Breaking
Keep Resignation Safe
Author

admin

Browsing
Politics

Trump’s deadline on secondary tariffs arrives; US-Russian relations hang in the balance

Politics 5 Mins Read

President Donald Trump is preparing to announce new secondary tariffs Friday on nations who conduct trade with Russia amid its deadly war in Ukraine. 

The White House has remained tight-lipped on what those tariffs will look like after the president first said in July they would amount to ‘100%’ tariffs before causing confusion earlier this week when he told reporters he ‘never said a percentage.’

While the specifics of what tax rates nations that trade with Russia could face remain unclear, Trump’s change in posture toward Russian President Vladimir Putin has become increasingly evident. 

‘Trump’s frustrated that the Russians have not taken advantage of his patience and generous offers, but it’s very interesting that even after Trump announced he was moving submarines, and even after he announced the tough tariffs, the Russians still want to talk to him,’ Fred Fleitz, who served as a deputy assistant to Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council during the president’s first term, told Fox News Digital.

‘Putin does not want to anger Trump,’ he added. ‘Putin never worried about angering Biden, and I think that this shows a degree of respect. 

‘It shows what Trump has achieved by exercising leadership on the global stage. And we’ll see what happens,’ Fleitz said, adding he hoped it was not merely a stalling tactic by Putin.

Trump’s return to the White House brought with it a sense of shock as he appeared to distance Washington from its top allies in Europe in favor of attempting to improve diplomatic relations with Putin, culminating in the infamous Oval Office showdown with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in February. 

While the tussle brought renewed support from his top MAGA base, who favor ending U.S. involvement in foreign wars, it prompted concern among security experts. Ultimately, Trump’s patience with Putin began to shift, with the president consistently expressing his frustration at the Kremlin chief’s continued brutal attacks in Ukraine. 

In mid-July, while sitting next to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump announced Putin had 50 days to enter into a ceasefire or face ‘very severe’ tariffs that would affect Moscow’s top commodity, oil. 

‘Tariffs at about 100%, you’d call them secondary tariffs,’ he had said, indicating that nations that trade with Russia will see 100% tariffs slapped on them when trading with the U.S. 

This would most greatly affect China and India, according to data released by the U.S. government Thursday, which showed both nations account for 46% of all Russian oil purchases in 2025.

But the U.S. is also the No. 1 export market for both China and India, which means higher price tags at the checkout line on their products will make Americans think twice before completing those purchases. 

After ongoing trade negotiations with both nations and Putin’s continued war effort in Ukraine, Trump last week pushed up his deadline to within 10 days of July 29, forcing a new deadline of Friday.

But while his promised tariffs were met with applause by some in the GOP, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. — he, along with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-N.Y., is pushing the charge for 500% sanctions on Russia — other Republican members have not backed the move. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been outspoken against not only Trump’s tariffs but the bipartisan sanction push and argued to Fox Business’ Larry Kudlow this week that Trump’s tariffs on allies and foes alike will amount to $2 trillion in taxes for the American consumer.

But Fleitz pushed back on this argument and said he is not convinced that the tariffs will hurt the U.S. or Chinese economy, though Russia and India are likely to feel the pain. 

‘I think they’re going to hurt the Russian and Indian economies,’ he said, noting that India could recover by buying oil elsewhere. Though some reporting has suggested that India may have saved over $30 billion by increasingly turning to Russian oil during 2022-2024 due to Moscow’s price cuts. 

‘It is going to be another factor that’s going to pressure Putin to agree to a ceasefire. I don’t know if that’s going to happen immediately or in a few months, but I think it is going to put real pressure, inflict real pain on Russia,’ Fleitz said. 

Once a staunch Trump ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R- Ga., took to X this week in response to a post by Trump that he would be enforcing tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil and said, ‘End Indian H1-B visas replacing American jobs instead and stop funding and sending weapons to the Obama/Biden/Neocon Ukraine Russia war.’

Trump’s favorable transition toward Ukraine and European allies has also ruffled some MAGA feathers, though security experts have argued it has given the president better leverage to take on major adversaries like Putin, and by extension, China. 

‘Diplomacy and negotiations are a good thing,’ said Fleitz, who serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security. ‘Peacemaking takes time, and the U.S.-Russia relationship was in a very bad situation when Trump came to office.

‘I think these sanctions will hurt Russia very badly,’ Fleitz continued. ‘The fact that Trump knows that secondary sanctions on India has, at least temporarily, hurt our relationship is really a remarkable sign of how committed Trump is to these sanctions.

