won’t be celebrating for long, and has assured his supporters that he will “Keep Calm and Tariff On.” This Administration was not surprised last May when the International Trade Court ruled against it, and has long promised that they have alternative plans ready to go if needed.

Still, this ruling is a victory for dispersed power, constitutional limits, and legislative accountability. And we should celebrate it as such.

by
Read More
In Investing

Valeura Energy Inc. Announces Thailand to Prioritise Domestic Energy Supply

No Comments

CALGARY, AB / ACCESS Newswire / March 3, 2026 / Valeura Energy Inc. (TSX:VLE,OTC:VLERF)(OTCQX:VLERF) (‘Valeura’ or the ‘Company’) acknowledges that Thailand’s Ministry of Energy has, by way of a press release, requested that domestic oil producers cooperate in supporting national energy security in Thailand, in light of disruptions to the normal supply of oil from the Middle East region. This request includes postponing any planned downtime of oil production facilities and temporarily suspending crude oil exports.

Valeura is seeking further clarification from the Ministry of Energy to ensure compliance with the request and to continue supporting Thailand’s economy with domestically-produced energy. Valeura anticipates that this new government action will not interfere with the Company’s ongoing operations in Thailand, and production is continuing as usual and in accordance with Valeura’s high standards for health, safety, and environmental stewardship.

Thailand’s local network of crude oil purchasers constitutes a viable market for Valeura’s crude oil, and includes both refiners and blenders who have direct experience with the Company’s particular crude oil streams. Typically, approximately one third of Valeura’s oil is sold into the domestic Thai market, and from time to time, each of Valeura’s oil streams have been sold within the domestic market.

Thailand is a net importer of oil, with approximately 92% of its daily crude oil requirements coming from foreign sources, predominantly the Middle East region (2025 data, Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy). Thailand has issued similar requests in response to geopolitical developments in the past, to support national energy security by temporarily mandating that domestically-produced petroleum remains within Thailand. Valeura is well-versed in responding to such requests and intends to comply, to support Thailand’s energy needs.

For further information, please contact:

Valeura Energy Inc. (General Corporate Enquiries) +65 6373 6940
Sean Guest, President and CEO
Yacine Ben-Meriem, CFO
Contact@valeuraenergy.com

Valeura Energy Inc. (Investor and Media Enquiries) +1 403 975 6752 / +44 7392 940495
Robin James Martin, Vice President, Communications and Investor Relations
IR@valeuraenergy.com

Contact details for the Company’s advisors, covering research analysts and joint brokers, including Auctus Advisors LLP, Beacon Securities Limited, Canaccord Genuity Ltd (UK), Cormark Securities Inc., Research Capital Corporation, Roth Canada Inc., and Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited, are listed on the Company’s website at www.valeuraenergy.com/investor-information/analysts/.

About the Company

Valeura Energy Inc. is a Canadian public company engaged in the exploration, development and production of petroleum and natural gas in Thailand and in Türkiye. The Company is pursuing a growth-oriented strategy and intends to re-invest into its producing asset portfolio and to deploy resources toward further organic and inorganic growth in Southeast Asia. Valeura aspires toward value accretive growth for stakeholders while adhering to high standards of environmental, social and governance responsibility.

Additional information relating to Valeura is also available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Advisory and Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Certain information included in this news release constitutes forward-looking information under applicable securities legislation. Such forward-looking information is for the purpose of explaining management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes, such as making investment decisions. Forward-looking information typically contains statements with words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘expect’, ‘plan’, ‘intend’, ‘estimate’, ‘propose’, ‘project’, ‘target’ or similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook. Forward-looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, the Company’s belief that the new government action will not interfere with the Company’s ongoing operations in Thailand; and the Company’s intent to comply with the government’s request, subject to further clarification.

