Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Economy

Mayor Mamdani: Marxism on Training Wheels?

No Comments

New York City is celebrating the win of its most defining election in years. On November 4, voters selected their new mayor.

Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, surged in popularity — especially among Gen Z — on promises to freeze rent, open government-run grocery stores, eliminate bus fares, and raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour. His victory on Tuesday marks a major political shift in one of the world’s most influential cities — and it could be an ominous sign of where America is headed.

Media coverage right now is focused on whether Mamdani’s policies will actually make life in New York more affordable — and while that’s an important question, it’s not the only one we should be asking. Some — including President Trump — have labeled Mamdani a communist. Mamdani rejects the charge, insisting he’s a democratic socialist and that the two couldn’t be more different. But that raises an even more important question that few people are asking: how different is Mamdani’s “democratic socialism” from the Marxist socialism it claims to distance itself from? 

Marx’s Vs Mamdani’s Framework

In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx built his entire system around class conflict. He saw history as a constant struggle between the bourgeoisie — the wealthy owners of factories, land, and capital — and the proletariat, the working class who labored for them. To Marx, the capitalist was the villain: the exploiter of workers and the thief of their labor. His solution was total upheaval: abolish private property, erase class divisions, and replace capitalism with collective ownership managed by the state.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

In other words, Marx believed the working class should use the power of the state to seize control of all production, centralizing it “in the hands of the state” — which he described as the proletariat organized as the ruling class. In theory, this meant the economy would be run “for the people.” In reality, it means the state would run everything — because the state was the people, at least in name.

Cultures that have adopted Marxist principles promise fairness, but in practice, concentrate nearly all power in the hands of government. What begins as a call to liberate workers from oppression ends with individuals stripped of both property and choice.

Mamdani’s version of socialism sounds less radical, but it flows from the same logic. He’s not calling for a violent revolution, nor the complete abolition of private ownership. Instead, he frames the “villain” differently — the greedy billionaire, the corporate landlord, the capitalist system that supposedly makes New York unaffordable. His plan is to make life “fairer” for working-class New Yorkers through rent freezes, government-run grocery stores, and higher minimum wages. But each solution leans on the same idea Marx started with: using government power to fix inequality. None of his proposals limit government power or expand individual liberty — they expand the state’s power in the name of helping the people. It may sound democratic, but the foundation is the same: more control from the top, less freedom for the individual.

What’s the Difference Between Democratic Socialism and Marx’s Socialism?

In his NBC interview, Mamdani was asked point-blank if he’s a communist. His response: “No, I am not…I call myself a democratic socialist.” Today, democratic socialists claim their version is different. The word “democratic” makes it sound safer — like it’s no longer about force, just about fairness. The idea is that instead of taking power through revolution, socialism can be voted in peacefully. But voting for socialism doesn’t make it any less socialist, nor does it promise government power will be used for good. Calling it “democratic” doesn’t change the system — it just changes how it’s introduced. The end goal is still the same: to let government, not individuals, decide what’s “fair,” and force everyone else to conform.

That same mindset carries into how Marxists and their colleagues view wealth. Democratic socialists begin with the belief that inequality itself is injustice — that the success of some must come at the expense of others. It starts with envy and entitlement disguised as fairness: the idea that those who have more should be forced to “give back” to those who have less. Beneath it lies a quiet moral assumption rooted in Marxist thought — the notion that some know better than others how much people should earn, how their money should be spent, and that government should step in to correct that “injustice.” It echoes Marx’s famous line, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In theory, it sounds compassionate. In practice, it hands the power of deciding both ability and need to the state.

None of it is voluntary; it relies on the power of government to enforce a vision of equality that punishes success instead of encouraging opportunity. So they push for higher taxes, arguing that the state should decide who has “too much” and redistribute it. But once that line is drawn, it never stops moving. Today it’s billionaires. Tomorrow it’s millionaires. Eventually, it’s the middle class. Because government doesn’t create wealth — it can only take, until there’s nothing left to take.

Then there’s the question of government control over the means of production. Democratic socialists insist they’re different from communists because they’re not asking for the government to run everything — just the “important stuff.” Housing, healthcare, public transit… and whatever else they decide to add to that list next. But it’s fine, they argue, because these necessities shouldn’t be managed by greedy corporations in search of profit.

That’s exactly how socialism starts — small, targeted, and “reasonable.” Every socialist system begins with the promise of managing only a few “key” industries that are “too important” for the free market. That’s how it started in Venezuela. The government first nationalized the oil and steel industries, claiming state control was necessary to stabilize prices and protect workers. But over time, that “limited” control spread — first into agriculture, then banking, electricity, tourism, and transportation — until nearly every sector of the economy was under state management. What began as “helping” key industries became total control of production, and with it, the collapse of an entire nation.

Once government controls one industry, there’s nothing stopping it from reaching for another.

So while Mamdani’s version of socialism may sound softer than Marx’s, it grows from the same root. Both rest on the belief that government — not individuals or markets — should manage economic life in the name of fairness. One makes demands by force; the other asks for it by vote, but both seek unchecked control.

Mamdani’s Is Right About the Problem, Wrong About the Solution

Mamdani is right about the problem — New York has become unaffordable. But it’s not the “unfair capitalist system” that made the city expensive to live in; it’s decades of government interference that have limited supply, inflated costs, and buried productivity under layers of bureaucracy. The same policies fueled New York’s housing crisis and soaring cost of living. And now, Mamdani’s solution is to expand the very system that created the problem —  inviting even deeper government control into the very systems that caused this crisis in the first place.

Democratic Socialism vs Marx’s Communism: The Same Plant, Different Stages 

So what really separates democratic socialism from Marx’s communism? In short, it’s the same plant — just at different stages of growth. I created this diagram to help envision it: democratic socialism is the seed, socialism is the growing plant, and communism is the full-grown tree, where the state controls every part of economic life and, eventually, people’s choices.

When Mamdani says he’s not a communist, he may genuinely believe that. But the ideology he’s promoting comes from the same soil Marx planted in 175 years ago — the belief that government control can ‘fix’ what free people built. What Mamdani calls “democratic socialism” isn’t a rejection of what Marx built; it’s this generation’s version of it. It’s communism with training wheels — rebranded for today’s youth.

Politicians like Mamdani get away with selling socialism because they’re not trying to overthrow capitalism overnight — they say they’re trying to reform it. They replace free exchange with state intervention one policy at a time, until the line between “helping” and “owning” disappears. Mamdani might not be Marx reborn, but his ideas come from the same place — and if history has taught us anything, it’s that the outcome doesn’t change just because the packaging looks friendlier. And the outcome always has a body count.