‘There’s not going to be exceptions. It’s not going to be some type of soft strategy with all kinds of loopholes,’ he added. ‘I think it shows to Putin how serious Trump is, and it gives Trump leverage to negotiate with Putin.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Business

Claire’s, known for piercing millions of teens’ ears, files for Chapter 11

Business 3 Mins Read

Mall-based teen accessories retailer Claire’s, known for helping usher millions of teens into an important rite of passage — ear piercing — but now struggling with a big debt load and changing consumer tastes, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Claire’s Holdings LLC and certain of its U.S. and Gibraltar-based subsidiaries — collectively Claire’s U.S., the operator of Claire’s and Icing stores across the United States, made the filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Wednesday. That marked the second time since 2018 and for a similar reason: high debt load and the shift among teens heading online away from physical stores.

Claire’s Chapter 11 filing follows the bankruptcies of other teen retailers including Forever 21, which filed in March for bankruptcy protection for a second time and eventually closed down its U.S. business as traffic in U.S. shopping malls fades and competition from online retailers like Amazon, Temu and Shein intensifies.

Claire’s, based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois and founded in 1974, said that its stores in North America will remain open and will continue to serve customers, while it explores all strategic alternatives. Claire’s operates more than 2,750 Claire’s stores in 17 countries throughout North America and Europe and 190 Icing stores in North America.

In a court filing, Claire’s said its assets and liabilities range between $1 billion and $10 billion.

“This decision is difficult, but a necessary one,” Chris Cramer, CEO of Claire’s, said in a press release issued Wednesday. “Increased competition, consumer spending trends and the ongoing shift away from brick-and-mortar retail, in combination with our current debt obligations and macroeconomic factors, necessitate this course of action for Claire’s and its stakeholders.”

Like many retailers, Claire’s was also struggling with higher costs tied to President Donald Trump’s tariff plans, analysts said.

Cramer said that the company remains in “active discussions” with potential strategic and financial partners. He noted that the company remains committed to serving its customers and partnering with its suppliers and landlords in other regions. Claire’s also intends to continue paying employees’ wages and benefits, and it will seek approval to use cash collateral to support its operations.

Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, a research firm, noted in a note published Wednesday Claire’s bankruptcy filing comes as “no real surprise.”

“The chain has been swamped by a cocktail of problems, both internal and external, that made it impossible to stay afloat,” he wrote.

Saunders noted that internally, Claire’s struggled with high debt levels that made its operations unstable and said the cash crunch left it with little choice but to reorganize through bankruptcy.

He also noted that tariffs have pushed costs higher, and he believed that Claire’s is not in a position to manage this latest challenge effectively.

Competition has also become sharper and more intense over recent years, with retailers like jewelry chain Lovisa offering younger shoppers a more sophisticated assortment at low prices. He also cited the growing competition with online players like Amazon.

“Reinventing will be a tall order in the present environment,” he added.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Inside NASA’s fast-track plans for lunar nuclear power and new space stations to outpace global rivals

Politics 4 Mins Read

Amid significant budget cuts, NASA is fast-tracking the development of nuclear reactors on the moon and next-generation space stations with one clear objective: beating U.S. adversaries in the new space race.

Two new memos signed by interim NASA chief and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy outline a bold strategy to secure strategic ground on the moon. The centerpiece of this effort is a lunar nuclear reactor, a renewable and stable power source to support long-term exploration.

‘The goal is to power everything,’ a senior NASA official told Fox News Digital. ‘Our systems, habitats, rovers, robotic equipment, even future mining operations — everything we want to do on the moon depends on this.’

The moon’s environment makes this a necessity. Its month-long day cycle — two weeks of daylight followed by two weeks of darknessc — renders solar power unreliable. A reactor would allow missions to function around the clock.

China and Russia set sights on the moon

NASA officials warn that China and Russia have publicly announced plans for a joint lunar nuclear project by the mid-2030s. If they succeed first, they could establish exclusive control over the moon’s most valuable areas, locations with the most light and access to water and ice.

‘They could set up a ‘keep-out zone’ in the prime locations,’ the NASA official cautioned.

Despite financial constraints, Duffy’s leadership signals a renewed priority to lunar and Martian exploration. 

‘China has already landed on the far side of the moon. We never have,’ the official added. ‘They’re moving on a steady path to dominate this domain.’

New contract structure for nuclear reactor development

The new directive solicits proposals for a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor — enough to power about 80 homes — with a target launch date of 2030. It also requires NASA to appoint a dedicated program leader.