Forward-looking information is based on management’s current expectations and assumptions regarding, among other things: political stability of the areas in which the Company is operating; continued safety of operations and ability to proceed in a timely manner; continued operations of and approvals forthcoming from governments and regulators in a manner consistent with past conduct; future drilling activity on the required/expected timelines; the prospectivity of the Company’s lands; the continued favourable pricing and operating netbacks across its business; future production rates and associated operating netbacks and cash flow; decline rates; future sources of funding; future economic conditions; the impact of inflation of future costs; future currency exchange rates; interest rates; the ability to meet drilling deadlines and fulfil commitments under licences and leases; future commodity prices; the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; royalty rates and taxes; future capital and other expenditures; the success obtained in drilling new wells and working over existing wellbores; the performance of wells and facilities; the availability of the required capital to funds its exploration, development and other operations, and the ability of the Company to meet its commitments and financial obligations; the ability of the Company to secure adequate processing, transportation, fractionation and storage capacity on acceptable terms; the capacity and reliability of facilities; the application of regulatory requirements respecting abandonment and reclamation; the recoverability of the Company’s reserves and contingent resources; future growth; the sufficiency of budgeted capital expenditures in carrying out planned activities; the impact of increasing competition; the ability to efficiently integrate assets and employees acquired through acquisitions; global energy policies going forward; future debt levels; and the Company’s continued ability to obtain and retain qualified staff and equipment in a timely and cost efficient manner. In addition, the Company’s work programmes and budgets are in part based upon expected agreement among joint venture partners and associated exploration, development and marketing plans and anticipated costs and sales prices, which are subject to change based on, among other things, the actual results of drilling and related activity, availability of drilling, offshore storage and offloading facilities and other specialised oilfield equipment and service providers, changes in partners’ plans and unexpected delays and changes in market conditions. Although the Company believes the expectations and assumptions reflected in such forward-looking information are reasonable, they may prove to be incorrect.

Forward-looking information involves significant known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Exploration, appraisal, and development of oil and natural gas reserves and resources are speculative activities and involve a degree of risk. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by the Company including, but not limited to: the ability of management to execute its business plan or realise anticipated benefits from acquisitions; the risk of disruptions from public health emergencies and/or pandemics; competition for specialised equipment and human resources; the Company’s ability to manage growth; the Company’s ability to manage the costs related to inflation; disruption in supply chains; the risk of currency fluctuations; changes in interest rates, oil and gas prices and netbacks; potential changes in joint venture partner strategies and participation in work programmes; uncertainty regarding the contemplated timelines and costs for work programme execution; the risks of disruption to operations and access to worksites; potential changes in laws and regulations, the uncertainty regarding government and other approvals; counterparty risk; the risk that financing may not be available; risks associated with weather delays and natural disasters; and the risk associated with international activity. See the most recent annual information form and management’s discussion and analysis of the Company for a detailed discussion of the risk factors.

The forward-looking information contained in this new release is made as of the date hereof and the Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless required by applicable securities laws. The forward-looking information contained in this new release is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction, including where such offer would be unlawful. This news release is not for distribution or release, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Ireland, the Republic of South Africa or Japan or any other jurisdiction in which its publication or distribution would be unlawful.

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

This information is provided by Reach, the non-regulatory press release distribution service of RNS, part of the London Stock Exchange. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.

SOURCE: Valeura Energy Inc.

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Vale CEO: Real Assets Gaining Traction as Money Shifts Away from Tech

No Comments

With technology, energy and society set to undergo massive transformations over the next few decades, the mining sector may never have been more important than it is today.

Globally, demand for consumer electronics such as mobile phones, air conditioners and refrigerators is on the rise. Additionally, the energy needs and technological advancement associated with artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers are driving even more demand from commercial sectors.

However, the mining industry has been known for its heavy environmental footprint and complex relationships with local communities. As much of the world pushes towards a greener future, mining companies are increasingly integrating environmental and social responsibility as they operate mines and projects around the world.

In the opening keynote speech at the 2026 Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada convention in Toronto, Vale (NYSE:VALE) CEO Gustavo Pimenta, who joined the company in 2021 following one of the worst mining accidents in Brazil’s history, spoke about these challenges and the importance of addressing them.

Electrification continues driving minerals demand

Since the start of the third millennium, there has been a broad societal shift.

Not only has the Earth’s population exploded from about 6 billion in 2001 to over 8 billion today, but the needs of both developing and developed nations are changing and growing.

Increasingly, the populations in many developing nations are urbanizing, driving demand for the materials necessary to build and modernize the infrastructure, including electricity grids, needed to adequately support them.

Likewise, western desires and demands are also changing. Consumers are driving a transition to low-carbon and sustainable industries, while also moving toward more service- and tech-reliant economies.