So as New Yorkers celebrate Mamdani’s win, I hope they — and the rest of America — pay attention. Because what happens here won’t just shape one city’s future. It will reveal how much longer we’re willing to flirt with the same ideology that has destroyed freedom everywhere it’s been tried.

by
Read More
In Economy

Grassroots Safety Net: SNAP Gap Inspires Americans to Help Out

No Comments

As I write this, a mother somewhere in Detroit just swiped her EBT card at a grocery store, trying to buy food for her children. She was denied, forcing her to leave the food at the cashier as her kids looked on, hungry and wondering why they’re not able to carry the food out of the store tonight. She and 42 million other Americans are facing this dilemma because Congress hasn’t passed a budget. While politicians point fingers at one another, families are starting to wonder how they’ll put food on the table. Despite all the doomsayers, something amazing is happening that offers lessons for countries around the world: people are solving the problem without the federal government.

Several states announced that they would dip into their budgets to partially fund food assistance programs. But more tellingly are the local and private responses to this. H-E-B, a Texas-based grocery store, pledged $5 million to Texas food banks and $1 million for Meals on Wheels. DoorDash announced that it would deliver one million free meals and that they were going to waive delivery and service fees for 300,000 grocery orders. Communities, churches, and local charities, not to mention small businesses across the country are collecting increased donations and filling the gap left behind by Congress. All of this without federal authorization, oversight, or influence.

This isn’t the first time people in local communities have stepped up in this way. In 2023, when Congress ended pandemic-era SNAP allotments, several pundits cried disaster. Food banks across the nation reported “increased demand” in the months following the cuts. And while there were some initial challenges, the American people once again rose to the occasion. Private charities donated some 5.3 billion meals that year, in exactly the same way that Americans are doing right now. The Archdiocese of St. Louis mobilized over 100 parishes within 48 hours. No hearings required.

This raises an interesting question: if communities and people can do something, why are we charging the federal government with doing it, and what net effect has the federal government’s involvement had?

Whenever governments get involved in distributing benefits, it creates concentrated benefits for some and dispersed costs for taxpayers. With food assistance programs, there are two groups of beneficiaries. The most obvious beneficiary is the people who receive food assistance. But the less obvious beneficiary is none other than the well-connected members of the food industry. 

As it turns out, there is a tremendous scope for cronyism in determining eligibility, benefit amounts, and purchase restrictions. Using the US’s food assistance program as our example, consider the fact that you can buy cold chicken, but not hot, ready-to-eat chicken. Kellogg’s Corn Flakes? Those are fine. Store-brand corn flakes made with the same ingredients? Maybe not. Nutrition science doesn’t explain this. Lobbying does. 

As another example, WIC, a federal program designed to further assist Women, Infants, and Children, leaves it to states to determine which products are eligible. Michigan lists 9,890 items, down to brand and package sizes. You can buy two-percent milk, but only if it’s from certain brands and only one quart at a time. Want a gallon of milk instead to save yourself (and the taxpayer) money? Sorry, Lansing bureaucrats know better. 

Imagine the lobbying effort that went into securing a product’s placement on this list and similar lists in the other 49 states. Then realize that there are multiple levels of bureaucracy that must be navigated before a tax dollar reaches the recipients of these programs, all of which are staffed by people who do not work for free. The efficiency gains alone of cutting out the government are simply staggering.

According to some estimates, food pantries provide one meal for every nine that SNAP and other food assistance programs provide. But when these programs fail, those pantries, thanks to community involvement, almost instantly scale up, despite cries from the commentariat that “philanthropy can’t fill the gap.” Critics will argue that charity cannot replace the $8 billion per month the US spends on SNAP alone. They’re right about the scale but wrong about the implications.

The irony here is that the same government, which claims the sole ability to prevent hunger, criminalizes feeding the homeless without permits in over 70 cities and requires food banks to navigate FDA regulations designed more for commercial enterprises. Philanthropy plus federalism plus free markets equals results. Not perfect results, of course, but far more effective results done much more efficiently than Washington’s one-size-fits-none approach. This is because people know and understand their neighbors’ actual needs, not just their demographic categories.

The question isn’t whether we can feed hungry families without federal oversight. We’re doing it right now, and history shows this isn’t an isolated incident. The question is why we pretend that only Washington can solve problems that communities solved long before the Department of Agriculture existed.

by
Read More
In Investing

Top 5 Canadian Lithium Stocks of 2025

No Comments

The global lithium market saw sharp swings in Q3 2025 as shifting supply dynamics, policy uncertainty, and geopolitical developments reshaped investor sentiment.

After hitting a four-year low in June, benchmark lithium carbonate prices briefly surged to an 11 month high in August on speculation of Australian supply cuts, before easing to US$11,185 per metric ton by quarter’s end.

Market watchers say sentiment-driven moves continue to dominate a sector still facing oversupply, while US policy shifts and China’s regulatory measures add further uncertainty to the outlook.

Against this backdrop, Canadian lithium stocks are gaining attention as investors look for companies positioned to benefit from long-term demand growth while navigating short-term price pressure.

1. Consolidated Lithium Metals (TSXV:CLM)

Year-to-date gain: 500 percent
Market cap: C$23.36 million
Share price: C$0.060

Consolidated Lithium Metals is a Canadian junior exploration company focused on acquiring, developing and advancing lithium projects in Québec. Its properties — Vallée, Baillargé, Preissac-LaCorne and Duval — are located within the spodumene-rich La Corne Batholith area, near the restarted North American Lithium mine, a key area in Canada’s growing lithium sector.

Consolidated Lithium started the year with a C$300 million private placement earmarked for working capital and general corporate purposes.

In July, the company commenced its 2025 summer exploration program at the Preissac project, excavating a 100-by-30-meter trench in an area with a known lithium soil anomaly, uncovering an 18-meter-wide pegmatite body at surface.

Twenty-five channel samples were collected and sent for analysis, while additional soil and biogeochemical sampling was conducted to further assess lithium-bearing pegmatites on site.

At the end of August, Consolidated Lithium signed a non-binding letter of intent with SOQUEM, a subsidiary of Investissement Québec, to acquire an option to earn up to an 80 percent interest in the Kwyjibo rare earth project.

The project is located roughly 125 kilometers northeast of Sept-Îles in Québec’s Côte-Nord region.

The acquisition news led to a share price spike for the company. While the company has made no recent announcements, an uptick in lithium prices in October helped Consolidated shares rally further to a year-to-date high of C$0.06 on October 22 and again on October 28.

2. Stria Lithium (TSXV:SRA)

Year-to-date gain: 416.67 percent
Market cap: C$12.22 million
Share price: C$0.31

Stria Lithium is a Canadian exploration company focused on developing domestic lithium resources to support the growing demand for electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries.

The company’s flagship Central Pontax lithium project spans 36 square kilometers in Québec’s Eeyou Istchee James Bay region.

Cygnus Metals (TSXV:CYG) has an earn-in agreement with Stria to earn up to a 70 percent interest in the Pontax project. Cygnus completed the first stage in July 2023, acquiring a 51 percent interest by investing C$4 million in exploration and issuing over 9 million shares to Stria.