Today, many robotic spacecraft operate at just a few watts, the equivalent of a couple of light bulbs, which severely limits scientific capabilities. While the ISS uses solar panels, that model doesn’t work on the moon or Mars, where sunlight is too weak or unreliable.

Replacing the ISS: Commercial stations on the horizon

The second memo shifts focus to replacing the aging and leaking International Space Station (ISS), which is scheduled to be retired in 2030. Without a successor, China would become the only country with a permanently crewed station in orbit.

NASA now plans to select two commercial partners within six months of issuing new requests for proposals. Under Duffy’s direction, the agency is moving away from traditional fixed-price contracts and will instead use flexible Space Act Agreements, which give companies more freedom in how they build stations while saving time and money.

‘We’re telling companies what we need,’ a senior NASA official said. ‘But we’re not prescribing how they must do it. That flexibility saves us both time and resources.’

NASA wants the new station to be cheaper and easier to maintain than the ISS. Originally, it envisioned a platform that could host two astronauts for six months. But, under the revised plan, the minimum requirement is four astronauts for just one month.

Background: The Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destination program

NASA’s Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destination (CLD) initiative, launched in 2021, was structured in two phases:

  • Phase 1: Fund companies — like Blue Origin and Northrop Grumman — to design private space stations.
  • Phase 2: Award contracts for building and certifying selected stations.

Duffy’s directive calls for skipping fixed-price contracts in Phase 2 and continuing with Space Act Agreements, in line with tightening budget constraints.

Budget cuts reshape NASA’s future

According to the Trump administration’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal, NASA’s overall budget would drop from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion, a 25% cut. The Science Mission Directorate, which oversees research in planetary science, astrophysics, Earth observation and heliophysics, would face a nearly 50% reduction. However, human spaceflight programs are slated for increased funding.

NASA has also confirmed that nearly 4,000 employees — about 20% of its workforce — have taken voluntary buyouts in recent months.

Despite these setbacks, agency officials remain optimistic. 

‘Multiple companies tell us they can deliver a station within two years,’ one senior official said. ‘Timelines are always challenging, but we believe we can meet these goals — even on a leaner budget.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Trump and Putin’s relationship turns sour as president pushes for resolution with Ukraine

Politics 5 Mins Read

While President Donald Trump previously refrained from speaking ill of Russian President Vladimir Putin, those days are over. 

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has changed the nature of their dynamic. Although the two appeared to get along, at least publicly, during Trump’s first administration, their relationship has unraveled as the more recent conflict persists. 

In recent weeks, Trump has refused to mince his words when asked about Putin. Trump said during a Cabinet meeting July 8 he was fed up with Putin and said he was eyeing potentially imposing new sanctions on Russia. 

‘We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,’ Trump said. ‘He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.’ 

John Hardie, Russia program deputy director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Russia started to attract ire from Trump dating back to March after Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. But Russia has failed to get on board with a ceasefire. 

‘Really, since then, I think Trump has come to view the Russians as the main impediment to a deal,’ Hardie told Fox News Digital Thursday. 

Additionally, Hardie said that Trump has also grown frustrated that Russia will launch drone and missile attacks against Ukraine, even after directly speaking with Putin. 

‘What he’s sort of latched on to are these Russian drone and missile barrages,’ Hardie said. ‘That really seems to resonate with him.’  

Tensions only have continued to escalate between the U.S. and Russia since the July Cabinet meeting. 

Trump announced July 14 that he would sign off on ‘severe tariffs’ against Russia if Moscow failed to agree to a peace deal within 50 days. He then dramatically reduced the deadline to only 10–12 days — which ends Friday. 

The decision to reduce the timeline prompted former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to caution that ‘each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war.’ 

In addition to economic sanctions, Trump responded to Medvedev and issued a rare statement disclosing that two U.S. Navy submarines would be moved in response to escalating threats from Russia. 

‘I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,’ Trump said Aug. 1. 

Trump’s disclosure of the submarine presence puts additional pressure on Russia to come to the negotiating table, according to Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and director of the Hudson Institute think tank’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology.

‘We have used very sparingly submarines to try to influence adversary behavior before, but this is pretty unusual, to do it against a nuclear-powered adversary like Russia in response to a nuclear threat by Russia,’ Clark told Fox News Digital Monday. ‘So I think this is trying to essentially push back on Russia’s frequent and long-standing threats to use nuclear weapons in part of the Ukraine conflict.’

Momentum is picking up on negotiations though, and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin Wednesday. 

Trump said in a post on Truth Social afterward that ‘great progress’ was made during the meeting. And now, Trump and Putin are expected to meet face to face imminently in an attempt to finally advance negotiations to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. 