These shifts in both developed and developing economies have one thing in common: they are not possible without the mining sector. However, it’s struggling to match the pace of demand growth.

“We’ll have to increase the supply of minerals in general by effect of five to six times, vis-a-vis everything with mining to date,” Pimenta said. He pointed out that without mining, there is no AI and no energy transition.

“Electrification is a massive theme and trend, the electrification of everything, that is driving so much of the copper excitement lately,” he added. However, Pimenta said it isn’t just copper demand that is increasing — he pointed to rising demand for other metals such as nickel, iron and rare earths.

Although demand for these commodities has been high, it’s only recently that more consumers are becoming aware of the important role they play in how electricity is delivered or how mobile phones are made.

For Pimenta, this has led to a disconnect, with NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) and its US$4.3 trillion market cap exceeding the US$3.8 trillion captured by the top 300 mining companies.

However, he sees some balance returning.

“That is certainly something that is imbalanced, and we started to see a little bit of that rebalance today with money moving away from tech into real, important assets like the commodity assets,” he said.

Evolving economic and environmental strategies for mining

As awareness increases alongside demand, there has been a greater pressure on mining companies to move beyond their checkered pasts and to recognize their own role in creating a sustainable, responsible industry.

Pimenta emphasized this point.

“We can’t just stand and have a conversation where we are telling people, ‘I’m sorry that you have to buy from me.’ We have to go beyond that. We have to move from being essential to something else,” he said.

He noted that his company, Vale, isn’t just focused on its operations in Canada or Brazil; it has operations in 31 countries, and the scope of its responsibility is global.

Pimenta suggested that the future of mining will require a different way of operating, and that some of the needed changes are already being implemented today, citing the adoption of technology and greater automation.

In terms of how Vale is progressing this at its own operations, the company’s use of these technologies led to its Brucutu mine in Brazil being awarded the Shingo prize for operational excellence.

This marked the first time the prize has been awarded to an operation in Latin America.

“That classification shows that moving towards that future not only is the right thing because it’s safe, but also it’s more productive and more efficient. I think we have to make sure we continue to accelerate that,” Pimenta said.

Another area of focus for Pimenta is for Vale to develop what he sees as the workforce of the future.

“They have to be able to deal with AI and find ways to be more productive,” he said. “So there’s a new workforce needed that coexists with the senior, experienced workforce that is already in the companies.”

While automation addresses some core safety and business case aspects of mining’s future, Pimenta also focused on environmental concerns as a central concern. Using the example of Vale’s Carajás operation, he explained how mining companies can offer protection to the lands on which they operate.

The site covers about 800,000 hectares, but because of an agreement it made with the Brazilian government in the 1980s, the company uses only 2 percent of the total area for its mining operations, and preserves everything else.

“What has happened to that area? Everything outside the area we protect has been devastated. We protect with technology, guards, a partnership with the Brazilian Federal Police, and a lot of investment,” Pimenta said.

He acknowledged that mines will impact the environment, and it may seem counterintuitive that companies like Vale can be stewards of the land in ways that governments can’t.

However, Vale’s own past hasn’t been without incident. In 2019, a tailings dam collapsed at its Brumadinho operation, sending 13 million cubic meters of mud and mining waste downstream, killing 272 people.

For his part, Pimenta didn’t shy away from this, and said it forced the company to reassess its operations.

“Today 5 percent of our production is without dams, dry stack infiltration, and that’s the way we will continue to move. We are doing more use of circularity. It’s cheaper, less environmental impact,” he said, noting the use of reprocessing of mine waste to gather more resources.

Additionally, Vale has also been working to reduce its carbon footprint. Pimenta stated that the company had been looking at several ways to do this including using ethanol in its trucks at its Brazilian mines instead of diesel.

However, mines are only one part of the equation for decarbonization, as even more carbon dioxide is emitted during the production of steel.

“The steel industry is still very dependent on fossil fuel, coal, and that’s how most of the production is based. We are working on two main fronts. The first is green solutions, new products that will help our clients to decarbonize,” he said.

One of these solutions is a new iron ore briquette that Pimenta says uses a cold agglomeration process that can reduce the carbon footprint when used in a blast furnace.

The second front Vale is focused on is the development of mega hubs to produce steel in regions that have cheap access to lower-carbon fuels like hydrogen.