Through its joint venture with Cygnus, Stria has outlined a JORC-compliant maiden inferred resource of 10.1 million metric tons grading 1.04 percent Li2O.

At the start of 2025 Stria closed a non-brokered private placement for C$650,000. The funds will be used in part for the evaluation of new mineral opportunities, according to the company.

In May, Stria and Cygnus agreed to extend the second stage of Cygnus’s earn-in agreement on the Pontax lithium project by 24 months.

Shares of Stria registered a year-to-date high of C$0.38 on October 16, coinciding with rising lithium prices.

3. Lithium South Development (TSXV:LIS)

Year-to-date gain: 280 percent
Market cap: C$42.79 million
Share price: C$0.38

Canada-based Lithium South Development owns 100 percent of the HMN lithium project in Argentina’s Salta and Catamarca provinces, situated in the heart of the lithium-rich Hombre Muerto Salar. The project lies adjacent to active lithium operations, including Rio Tinto’s (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) lithium operations to the south and South Korean company POSCO Holdings’ (NYSE:PKX,KRX:005490) billion-dollar lithium development to the east.

Exploration has defined a NI 43-101 compliant resource of 1.58 million metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at an average grade of 736 milligrams per liter lithium, with the majority in the measured category.

A preliminary economic assessment outlines the potential for a 15,600 metric ton per year lithium carbonate operation, and the company is advancing the project toward a feasibility study.

In January 2024, Lithium South and POSCO signed an agreement to jointly develop the HMN lithium project. Under the deal, the companies will share production 50/50 from the Norma Edith and Viamonte blocks in Salta and Catamarca, resolving overlapping claims.

As for 2025, at the end of July, Lithium South received a non-binding cash offer of US$62 million from POSCO for HMN and all of Lithium South’s other concessions in the Hombre Muerto Salar.

The offer is subject to a 60 day due diligence period and a subsequent 60 day negotiation and execution phase for a definitive agreement, the company said. As of late September, the due diligence has largely been completed and the companies are negotiating the definitive agreement.

Company shares surged to C$0.41 in early August following the news. Shares rose to a year-to-date high of C$0.415 on October 24, likely in conjunction with lithium price positivity.

4. Standard Lithium (TSXV:SLI)

Year-to-date gain: 152.83 percent
Market cap: C$1.28 billion
Share price: C$5.36

Standard Lithium is a US-focused lithium development company advancing a portfolio of high-grade lithium-brine projects with an emphasis on sustainability and commercial-scale production.

The company employs a fully integrated direct lithium extraction process and is developing its flagship Smackover Formation assets in Arkansas and Texas, including the South West Arkansas project in partnership with Equinor ASA, under the joint venture subsidiary Smackover Lithium.

Standard is also actively exploring additional lithium brine opportunities in East Texas.

In April, the South West Arkansas project was one of 10 US critical minerals projects designated for fast-tracking under FAST-41.

According to Standard’s Q2 2025 results released in August, Smackover Lithium reported strong progress on its South West Arkansas project during the quarter.

Exploration for the project’s Phase 1 operations concluded, and the Lester exploration well yielded the highest lithium brine grades to date, averaging 582 milligrams per liter and peaking at 616 milligrams per liter. Key regulatory milestones included the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission approving a 2.5 percent royalty rate and granting brine production unit approval for Phase 1.

Additionally, through a partnership with Telescope Innovations the company advanced a new process to convert lithium hydroxide into battery-grade lithium sulfide.

In September, Standard Lithium reported results of its definitive feasibility study (DFS) for the South West Arkansas project with a targeted first production date in 2028.

The DFS notes an initial capacity of 22,500 metric tons per year of battery-grade lithium carbonate. The study outlines a 20-year-plus operating life based on average lithium concentrations of 481 milligrams per liter, supported by detailed resource and reserve modeling.

The company officially filed the DFS on October 14, leading to a share price bump and year-to-date high of C$7.65 on October 16.

5. United Lithium (CSE:ULTH)

Year-to-date gains: 94.12 percent
Market cap: C$15.75 million
Share price: C$0.33

Exploration and development company United Lithium owns a portfolio of global assets in Sweden, Finland and the United States. The company’s primary focus is the Bergby lithium project in Central Sweden.

In March, United Lithium reported positive results from mineralogical test work on four pegmatite samples — B, C, D and E — at the Bergby project. The study analyzed the chemical and mineralogical composition of the samples to better understand the lithium-bearing LCT (lithium, cesium, tantalum) pegmatites.

An October 17 announcement from United reported it entered a binding letter of intent to acquire all issued and outstanding shares of Swedish Minerals. If the deal goes through, it will create a Nordic-based company with lithium, uranium and rare earth projects.

Under the agreement, United Lithium will issue Swedish Minerals shareholders 25 million common shares of United at C$0.20 each and pay C$450,000 in cash, subject to regulatory approval.

Shares of United Lithium spiked following the acquisition news and continued upward to a year-to-date high of C$0.35 on October 27.

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

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

Brien Lundin: Gold, Silver Waiting for Next Leg, What’s the Catalyst?

No Comments

Brien Lundin, editor of Gold Newsletter and New Orleans Investment Conference host, shares his outlook for gold and silver as prices continue to consolidate.

‘At the end of this cycle, I’ve long predicted that we’re going to get to a US$6,000 to US$8,000 (per ounce) price range, whenever that may happen — I hope it takes years from now,’ he said about gold.

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

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

Alvopetro Announces Q3 2025 Financial Results and an Operational Update Including Record October Sales

No Comments

Alvopetro Energy Ltd. (TSXV:ALV,OTC:ALVOF) (OTCQX: ALVOF) announces an operational update and financial results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025.  

All references herein to $ refer to United States dollars, unless otherwise stated and all tabular amounts are in thousands of United States dollars, except as otherwise noted.

President & CEO, Corey C. Ruttan commented:

‘Our sales in Brazil in October averaged 2,766 boepd, a 34% increase from September. Our Western Canadian assets added an additional 157 bopd bringing our company average up to 2,923 boepd, a new record for Alvopetro. On our 100% owned Murucututu project in Brazil, our 183-D4 well achieved IP30 rates of 1,071 boepd, significantly above our pre-drill estimates. This result helps strengthen our longer-term growth plans in Brazil. Our success in Brazil is being complimented by our Western Canadian capital program and our recently expanded partnership covering virtually all of the Saskatchewan portion of the Mannville Stack Heavy Oil play fairway. We are in a strong position to continue our disciplined capital allocation model, balancing returns to stakeholders and investing in high rate of return growth opportunities in Brazil and the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin.’