Still, Hardie said he is skeptical that the meeting between Putin and Trump will result in meaningful progress. 

‘I don’t expect a summit to produce much,’ Hardie said. ‘And I think Putin could try to use the summit to placate Trump and kind of buy more time continues assault on Ukraine, but I think his goal is he’d love to be able to enlist Trump in his effort to impose these harsh terms on Ukraine.’ 

Russia has pushed for concessions in a peace deal that include barring Ukraine from joining NATO, preventing foreign peacekeeper troops from deploying to Ukraine after the conflict, and adjusting some of the borders that previously were Ukraine’s.

It’s unclear if Trump plans to announce any additional economic burdens upon Russia Friday in accordance with the deadline that he imposed demanding that Russia signal willingness to end the conflict. But according to Trump, the ball is in Putin’s court. 

‘It’s going to be up to him,’ Trump told reporters Thursday. ‘We’re going to see what he has to say. It’s going to be up to him. Very disappointed.’

The White House did not disclose any details regarding potential Friday sanctions, but said that Trump wants to meet with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Putin to resolve the conflict. 

‘The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the President is open to this meeting,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘President Trump would like to meet with both President Putin and President Zelensky because he wants this brutal war to end. The White House is working through the details of these potential meetings and details will be provided at the appropriate time.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Business

Trump demands resignation of Intel CEO over alleged China ties

Business 3 Mins Read

President Donald Trump on Thursday demanded that the CEO of the tech firm Intel resign immediately, saying he is “highly conflicted” because of alleged ties to China.

“There is no other solution to this problem,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump’s attack on the Intel chief is his latest attempt to pressure the semiconductor industry, which has fueled the boom in artificial intelligence. On Wednesday, he said he would hit imported computer chips with a 100% tariff unless companies are making them, or plan to make them, in the United States.

The demand also comes after Sen. Tom Cotton wrote to Intel Chairman Frank Yeary to “express concerns about the security and integrity of Intel’s operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security.”

Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, claims in the letter that Intel’s recently named CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, “reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

Cotton asked Intel whether it had asked Tan to “divest from his positions in semiconductor firms linked to the Chinese Communist Party or the People’s Liberation Army and any other concerning entities in China that could pose a conflict of interest?”

Cotton also asked the company if it was aware of any subpoenas that Tan’s former firm received and if Tan has disclosed any other ties to China.

Intel has not responded to NBC News’ request for comment on Cotton’s letter and Trump’s social media post.

The senator’s letter cites a recent Reuters story that said Tan “has invested in hundreds of Chinese tech firms, including at least eight with links to the People’s Liberation Army, according to a Reuters review of Chinese and U.S. corporate filings.’

In March, Yeary announced that Tan had been named Intel CEO. Tan started working at the company on March 18. Tan was previously chief executive of Cadence Design Systems, an American chip design company based in California, from 2009 to 2021.

Intel’s rivals such as Taiwan Semiconductor, Samsung, GlobalFoundries and Nvidia have all announced plans to invest billions of dollars in their existing U.S. chipmaking infrastructure or deepen partnerships with U.S. companies like Apple to dodge those long-promised tariffs.

Further management turmoil for Intel likely spells more trouble and delays as it continues to try to play catch up with its competitors. The company’s stock market value, just shy of $90 billion, lags far behind most of its rivals. Its stock dropped more than 2% Thursday, erasing its gains for the year and underperforming the S&P 500’s 9% gain this year.

Intel’s last CEO, Patrick Gelsinger, was forced out at the end of 2024 after the company fell behind Nvidia, AMD and other chip firms in the AI race. That came as Gelsinger sought to transform the long-struggling company by attempting to build major chip factories in the U.S.

But Intel’s debt load and the lead time that other companies already had on Intel were too much for Gelsinger to overcome.

In November, Intel received a nearly $8 billion grant under the Biden administration’s “CHIPS Act” for factory build-outs and to make secure chips for the Defense Department.

But that grant was less than Intel was originally set to receive. It was reduced because U.S. officials worried about Intel’s ability to deliver what was promised, The New York Times reported.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

Top 9 Global Lithium Stocks of 2025

Investing 13 Mins Read

Lithium prices continued their downward trajectory in Q2 2025, with battery-grade lithium carbonate hitting a four-year low of US$8,329 per metric ton in late June.

Lithium hydroxide followed suit, as oversupply and bearish sentiment weighed on the market.