Supporting local communities is key

Beyond the economics and the environmental concerns with mining, Pimenta says that mining companies hold social commitments to the communities in which they operate.

“Back in 2021, when I joined the company, we announced a target to lift 500,000 people out of poverty,” he said.

This goal drew a lot of questions from Vale shareholders who asked how much it would cost, and if this meant putting people on payroll. Pimenta explained Vale co-developed a methodology to help them address the specific needs of different communities where they operate.

“Sometimes it’s education, sometimes it’s job opportunities, sometimes they just need to eat to have another day,” he explained. “Today we can measure, we know the social security number of each one of the 52,000 people that, from international standards measurement, have been lifted out of poverty.”

Operations should go beyond mining and making money; they should also contribute positively to the community. If they do so, Pimenta says there could be a shift in how mining companies are perceived. Rather than being pariahs, he hopes they can become welcomed for the value they bring to people.

The company also has the goal of increasing the percentage of women in its workforce. “Diversity is another element that, despite people not talking about it, is important. It was important before, and it continues to be important,” he said.

Investor takeaway

Pimenta addressed early in his keynote that demand for resources is there, but access requires money — it’s started to flow, but he suggested that changing perceptions and approaches within the mining industry is critical.

While there has been a push from some to move away from initiatives like ESG, or diversity, equity and inclusion, the reality is that they’ve permeated the mining industry for a long time now.

Throughout the presentation, Pimenta laid out how these goals have not only become foundational to the way Vale operates, but they can also provide long-term economic benefits to mining companies.

Initiatives, such as greater automation, have made Vale’s operations more efficient, driving cost-effectiveness, while dry tailings have enabled the reprocessing of mining waste and the maximization of output.

Social programs can drive community involvement and help make the operations more desirable to the communities where they operate. This alone has been a bottleneck in permitting in many jurisdictions; if communities welcome mines, it can reduce significant red tape.

Likewise, a diversified workforce can create more jobs in the community while opening the industry to people who haven’t been accepted in the past, helping address another industry challenge: finding new workers.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Trump sends official notification to Congress on strikes against Iran

No Comments

President Donald Trump on Monday sent an official notification to Congress about the U.S. strikes against Iran, in which he attempted to justify the military action in the now expanding conflict in the Middle East.

In a letter obtained by FOX News, Trump told Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that ‘no U.S. ground forces were used in these strikes’ and that the mission ‘was planned and executed in a manner designed to minimize civilian casualties, deter future attacks, and neutralize Iran’s malign activities.’

This comes after joint U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran on Saturday as part of Operation Epic Fury, triggering a response from Tehran and a wider conflict in the region. The strikes killed the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other military leaders.

Trump wrote that it is not yet possible to know the full scope of military operations against Iran and that U.S. forces are prepared to take potential further action.

‘Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary,’ Trump wrote. ‘As such, United States forces remain postured to take further action, as necessary and appropriate, to address further threats and attacks upon the United States or its allies and partners, and ensure the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran ceases being a threat to the United States, its allies, and the international community.’

‘I directed this military action consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests,’ he added. ‘I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct United States foreign relations.’

Trump said he was ‘providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,’ as some Republican and Democrat lawmakers attempt to restrain the president’s military action, which they affirm is unconstitutional without congressional approval.

The president also accused Iran of being among the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world and purported that the ‘Iranian regime continues to seek the means to possess and employ nuclear weapons,’ even after the White House said in June that precision strikes at the time ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.

‘As I previously communicated to the Congress, Iran remains one of the largest, if not the largest, state-sponsors of terrorism in the world,’ Trump said in the letter on Monday. ‘Despite the success of Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER, the Iranian regime continues to seek the means to possess and employ nuclear weapons. Its array of ballistic, cruise, anti-ship, and other missiles pose a direct threat to and are attacking United States forces, commercial vessels, and civilians, as well as those of our allies and partners.’

‘Despite my Administration’s repeated efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran’s malign behavior, the threat to the United States and its allies and partners became untenable,’ he continued.

Fox News’ Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

Related Article

Trump admin warned lawmakers Israel was
Trump admin warned lawmakers Israel was ‘determined to act with or without us’ before massive Iran strikes

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

Iranian drone strikes shut down Qatar LNG production facilities, as energy prices surge

No Comments

Iranian drone strikes forced Qatar to halt liquefied natural gas (LNG) production Monday, jolting global energy markets and raising fears about supply disruptions as Tehran increased its attacks on regional infrastructure.