Operational Update

October Sales Volumes

Natural gas, NGLs and crude oil sales:

October

2025

September

2025

Q3
2025

Brazil:

      Natural gas (Mcfpd), by field:

      Caburé

9,136

5,463

8,735

      Murucututu

6,115

5,812

3,558

      Total natural gas (Mcfpd)

15,251

11,275

12,293

      NGLs (bopd)

206

180

147

      Oil (bopd)(1)

18

9

9

Total (boepd) – Brazil

2,766

2,069

2,205

Canada:

      Oil (bopd) – Canada

157

163

138

Total Company – boepd(2)

2,923

2,232

2,343

(1)

Oil sale volumes in Brazil relate to the Bom Lugar and Mãe da lua fields. Alvopetro has entered into an assignment agreement to dispose of the fields, the closing of which is subject to standard regulatory approvals, including approval of the ANP.

(2)

Alvopetro reported volumes are based on sales volumes which, due to the timing of sales deliveries, may differ from production volumes.

October sales volumes increased to 2,923 boepd, including 2,766 boepd from Brazil (with natural gas sales of 15.3 MMcfpd, associated natural gas liquids sales from condensate of 206 bopd, and oil sales of 18 bopd) and 157 bopd from oil sales in Canada, based on field estimates, setting a new record for sales volumes at Alvopetro. In Brazil, sales volumes increased 34% over September and 25% over Q3 2025 following Alvopetro and Bahiagas agreeing to a spot contract with discounted pricing for volumes above our firm contract reference volumes of 400 e3m3/d (14.1 MMcfpd).

Quarterly Natural Gas Pricing Update

As previously announced, effective November 1, 2025, our natural gas price under our long-term gas sales agreement was adjusted to BRL1.81/m3 and will apply to firm natural gas sales (up to 400,000 m3/d) from November 1, 2025 to January 31, 2026. Based on our average heat content to date and the October 31, 2025 BRL/USD exchange rate of 5.38, our expected realized price at the new contracted price is $10.15/Mcf, net of applicable sales taxes, a decrease of 8% from the Q3 2025 realized price of $11.04/Mcf due mainly to lower Henry Hub prices in the third quarter. Amounts ultimately received in equivalent USD will be impacted by exchange rates in effect during the period November 1, 2025 to January 31, 2026. Natural gas sales above 400,000 m3/d are currently being sold on a flexible basis under spot contracts at discounts to our firm contracted price.

Development Activities – Brazil

On our 100% owned Murucututu field, the 183-D4 well was completed in seven intervals in the third quarter. With this well on production from the field since late August, third quarter natural gas sales from Murucututu increased to 3.6 MMcfpd (+199% from Q2 2025) and October natural gas sales increased further to 6.1 MMcfpd.

Our joint development on the unitized area (‘the Unit’), which includes our Caburé field, continued in the third quarter and four wells (2.2 net) were drilled. Three of the wells have now been completed and brought on production. We are planning a sidetrack of the fourth well due to challenges encountered while executing the final phase of the well. The timing of drilling the fifth planned development well (0.6 net) is subject to the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals.

Development Activities – Western Canada

In the third quarter, two additional wells were drilled (1.0 net to Alvopetro) and commenced production in September. As previously announced, we entered into an expanded area of mutual interest (‘Expanded AMI’) with our existing partner. Under the terms of the Expanded AMI, we have agreed to fund 100% of two earning wells to earn a 50% working interest in an additional 46.9 sections of land (15,010 net acres). The two earning wells are expected to commence drilling in late 2025. After drilling, Alvopetro will have a 50% interest in 74.4 sections of land (23,900 net acres).

Financial and Operating Highlights – Third Quarter of 2025

  • Average daily sales in Q3 2025 were 2,343 boepd(1) (+11% from Q3 2024 and -4% from Q2 2025). In Brazil, daily sales averaged 2,205 boepd (+5% compared to Q3 2024 and -4% from Q2 2025) and in Canada, oil sales averaged 138 bopd in the quarter (consistent with Q2 2025).
  • Our average realized natural gas price was $11.04/Mcf (+1% from Q3 2024 and +4% from Q2 2025). Our overall averaged realized sales price per boe was $65.76/boe (-1% from Q3 2024 and +4% from Q2 2025).
  • Our natural gas, oil and condensate revenue increased to $14.2 million (+10% from Q3 2024 and +1% from Q2 2025). Compared to Q3 2024, the increase was driven by higher overall sales volumes, partially offset by lower realized prices. Compared to Q2 2025, the increase was as a result of higher realized prices, partially offset by lower sales volumes.
  • Our operating netback(2) in the quarter was $55.90 per boe, a decrease of $3.29 per boe compared to Q3 2024 due mainly to addition of lower overall netbacks from Canadian operations. Compared to Q2 2025, our operating netback increased $1.18 per boe with higher realized prices, partially offset by higher royalties, production expenses and transportation expenses.
  • We generated funds flows from operations(2) of $10.4 million ($0.28 per basic and per diluted share), increases of $0.6 million compared to Q3 2024 and $0.1 million compared to Q2 2025.
  • We reported net income of $4.6 million ($0.12 per basic and diluted share), a decrease of $2.5 million compared to Q3 2024 due mainly to impairment losses and higher depletion and depreciation expenses recognized in Q3 2025, partially offset by higher revenues with increased sales volumes, and lower tax expenses.
  • Capital expenditures totaled $11.2 million, including completion costs for the 183-D4 well on Alvopetro’s 100% Murucututu field, Alvopetro’s share of unit development costs on the Cabure field and Alvopetro’s share of costs to drill and equip an additional two wells (1.0 net) in Saskatchewan.
  • Our working capital(2) surplus was $2.2 million as of September 30, 2025, decreasing $4.6 million from June 30, 2025.

(1)

Alvopetro reported volumes are based on sales volumes which, due to the timing of sales deliveries, may differ from production volumes.

(2)

See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures‘ section within this news release.

The following table provides a summary of Alvopetro’s financial and operating results for the periods noted. The consolidated financial statements with the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (‘MD&A’) are available on our website at www.alvopetro.com and will be available on the SEDAR+ website at www.sedarplus.ca.

As at and Three Months Ended

September 30,

As at and Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

Change (%)

2025

2024

Change (%)

Financial

($000s, except where noted)

Natural gas, oil and condensate sales

14,175

12,879

10

42,198

35,303

20

Net income

4,613

7,152

(36)

17,513

14,052

25

      Per share – basic ($)(1)

0.12

0.19

(37)

0.47

0.38

24

      Per share – diluted ($)(1)

0.12

0.19

(37)

0.46

0.37

24

Cash flows from operating activities

12,153

10,714

13

31,443

27,787

13

      Per share – basic ($)(1)

0.33

0.29

14

0.84

0.75

12

      Per share – diluted ($)(1)

0.32

0.28

14

0.83

0.74

12

Funds flow from operations(2)

10,448

9,886

6

30,036

26,309

14

      Per share – basic ($)(1)

0.28

0.27

4

0.81

0.71

14

      Per share – diluted ($)(1)

0.28

0.26

8

0.79

0.70

13

Dividends declared

3,673

3,295

11

10,976

9,887

11

Per share(1) (2)

0.10

0.09

11

0.30

0.27

11

Capital expenditures

11,249

4,747

137

28,610

10,623

169

Cash and cash equivalents

12,081

24,515

(51)