Despite strong electric vehicle (EV) demand, mined supply — driven largely by China, Australia, Argentina and emerging African producers — has outpaced consumption, with Fastmarkets forecasting a 260,000 metric ton surplus for 2025.

“The industry is navigating a period of complexity,” said Paul Lusty, head of battery raw materials at Fastmarkets, speaking at the firm’s June lithium conference.

Still, he emphasized that long-term fundamentals remain “anchored in mega trends,” including the global energy transition, AI expansion and climate change mitigation.

In China, production ramp-ups and new fair competition rules have added volatility, while US policy uncertainty under the Trump administration has dampened investor sentiment. Brief price rebounds in July, spurred by speculation over supply cuts, were short-lived, reflecting the market’s sensitivity to rumors over fundamentals.

Even with near-term headwinds, analysts say the structural case for lithium is solid, offering opportunities for long-term-focused investors.

Against this backdrop, some lithium stocks are seeing share price gains. Below, we profile the lithium stocks in Canada, Australia and the US that have performed the best so far in 2025, updating investors on the lithium companies’ news and activities.

This list of the top-gaining lithium companies is based on year-to-date as per TradingView’s stock screener. Data for Canadian stocks and US stocks was collected on July 22, 2025, and data for Australian stocks was gathered on July 23, 2025. Lithium stocks with market caps above $10 million in their respective currencies were considered.

Top Canadian lithium stocks

1. NOA Lithium Brines (TSXV:NOAL)

Year-to-date gain: 58.82 percent
Market cap: C$488.32 million
Share price: C$0.30

NOA is a lithium exploration and development company with three projects in Argentina’s Lithium Triangle region. The company’s flagship Rio Grande project and prospective Arizaro and Salinas Grandes land packages total more than 140,000 hectares.

As NOA works to advance its flagship asset, the company brought on Hatch in April to lead the preliminary economic assessment (PEA).

The PEA will evaluate the project’s economic and development potential with a target production of 20,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) annually, with a scalable plant design that could double capacity to 40,000 metric tons per year.

NOA has also been working to secure a water source in the arid region through a drilling program targeting fresh water. In late June, the company discovered a fresh water source at the project, located near high-grade lithium zones in the project’s northeast area. According to the company, the location means the water source could support future production facilities or evaporation ponds.

The well, drilled to 190 meters in the northern part of the property, is being tested and developed.

Shares of NOA reached a year-to-date high C$0.425 on July 17, 2025.

2. Wealth Minerals (TSXV:WML)

Year-to-date gain: 40 percent
Market cap: C$23.93 million
Share price: C$0.07

Wealth Minerals is focused on the acquisition and development of lithium projects in Chile, including the Yapuckuta project in Chile’s Salar de Atacama, as well as the Kuska Salar and Pabellón projects near the Salar de Ollagüe.

Wealth Minerals’ shares spiked to a year-to-date high of C$0.095 on February 9, 2025, following the company’s acquisition of the Pabellón project.

According to Wealth, Pabellón has been shortlisted by Chile’s Ministry of Mining as a potential site for a Special Lithium Operation Contract based on its geological and environmental suitability. Located in Northern Chile near the Bolivia border, the project spans 7,600 hectares across 26 exploration licenses about 70 kilometers south of the Salar de Ollagüe.

In May, Wealth formed a joint venture with the Quechua Indigenous Community of Ollagüe to advance the Kuska project. The new entity, Kuska Minerals SpA, is 95 percent owned by Wealth and 5 percent by the community, which also holds anti-dilution rights and a seat on the five-member board.

3. Avalon Advanced Materials (TSX:AVL)

Year-to-date gain: 37.5 percent
Market cap: C$38.26 million
Share price: C$0.055

Avalon Advanced Materials is a Canadian mineral development company focusing on integrating the Ontario lithium supply chain. Avalon is developing the Separation Rapids and Snowbank lithium projects near Kenora, Ontario, and the Lilypad lithium-cesium project near Fort Hope, Ontario.

Separation Rapids and Lilypad are part of a 40/60 joint venture between Avalon and SCR Sibelco, with Sibelco serving as the operator.

Avalon started the year with a revised mineral resource estimate for the Separation Rapids project, which boosted resources in the measured and indicated category by 28 percent.

Company shares rose to C$0.07, a year-to-date high, on July 15, the day after Avalon released its results for its fiscal quarter ended May 31.

A week later, Avalon announced an additional C$1.3 million in funding through its C$15 million convertible security agreement with Lind Global Fund II. The drawdown, expected to close within two weeks, will support project development and general corporate needs, according to the company.