QatarEnergy, the state-owned giant and one of the world’s largest LNG producers, suspended operations at two facilities after drones launched from Iran hit the sites, according to reports.

Qatar’s Ministry of Defense also said in a statement, that two drones hit facilities in the country, though no casualties were reported.

The attacks also targeted a water tank at a power plant in Mesaieed and a key energy installation in Ras Laffan.

Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex is the world’s largest LNG export facility, making it one of the most critical energy hubs in the world.

About 20% of global LNG trade transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2024, primarily from Qatar, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Markets reacted Monday with Europe’s benchmark natural gas futures surging by the largest margin since the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the Ukraine war, Bloomberg reported.

Bloomberg also reported Dutch TTF natural gas prices rose by 50% after news of the shutdown. Asian LNG prices also recorded gains as traders tried to assess the scale and length of the disruption.

‘The threat to security of supply is here and now,’ Simone Tagliapietra, an analyst at Bruegel, told Bloomberg. ‘The extent of it will depend on the duration of the shutdown, but we are now into a new scenario.’

In Saudi Arabia, another drone attack caused a fire at the kingdom’s Ras Tanura oil refinery, forcing a partial shutdown there as well.

Saudi authorities have not reported casualties, but the attack heightened fears of broader instability in the Gulf’s energy corridor, according to reports.

Related Article

America strikes Iran again — has Washington planned for what comes next?
America strikes Iran again — has Washington planned for what comes next?

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

Iran nuclear talks ‘didn’t pass the smell test’ before Trump launched strikes, says Vance

No Comments

Vice President JD Vance confirmed Monday that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program collapsed after U.S. officials concluded Tehran’s claims ‘did not pass the smell test,’ prompting President Donald Trump to authorize Operation Epic Fury.

Speaking on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime,’ Vance said U.S. envoys — including Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Jared Kushner — had conducted rounds of ‘deliberate’ talks in Geneva with the Iranian delegation.

The discussions were aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and averting a broader conflict, he said, but ultimately broke down.

‘But the Iranians would come back to us and they’d say, ‘Well, you know, having enrichment for civilian purposes, for energy purposes, is a matter of national pride,’’ Vance said.

‘And so we would say, ‘OK, that’s interesting, but why are you building your enrichment facilities 70 feet underground? And why are you enriching to a level that’s way beyond civilian enrichment and is only useful if your goal is to build a nuclear bomb?’’ he said.

‘Nobody objects to the Iranians being able to build medical isotopes; the objection is these enrichment facilities that are only useful for building a nuclear weapon,’ Vance clarified.

‘It just doesn’t pass the smell test for you to say that you want enrichment for medical isotopes, while at the same time trying to build a facility 70 to 80 feet underground,’ he explained.

Vance spoke as Operation Epic Fury ended its third day. Launched on Feb. 28, U.S. and Israeli forces carried out coordinated precision strikes deep inside Iran aimed at crippling Tehran’s missile arsenal and nuclear infrastructure.

A key issue had been Iran enriching uranium to high levels, including material around 60% purity — a fraction of weapons-grade but far above limits set under the 2015 nuclear deal — keeping international alarm high over proliferation risks.

‘We destroyed Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon during President Trump’s term,’ Vance told Watters. ‘We set them back substantially. But I think the President was looking for the long haul,’ he said.

‘Trump was looking for Iran to make a significant long-term commitment that they would never build a nuclear weapon, that they would not pursue the ability to be on the brink of a nuclear weapon.’

‘He wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon, and that would require fundamentally a change in mindset from the Iranian regime.’

‘The President is not going to rest until he accomplishes that all-important objective of ensuring that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon, not just for the next few years, not just because we obliterated for dough or some other.’

‘There’s just no way that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multiyear conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective,’ Vance added while describing that the administration would prefer to see ‘a friendly regime in Iran, a stable country, a country that’s willing to work with the United States.’

Related Article

Why Trump invoked regime change in attacking Iran, and the media must learn from past mistakes
Why Trump invoked regime change in attacking Iran, and the media must learn from past mistakes

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More