12,081

24,515

(51)

Net working capital(2)

2,209

15,848

(86)

2,209

15,848

(86)

Weighted average shares outstanding

      Basic (000s)(1)

37,263

37,300

–

37,273

37,286

–

      Diluted (000s)(1)

37,851

37,662

1

37,801

37,671

–

Operations

Average daily sales volumes(3):

Brazil:

      Natural gas (Mcfpd), by field:

          Caburé (Mcfpd)

8,735

11,378

(23)

10,741

9,817

9

          Murucututu (Mcfpd)

3,558

616

478

2,286

490

367

      Total natural gas (Mcfpd)

12,293

11,994

2

13,027

10,307

26

      NGLs – condensate (bopd)

147

95

55

137

83

65

      Oil (bopd)

9

12

(25)

8

12

(33)

      Total (boepd) – Brazil

2,205

2,106

5

2,315

1,813

28

Canada:

      Oil (bopd) – Canada

138

–

–

93

–

–

Total Company (boepd)

2,343

2,106

11

2,408

1,813

33

 

As at and Three Months Ended

September 30,

As at and Three Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

Change (%)

2025

2024

Change (%)

Average realized prices(2):

      Natural gas ($/Mcf)

11.04

10.92

1

10.69

11.70

(9)

      NGLs – condensate ($/bbl)

74.16

86.70

(14)

75.83

88.77

(15)

      Oil ($/bbl)

50.42

68.36

(26)

49.36

68.48

(28)

      Total ($/boe)

65.76

66.46

(1)

64.19

71.06

(10)

Operating netback ($/boe)(2)

      Realized sales price

65.76

66.46

(1)

64.19

71.06

(10)

      Royalties

(3.54)

(1.89)

87

(4.71)

(1.94)

143

      Production expenses

(6.10)

(5.38)

13

(5.58)

(6.23)

(10)

      Transportation expenses

(0.22)

–

–

(0.12)

–

–

      Operating netback

55.90

59.19

(6)

53.78

62.89

(14)

 Operating netback margin(2)

85 %

89 %

(4)

84 %

89 %

(6)

Notes:

(1)

Per share amounts are based on weighted average shares outstanding other than dividends per share, which is based on the number of common shares outstanding at each dividend record date. The weighted average number of diluted common shares outstanding in the computation of funds flow from operations and cash flows from operating activities per share is the same as for net income per share.

(2)

See ‘Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures’ section within this news release.

(3)

Alvopetro reported volumes are based on sales volumes which, due to the timing of sales deliveries, may differ from production volumes.

Q3 2025 Results Webcast

Alvopetro will host a live webcast to discuss our Q3 2025 financial results at 8:00 am Mountain time on Thursday November 6, 2025. Details for joining the event are as follows:

DATE: November 6, 2025
TIME: 8:00 AM Mountain/10:00 AM Eastern
LINK: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87150507093
DIAL-IN NUMBERS: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kdLidYPIoO
WEBINAR ID: 871 5050 7093

The webcast will include a question-and-answer period. Online participants will be able to ask questions through the Zoom portal. Dial-in participants can email questions directly to socialmedia@alvopetro.com.

Corporate Presentation

Alvopetro’s updated corporate presentation is available on our website at:
http://www.alvopetro.com/corporate-presentation. 

Social Media

Follow Alvopetro on our social media channels at the following links:

X – https://x.com/AlvopetroEnergy
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/alvopetro/
LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/alvopetro-energy-ltd

Alvopetro Energy Ltd. is deploying a balanced capital allocation model where we seek to reinvest roughly half our cash flows into organic growth opportunities and return the other half to stakeholders. Alvopetro’s organic growth strategy is to focus on the best combinations of geologic prospectivity and fiscal regime. Alvopetro is balancing capital investment opportunities in Canada and Brazil where we are building off the strength of our Caburé and Murucututu natural gas fields and the related strategic midstream infrastructure.

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

Abbreviations:

$000s

=

     thousands of U.S. dollars

boepd

=

     barrels of oil equivalent (‘boe’) per day

bopd

=

     barrels of oil and/or natural gas liquids (condensate) per day

BRL

=

     Brazilian Real

e3m3/d

=

     thousand cubic metre per day

m3 

=

     cubic metre

m3/d

=

     cubic metre per day

Mcf

=

     thousand cubic feet

Mcfpd

=

     thousand cubic feet per day

MMcf

=

     million cubic feet

MMcfpd

=

     million cubic feet per day

NGLs

=

     natural gas liquids (condensate)

Q1 2025

=

     three months ended March 31, 2025

Q3 2024

=

     three months ended September 30, 2024

Q2 2025

=

     three months ended June 30, 2025

Q3 2025

=

     three months ended September 30, 2025

USD

=

     United States dollars

GAAP or IFRS

=

     IFRS Accounting Standards

Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures

This news release contains references to various non-GAAP financial measures, non-GAAP ratios, capital management measures and supplementary financial measures as such terms are defined in National Instrument 52-112 Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures Disclosure. Such measures are not recognized measures under GAAP and do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS and might not be comparable to similar financial measures disclosed by other issuers. While these measures may be common in the oil and gas industry, the Company’s use of these terms may not be comparable to similarly defined measures presented by other companies. The non-GAAP and other financial measures referred to in this report should not be considered an alternative to, or more meaningful than measures prescribed by IFRS and they are not meant to enhance the Company’s reported financial performance or position. These are complementary measures that are used by management in assessing the Company’s financial performance, efficiency and liquidity and they may be used by investors or other users of this document for the same purpose. Below is a description of the non-GAAP financial measures, non-GAAP ratios, capital management measures and supplementary financial measures used in this news release. For more information with respect to financial measures which have not been defined by GAAP, including reconciliations to the closest comparable GAAP measure, see the ‘Non-GAAP Measures and Other Financial Measures‘ section of the Company’s MD&A which may be accessed through the SEDAR+ website at www.sedarplus.ca.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Operating Netback

Operating netback is calculated as natural gas, oil and condensate revenues less royalties, production expenses, and transportation expenses. This calculation is provided in the ‘Operating Netback‘ section of the Company’s MD&A using our IFRS measures. The Company’s MD&A may be accessed through the SEDAR+ website at www.sedarplus.ca. Operating netback is a common metric used in the oil and gas industry used to demonstrate profitability from operations.

Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

Operating Netback per boe

Operating netback is calculated on a per unit basis, which is per barrel of oil equivalent (‘boe’). It is a common non-GAAP measure used in the oil and gas industry and management believes this measurement assists in evaluating the operating performance of the Company. It is a measure of the economic quality of the Company’s producing assets and is useful for evaluating variable costs as it provides a reliable measure regardless of fluctuations in production. Alvopetro calculated operating netback per boe as operating netback divided by total sales volumes (boe). This calculation is provided in note 3 of the interim condensed consolidated financial statements and in the ‘Operating Netback‘ section of the Company’s MD&A using our IFRS measures. The Company’s MD&A may be accessed through the SEDAR+ website at www.sedarplus.ca. Operating netback is a common metric used in the oil and gas industry used to demonstrate profitability from operations on a per boe basis.