Top US lithium stocks

1. Sociedad Química y Minera (NYSE:SQM)

Year-to-date gain: 10.43 percent
Market cap: US$10.82 billion
Share price: US$40.64

SQM is a major global lithium producer, with operations centered in Chile’s Salar de Atacama. The company extracts lithium from brine and produces lithium carbonate and hydroxide for use in batteries.

SQM is expanding production and holds interests in projects in Australia and China.

Shares of SQM reached a year-to-date high of US$45.61 on March 17, 2025. The spike occurred a few weeks after the company released its 2024 earnings report, which highlighted record sales volumes in the lithium and iodine segments. However, low lithium prices weighed on revenue from the segment, and the company’s reported net profit was pulled down significantly due to a large accounting adjustment related to income tax.

In late April, Chile’s competition watchdog approved the partnership agreement between SQM and state-owned copper giant Codelco aimed at boosting output at the Atacama salt flat. The deal, first announced in 2024, reached another milestone when it secured approval for an additional lithium quota from Chile’s nuclear energy regulator CChEN.

Weak lithium prices continued to weigh on profits, with the company reporting a 4 percent year-over-year decrease in total revenues for Q1 2025.

2. Lithium Americas (NYSE:LAC)

Year-to-date gain: 9.67 percent
Market cap: US$719.1 million
Share price: US$3.29

Lithium Americas is developing its flagship Thacker Pass project in Northern Nevada, US. The project is a joint venture between Lithium Americas at 62 percent and General Motors (NYSE:GM) at 38 percent.

According to the firm, Thacker Pass is the “largest known measured lithium resource and reserve in the world.”

Early in the year, Lithium Americas saw its share rally to a year-to-date high of US$3.49 on January 16, coinciding with a brief rally in lithium carbonate prices.

In March, Lithium Americas secured US$250 million from Orion Resource Partners to advance Phase 1 construction of Thacker Pass. The funding is expected to fully cover development costs through the construction phase. On April 1, the joint venture partners made a final investment decision for the project, with completion targeted for late 2027.

Other notable announcements this year included a new at-the-market equity program, allowing the company to sell up to US$100 million in common shares.

3. Lithium Argentina (NYSE:LAR)

Year-to-date gain: 8.46 percent
Market cap: US$467.28 million
Share price: US$2.90

Lithium Argentina produces lithium carbonate from its Caucharí-Olaroz brine project in Argentina, developed with Ganfeng Lithium (OTC Pink:GNENF,HKEX:1772).

The company is also advancing additional regional lithium assets to support EV and battery demand.

Previously named Lithium Americas (Argentina), the company was spun out from Lithium Americas in October 2023.

While shares of Lithium Argentina spiked in early January to a year-to-date high of US$3.10, the share price has been trending higher since June 19 to its current US$2.90 value.

Notable news from the company this year includes its name and ticker change and corporate migration to Switzerland in late January and the release of the full-year 2024 results in March.

In mid-April, Lithium Argentina executed a letter of intent with Ganfeng Lithium to jointly advance development across the Pozuelos-Pastos Grandes basins in Argentina. The plan includes a project fully owned by Ganfeng as well as two jointly held assets majority-owned by Lithium Argentina.

The company released its Q1 results on May 15, reporting a 15 percent quarter-over-quarter production reduction, which it attributed to planned shutdowns aimed at increasing recoveries and reducing costs.

Overall, the production guidance for 2025 is forecasted at 30,000 to 35,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate, reflecting higher expected production volumes in the second half of the year.

Top Australian lithium stocks

1. Jindalee Lithium (ASX:JLL)

Year-to-date gain: 123.26 percent
Market cap: AU$35.94 million
Share price: AU$0.48

Perth-based Jindalee Lithium is currently focused on its McDermitt lithium project, which it regards as a potential low-cost and long-life lithium source for North America.

On April 22, McDermitt was declared among the US Trump administration’s first 10 resource projects designated as Fast-41 Transparency Projects, which is intended to fast track resource projects important to the US’s critical minerals supply chain. The designation secures publicly accessible permitting timelines and enhances interagency cooperation for the project.

Shares of Jindalee Lithium spiked to a year-to-date high of AU$0.565 April 30, the day after Jindalee released its March 2025 quarterly activities report.

On July 10, Jindalee announced a memorandum of understanding with US-based LiChem Operations, which is developing its lithium refining process for battery grade lithium. Jindalee will initially supply LiChem with 100 kilograms of ore from McDermitt for testwork.