Operating netback margin

Operating netback margin is calculated as operating netback per boe divided by the realized sales price per boe. Operating netback margin is a measure of the profitability per boe relative to natural gas, oil and condensate sales revenues per boe and is calculated as follows:

Three Months Ended

 September 30,

Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

2025

2024

Operating netback – $ per boe

55.90

59.19

53.78

62.89

Average realized price – $ per boe

65.76

66.46

64.19

71.06

Operating netback margin

85 %

89 %

84 %

89 %

Funds Flow from Operations Per Share

Funds flow from operations per share is a non-GAAP ratio that includes all cash generated from operating activities and is calculated before changes in non-cash working capital, divided by the weighted average shares outstanding for the respective period. For the periods reported in this news release the cash flows from operating activities per share and funds flow from operations per share is as follows:

Three Months Ended

 September 30,

Nine Months Ended

September 30,

$ per share

2025

2024

2025

2024

Per basic share:

Cash flows from operating activities

0.33

0.29

0.84

0.75

Funds flow from operations

0.28

0.27

0.81

0.71

Per diluted share:

Cash flows from operating activities

0.32

0.28

0.83

0.74

Funds flow from operations

0.28

0.26

0.79

0.70

Capital Management Measures

Funds Flow from Operations 

Funds flow from operations is a non-GAAP capital management measure that includes all cash generated from operating activities and is calculated before changes in non-cash working capital. The most comparable GAAP measure to funds flow from operations is cash flows from operating activities. Management considers funds flow from operations important as it helps evaluate financial performance and demonstrates the Company’s ability to generate sufficient cash to fund future growth opportunities. Funds flow from operations should not be considered an alternative to, or more meaningful than, cash flows from operating activities however management finds that the impact of working capital items on the cash flows reduces the comparability of the metric from period to period. A reconciliation of funds flow from operations to cash flows from operating activities is as follows:

Three Months Ended

 September 30,

Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

2025

2024

Cash flows from operating activities

12,153

10,714

31,443

27,787

Changes in non-cash working capital

(1,705)

(828)

(1,407)

(1,478)

Funds flow from operations

10,448

9,886

30,036

26,309

Net Working Capital

Net working capital is computed as current assets less current liabilities. Net working capital is a measure of liquidity, is used to evaluate financial resources, and is calculated as follows: 

As at September 30,

2025

2024

Total current assets

18,582

30,197

Total current liabilities

(16,373)

(14,349)

Net working capital

2,209

15,848

Supplementary Financial Measures

‘Average realized natural gas price – $/Mcf‘ is comprised of natural gas sales as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the Company’s natural gas sales volumes.

‘Average realized NGL – condensate price – $/bbl‘ is comprised of condensate sales as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the Company’s NGL sales volumes from condensate.

‘Average realized oil price – $/bbl‘ is comprised of oil sales as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the Company’s oil sales volumes.

‘Average realized price – $/boe‘ is comprised of natural gas, condensate and oil sales as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the Company’s total natural gas, NGL and oil sales volumes (barrels of oil equivalent).

‘Dividends per share‘ is comprised of dividends declared, as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the number of shares outstanding at the dividend record date.

‘Royalties per boe‘ is comprised of royalties, as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the total natural gas, NGL and oil sales volumes (barrels of oil equivalent).

‘Production expenses per boe‘ is comprised of production expenses, as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the total natural gas, NGL and oil sales volumes (barrels of oil equivalent).

‘Transportation expenses per boe‘ is comprised of transportation expenses, as determined in accordance with IFRS, divided by the total natural gas, NGL and oil sales volumes (barrels of oil equivalent).

BOE Disclosure

The term barrels of oil equivalent (‘boe’) may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A boe conversion ratio of six thousand cubic feet per barrel (6 Mcf/bbl) of natural gas to barrels of oil equivalence is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead. All boe conversions in this news release are derived from converting gas to oil in the ratio mix of six thousand cubic feet of gas to one barrel of oil.

Contracted Natural Gas Volumes

The 2025 contracted daily firm volumes under Alvopetro’s long-term gas sales agreement of 400 e3m3/d (before any provisions for take or pay allowances) represents contracted volumes based on contract referenced natural gas heating value. Alvopetro’s reported natural gas sales volumes are prior to any adjustments for heating value of Alvopetro natural gas. Alvopetro’s natural gas is approximately 7.8% higher than the contract reference heating value. Therefore, to satisfy the contractual firm deliveries Alvopetro would be required to deliver approximately 371e3m3/d (13.1MMcfpd).

Well Results

Data obtained from the 183-D4 well identified in this press release, including initial production rates, should be considered preliminary. There is no representation by Alvopetro that the data relating to the 183-D4 well contained in this press release is necessarily indicative of long-term performance or ultimate recovery. The reader is cautioned not to unduly rely on such data as such data may not be indicative of future performance of the well or of expected production or operational results for Alvopetro in the future.

Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Language

This news release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words ‘will’, ‘expect’, ‘intend’, ‘plan’, ‘may’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘forecast’, ‘anticipate’, ‘should’ and other similar words or expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information. Forward‐looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of whether or not such results will be achieved. A number of factors could cause actual results to vary significantly from the expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect current assumptions and expectations regarding future events. Accordingly, when relying on forward-looking statements to make decisions, Alvopetro cautions readers not to place undue reliance on these statements, as forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties. More particularly and without limitation, this news release contains forward-looking statements concerning the expected natural gas price, gas sales and gas deliveries under Alvopetro’s long-term gas sales agreement, future production and sales volumes, plans relating to the Company’s operational activities, proposed exploration and development activities and the timing for such activities, capital spending levels, future capital and operating costs, the timing and taxation of dividends and plans for dividends in the future, anticipated timing for upcoming drilling and testing of other wells, and projected financial results. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon assumptions and judgments with respect to the future including, but not limited to the success of future drilling, completion, testing, recompletion and development activities and the timing of such activities, the performance of producing wells and reservoirs, well development and operating performance, expectations and assumptions concerning the timing of regulatory licenses and approvals, equipment availability, environmental regulation, including regulations relating to hydraulic fracturing and stimulation, the ability to monetize hydrocarbons discovered, the outlook for commodity markets and ability to access capital markets, foreign exchange rates, the outcome of any disputes, the outcome of  redeterminations, general economic and business conditions, forecasted demand for oil and natural gas, the impact of global pandemics, weather and access to drilling locations, the availability and cost of labour and services, and the regulatory and legal environment and other risks associated with oil and gas operations. The reader is cautioned that assumptions used in the preparation of such information, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect. Actual results achieved during the forecast period will vary from the information provided herein as a result of numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors. Current and forecasted natural gas nominations are subject to change on a daily basis and such changes may be material. In addition, the declaration, timing, amount and payment of future dividends remain at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Although we believe that the expectations and assumptions on which the forward-looking statements are based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements because we can give no assurance that they will prove to be correct. Since forward looking statements 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. These include, but are not limited to, risks associated with the oil and gas industry in general (e.g., 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 reserve estimates; the uncertainty of estimates and projections relating to production, costs and expenses, reliance on industry partners, availability of equipment and personnel, uncertainty surrounding timing for drilling and completion activities resulting from weather and other factors, changes in applicable regulatory regimes and health, safety and environmental risks), commodity price and foreign exchange rate fluctuations, market uncertainty associated with trade or tariff disputes, and general economic conditions. The reader is cautioned that assumptions used in the preparation of such information, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect. Although Alvopetro believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking information is based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking information because Alvopetro can give no assurance that it will prove to be correct. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. Additional information on factors that could affect the operations or financial results of Alvopetro are included in our AIF which may be accessed on Alvopetro’s SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca. The forward-looking information contained in this news release is made as of the date hereof and Alvopetro undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws.

www.alvopetro.com 
TSX-V: ALV, OTCQX: ALVOF

SOURCE Alvopetro Energy Ltd.

Cision View original content: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2025/05/c9260.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

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

Altech Batteries LtdService Data Confirms Exceptionally Low Failure Rate for Sodium-Nickel-Chloride Batteries

No Comments

Perth, Australia (ABN Newswire) – Altech Batteries Limited (ASX:ATC,OTC:ALTHF) (FRA:A3Y) (OTCMKTS:ALTHF) announced outstanding long-term performance results for its partner AMPower’s sodium-nickel-chloride (SNC) batteries. Extensive field data from South Africa demonstrates an exceptionally low failure rate of just 0.6%, confirming the SNC technology’s superior reliability and durability compared with traditional lithium ion, lead-acid, and nickel-cadmium battery systems.

Highlights

– Sodium-Nickel-Chloride (SNC) batteries have operated for over two decades in South Africa’s telecom and UPS sectors

– Field data shows an exceptionally low failure rate of just 0.6-1.5% across deployed AMPower or equivalent SNC batteries

– Lithium batteries typically show 3-5% failure rates; 8-12% lead-acid and NiCd often exceed 2-4%.

– Service life routinely exceeds 15-20 years, with minimal capacity fade and little maintenance required

– Performance benchmarked against lithium-ion, lead-acid, and nickel-cadmium batteries, demonstrating clear lifetime and safety advantages.

– SNC battery continues to function even if individual cell fails, ensuring uninterrupted system operation

– Major cost advantage: lower replacement frequency, no ventilation or cooling systems, and reduced total cost of ownership

– Validates SNC as the most reliable and maintenance-free UPS solution for explosive ATEX environments, remote operations, and critical industrial assets

For more than 15 years, SNC batteries have powered South Africa’s telecommunication and industrial UPS sectors, enduring extreme climates, unstable grids, and remote conditions. This long history of reliability underscores why SNC technology is now central to Altech Batteries’ expansion strategy for European pipeline and hydrogen control infrastructure.

SOUTH AFRICAN FIELD EXPERIENCE – PROVEN IN HARSH ENVIRONMENTS

SNC batteries have been in service across South Africa since the early 2010s, supporting telecom towers, utility substations, and industrial control systems. They operate reliably in some of the toughest conditions-regularly exposed to temperatures above 50degC and constant power interruptions. Evidence shows that they continue to deliver stable capacity and output. A number of units installed as far back as mid 2000s are still running today, without the need for maintenance or electrolyte replacement. Field data collected by AMPower shows a remarkably low failure rate of just 0.6% to 1.5%, underscoring the chemistry’s proven reliability. With no need for active cooling and minimal servicing requirements, field evidence has demonstrated SNC batteries are well suited to remote or high-temperature environments.

WHY SNC BATTERIES LAST SO LONG

Sodium-Nickel-Chloride batteries derive their longevity from their solid-state ceramic construction and fully sealed architecture. There are no flammable electrolytes, no venting gases, and no corrosion pathways. The internal molten sodium and nickel chloride reaction is contained within a B-alumina ceramic electrolyte, ensuring stable operation across thousands of cycles. Unlike lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries, SNC chemistry suffers no electrode dendrite formation or electrolyte degradation. It is immune to over-discharge damage and can remain idle for months without capacity loss. This combination of chemical stability and mechanical robustness allows SNC batteries to achieve service lives exceeding 15-20 years under both float and cycling conditions.

COMPARISON: SNC VS. LITHIUM, LEAD ACID, AND NICKEL-CADMIUM

Industry experience shows that lithium-ion batteries typically fail at rates of around 3-5%, lead-acid systems at 8-12%, and nickel-cadmium batteries at 2-4%. See Table 1. Failures usually stem from chemical wear, heat stress, or physical damage. In lithium-ion cells, problems such as dendrite growth, electrolyte breakdown, and thermal runaway are common. Lead-acid batteries often suffer from sulfation and corrosion of the plates, while nickel-cadmium types are prone to memory effect and electrolyte leakage.

SNC batteries, by contrast, avoid these issues altogether. Their solid ceramic electrolyte contains no liquid components to corrode or gas to evolve, and they operate in a stable thermal environment.

TECHNOLOGICAL REDUNDANCY – EACH CELL INDEPENDENT

In SNC batteries, each cell is housed inside a beta-alumina solid electrolyte (BASE) tube that allows sodium ions (Na+) to pass through while blocking electrons. If a small crack develops in the ceramic, the battery doesn’t immediately fail. Because the sodium is molten at the operating temperature of about 270degC, it remains fluid enough to seep into the micro-fracture and coat the surfaces. This forms a thin ionic bridge that keeps sodium ions moving across the damaged area, maintaining conductivity. The elevated temperature keeps both the sodium and nickel-chloride materials molten and active, allowing ion transport to continue smoothly. Moreover, SNC battery modules contain many cells connected in series or parallel, so if one cell’s resistance increases slightly, the others compensate-ensuring steady voltage and reliable overall performance.

Altech Managing Director Iggy Tan commented:

‘It’s great to see real service-life data confirming the reliability and consistency of SNC battery technology.

These results back up our long-held understanding of how well the batteries perform under harsh conditions, including high temperatures and frequent power disruptions. The exceptionally low failure rate highlights the strength of the chemistry and design, while the high float life proves their long-term stability.

This outstanding durability sets SNC batteries apart as one of the most dependable and low-maintenance energy storage solutions available today.’