If both companies are satisfied with the result, Jindalee will provide up to 20 metric tons of further ore to LiChem in stages. There is also potential for Jindalee to negotiate for a license to use LiChem’s process in place of the sulfuric acid flowsheet from its prefeasibility study.

2. Liontown Resources (ASX:LTR)

Year-to-date gain: 75.47 percent
Market cap: AU$2.34 billion
Share price: AU$0.93

Liontown Resources has two assets in Western Australia, including the producing Kathleen Valley mine and processing plant. The mine entered open-pit production during the second half of 2024, and the plant reached commercial production in January 2025.

The company is currently transitioning from open-pit to underground mining operations at Kathleen Valley. Underground production stoping kicked off in April of this year, making Kathleen Valley Western Australia’s first underground lithium mine.

Liontown also owns the Buldania lithium project in the Eastern Goldfields province of Western Australia. The project has an initial mineral resource of 15 million metric tons at 1.0 percent lithium oxide.

On June 30, Liontown announced executive leadership changes, appointing Graeme Pettit as interim chief financial officer and Ryan Hair as chief operating officer after CFO Jon Latto and COO Adam Smits decided to step down from the positions.

The company released its fiscal 2025 results on July 29, reporting that Kathleen Valley produced over 300,000 wet metric metric tons of spodumene concentrate during its first 11 months of operations.

Shares of Liontown Resources reached a year-to-date high of AU$1.03 on July 21.

3. Anson Resources (ASX:ASN)

Year-to-date gain: 57.14 percent
Market cap: AU$145.61 million
Share price: AU$0.11

Newport Beach-based Anson Resources is advancing development of its flagship Paradox lithium project and its Green River lithium project, both located the Paradox Basin of Utah, US. It plans to produce lithium from the projects using direct lithium extraction (DLE).

Anson Resources has shared significant developments at Green River this year. According to its March quarterly activities report, the company completed a DLE pilot program with Koch Technology Solutions, producing 43,000 gallons of lithium chloride eluate with an average lithium recovery of 98 percent from brine extracted from Green River’s Bosydaba #1 well.

A June maiden JORC mineral resource for Green River estimated 103,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent based solely on drilling at the Bosydaba #1 well. The prior month, the company negotiated a lower royalty rate agreement with the Utah government.

On July 1, the company announced it signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with POSCO Holdings (NYSE:PKX,KRX:005490) to co-develop a DLE demonstration plant at Green River, which POSCO will fully fund.

Anson Resources’ share price spiked in mid-July, ultimately climbing to a year-to-date high of AU$0.11 on July 21, following a pair of announcements.

On July 14, Anson reported it shipped about 2 tons of lithium brine to POSCO in South Korea for test work and due diligence. Two days later, it announced that its polishing system, which is installed at Green River, successfully reduced the minor contaminants from the lithium chloride eluate produced in the KOCH DLE pilot program.

FAQs for investing in lithium

How much lithium is on Earth?

While we don’t know how much total lithium is on Earth, the US Geological Survey estimates that global reserves of lithium stand at 22 billion metric tons. Of that, 9.2 billion MT are located in Chile, and 5.7 billion MT are in Australia.

Where is lithium mined?

Lithium is mined throughout the world, but the two countries that produce the most are Australia and Chile. Australia’s lithium comes from primarily hard-rock deposits, while Chile’s comes from lithium brines. Chile is part of the Lithium Triangle alongside Argentina and Bolivia, although those two countries have a lower annual output.

Rounding out the top five lithium-producing countries behind Australia and Chile are China, Argentina and Brazil.

What is lithium used for?

Lithium has many uses, including the lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles, smartphones and other tech, as well as pharmaceuticals, ceramics, grease, lubricants and heat-resistant glass. Still, it is largely the electric vehicle industry that is boosting demand.

How to invest in lithium?

Those looking to get into the lithium market have many options when it comes to how to invest in lithium.

Lithium stocks like those mentioned above could be a good option for investors interested in the space. If you’re looking to diversify instead of focusing on one stock, there is the Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (NYSE:LIT), an exchange-traded fund (ETF) focused on the metal. Experienced investors can also look at lithium futures.

Unlike many commodities, investors cannot physically hold lithium due to its dangerous properties.

How to buy lithium stocks?

Through the use of a broker or an investing service such as an app, investors can purchase lithium stocks and ETFs that match their investing outlook.

Before buying a lithium stock, potential investors should take time to research the companies they’re considering; they should also decide how many shares will be purchased, and what price they are willing to pay. With many options on the market, it’s critical to complete due diligence before making any investment decisions.