*To view tables and figures, please visit:
https://abnnewswire.net/lnk/EWZYW817

About Altech Batteries Ltd:

Altech Batteries Limited (ASX:ATC,OTC:ALTHF) (FRA:A3Y) is a specialty battery technology company that has a joint venture agreement with world leading German battery institute Fraunhofer IKTS (‘Fraunhofer’) to commercialise the revolutionary CERENERGY(R) Sodium Alumina Solid State (SAS) Battery. CERENERGY(R) batteries are the game-changing alternative to lithium-ion batteries. CERENERGY(R) batteries are fire and explosion-proof; have a life span of more than 15 years and operate in extreme cold and desert climates. The battery technology uses table salt and is lithium-free; cobalt-free; graphite-free; and copper-free, eliminating exposure to critical metal price rises and supply chain concerns.

The joint venture is commercialising its CERENERGY(R) battery, with plans to construct a 100MWh production facility on Altech’s land in Saxony, Germany. The facility intends to produce CERENERGY(R) battery modules to provide grid storage solutions to the market.

Source:
Altech Batteries Ltd

Contact:
Corporate
Iggy Tan
Managing Director
Altech Batteries Limited
Tel: +61-8-6168-1555
Email: info@altechgroup.com

Martin Stein
Chief Financial Officer
Altech Batteries Limited
Tel: +61-8-6168-1555
Email: info@altechgroup.com

News Provided by ABN Newswire via QuoteMedia

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

Bernie Sanders crashes Schumer news conference, criticizes Democratic Party leadership

No Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., took over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s post-election news conference Wednesday, knocking the Democratic Party for their lack of support in political races in New York and Maine.

‘Well, the party leadership did not support [mayoral candidate Zohran] Mamdani in New York,’ Sanders said in front of the Senate podium. ‘Party leadership is not supporting [Senate hopeful Graham] Platner in Maine. And I think he’s going to win… I think there is a growing understanding that leadership, and defending the status quo and the inequalities that exist in America, is not where the American people are.’

Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, won the mayoral race in New York City and Democrat Mikie Sherrill secured the New Jersey governorship.

California’s Proposition 50 was also passed after being placed on the ballot, and Democrats will maintain control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht won their respective retention races.

Prior to Sanders’ outburst, Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke with reporters, bashing Republicans as the government shutdown stretches into its 36th day, making it the longest shutdown in U.S. history.

‘Last night, Republicans felt the political repercussions [of the Trump administration’s policies],’ Schumer said. ‘It should serve as nothing short of a five-alarm fire to the Republicans. Their high-cost house is burning, and they’ve only got themselves to blame. As loudly and clearly as could possibly be done, from one end of the country to the other, the American people said enough is enough.’

Schumer said he and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries demanded Wednesday morning President Donald Trump sit down with them to discuss healthcare issues.

‘Last night was a really good night for Democrats and our fight to lower costs, improve health care and reach a better future for our country,’ Schumer said. ‘But more importantly than that, last night was a great night for American families that are struggling now to make ends meet, because the election showed that Democrats’ control of the Senate is much closer than the people and the prognosticators realize. The more Republicans double down on raising costs and bowing down to Trump, the more their Senate majority is at risk.

‘… When Leader Jeffries and I met with Donald Trump in the White House a month or so back, we told him this was going to happen. We warned him that if he didn’t do something, working with us to address the health care needs of America, and instead insisting on no negotiation with Democrats, that was a recipe for disaster for the country, and it would come back to haunt them. Last night should make it clear to Republicans that they simply cannot continue to ignore not only us, but the American people, for the good of the whole country.’

Democratic leaders have been urging Republicans in both the House and Senate to confront the surge in health insurance premiums tied to the expiration of Affordable Care Act subsidies.

At the same time, funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has lapsed.

Though several stopgap measures have been proposed by Republicans, including a GOP-led bill blocked Tuesday, Congress has yet to reach an agreement.


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

Vulnerable House Dem criticizes ‘extreme’ left in shocking 2026 announcement

No Comments

A House Democrat representing a district that President Donald Trump won in 2024 is not seeking re-election next year.

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, announced his plans in an op-ed for the Bangor Daily News on Wednesday, a day after Democrats’ sweeping electoral victories in Virginia, New Jersey, California and New York City.

‘I have never loved politics. But I find purpose and meaning in service, and the Marine in me has been able to slog along through the many aspects of politics I dislike by focusing on the good work that Congress is capable of producing with patience and determination,’ Golden wrote.

‘But after 11 years as a legislator, I have grown tired of the increasing incivility and plain nastiness that are now common from some elements of our American community — behavior that, too often, our political leaders exhibit themselves.’

Golden has represented Maine’s 2nd Congressional District since 2019. He’s managed to hold on to the seat through his constituents voting for President Donald Trump in both 2020 and 2024.

The moderate Democrat — also a Marine Corps veteran — has been known to frequently break from his own party, including on the recent government shutdown vote in September.

He shared more of his concerns with the left in his retirement announcement, criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for the current state of politics in the country.

‘We have seen mainstream Republicans stand by as their party was hijacked first by Tea Party obstructionists and then by the MAGA movement and its willingness to hand much of Congress’ authority to the president,’ Golden wrote.

‘I fear Democrats are going down the same path. We’re allowing the most extreme, pugilistic elements of our party to call the shots. Just look again at the shutdown. For as long as I can remember, we have opposed shutting down the government over policy disputes. We criticized Republicans for taking hostages this way. But this year, reeling from the losses of the last election, too many Democrats have given into demands that we use the same no-holds-barred, obstructionary tactics as the GOP.’

And despite his seat being a prime target for Republicans every two years, Golden said that did not factor into his decision.

‘I don’t fear losing. What has become apparent to me is that I now dread the prospect of winning. Simply put, what I could accomplish in this increasingly unproductive Congress pales in comparison to what I could do in that time as a husband, a father and a son,’ he wrote.

‘I have long supported term limits and while current law allows me to run again, I like the idea of ending my service in Congress after eight years — the length of term limits in the Maine Legislature.’

Golden’s seat had been ranked a ‘toss-up’ by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which also rated his district slightly in favor of the GOP at R+4.

House Republicans’ campaign arm wasted no time in seizing on Golden’s announcement, releasing its own statement shortly after his op-ed was published.

‘Serial flip-flopper Jared Golden’s exit from Congress says it all: He’s turned his back on Mainers for years and now his chickens are coming home to roost. He, nor any other Democrat, has a path to victory in ME-02 and Republicans will flip this seat red in 2026,’ National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokeswoman Maureen O’Toole said in a release to reporters.

Beyond his frustration with partisan politics, however, Golden also revealed that the heightened political environment also pushed him to re-consider his congressional career.

Golden said earlier this year that he and his family had to spend Thanksgiving in a hotel room after receiving a bomb threat at their home.

House Democrats’ campaign arm thanked Golden for his service in its own statement upon his retirement.

‘I sincerely commend Jared for all the work he has done for Mainers, from lowering costs to protecting lobstermen’s jobs and fighting for veterans,’ Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., said. ‘He has devoted his life so far to service, first as a Marine, then in the Maine legislature, and in Congress since 2019. He embodies Maine’s independent spirit and I wish him and his family all the best in their next chapter.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More