It’s also important for investors to keep their goals in mind when choosing their investing method. There are many factors to consider when choosing a broker, as well as when looking at investing apps — a few of these include the broker or app’s reputation, their fee structure and investment style.

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

Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Alvopetro Announces Q2 2025 Financial Results and an Operational Update

Investing 22 Mins Read

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

‘Q2 included our first quarter of sales from our recently added Western Canadian assets and overall sales volumes continued to be very strong averaging 2,436 boepd, up 50% from Q2 2024, and consistent with Q1 2025. We have a considerable amount of activity underway and we are looking forward to an exciting Q3 with the completion and tie-in of our 183-D4 well, our Caburé Unit development wells, and our two most recently drilled multi-lateral wells in Western Saskatchewan . Our 2025 capital program is organically funded and focused on high rate of return opportunities in Brazil and also now in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin.’

Operational Update

July Sales Volumes

Natural gas, NGLs and crude oil sales:

July

2025

June

2025

Q2

2025

Brazil:

Natural gas (Mcfpd), by field:

Caburé

11,122

11,804

11,811

Murucututu

1,751

1,446

1,191

Total natural gas (Mcfpd)

12,873

13,250

13,002

NGLs (bopd)

130

147

128

Oil (bopd)

9

9

3

Total (boepd) – Brazil

2,284

2,365

2,298

Canada:

Oil (bopd) – Canada

134

149

138

Total Company – boepd (1)

2,418

2,514

2,436

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

July sales volumes averaged 2,418 boepd, including 2,284 boepd from Brazil (with natural gas sales of 12.9 MMcfpd, associated natural gas liquids sales from condensate of 130 bopd, and oil sales of 9 bopd) and 134 bopd from oil sales in Canada , based on field estimates.

Quarterly Natural Gas Pricing Update

Effective August 1, 2025 , our natural gas price under our long-term gas sales agreement was adjusted to BRL1.90 /m 3 and will apply to all natural gas sales from August 1, 2025 to October 31, 2025 . Based on our average heat content to date and the July 31, 2025 BRL/USD exchange rate of 5.60, our expected realized price at the new contracted price is $10.27 /Mcf, net of applicable sales taxes, a decrease of 3% from the Q2 2025 realized price of $10.62 /Mcf due mainly to reduced Henry Hub and Brent prices in the second quarter. Amounts ultimately received in equivalent USD will be impacted by exchange rates in effect during the period August 1, 2025 to October 31, 2025 .

Development Activities – Brazil

On our 100% owned Murucututu field, the 183-D4 well was drilled in the second quarter to a total measured depth of 3,072 metres. The well encountered the Caruaçu Member of the Maracangalha Formation 106 metres structurally updip of our 183-A3 well which has been on production since the fourth quarter of 2024.  Based on cased-hole gamma ray logs and normalized gas while drilling, the well encountered potential natural gas pay in the Caruaçu Member of the Maracangalha Formation, with an aggregate 61 metres total vertical depth (‘TVD’) of potential natural gas pay between 2,439 and 2,838 meters TVD. We’ve now completed the well in seven intervals and expect to have the well on production later in the third quarter. A total of $3.3 million of capital expenditures are estimated on the field in the second half of 2025, including costs for the 183-D4 completion.

Our joint development on the unitized area (‘the Unit’) which includes our Caburé field commenced in the second quarter and three wells (1.7 net) have now been drilled. The fourth well (0.6 net) is expected to be drilled later in the third quarter. Alvopetro’s share of these planned unit development costs in the second half of 2025 is anticipated to be $5.5 million . The timing of drilling the fifth development well (0.6 net) is subject to the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals.

Development Activities – Western Canada

In June, we further expanded our joint Mannville focused land based to 17,780 gross acres (8,890 net acres) and in July, two additional multi-lateral wells (1.0 net) were drilled with an aggregate of over 19 kilometers of open hole reservoir contact. Both wells will now be completed and equipped and are expected to be on production later in the third quarter. We expect to drill our next two multi-lateral wells (1.0 net) starting later this year.

Financial and Operating Highlights – Second Quarter of 2025

  • Average daily sales in Q2 2025 were 2,436 boepd (+50% from Q2 2024 and consistent with Q1 2025 sales of 2,446 boepd). In Brazil , daily sales averaged 2,298 boepd (+41% compared to Q2 2024) and in Canada , oil sales commenced in April 2025 , contributing 138 bopd in the quarter.
  • Our average realized natural gas price was $10.62 /Mcf in Q2 2025 (-10% from Q2 2024 and +2% from Q1 2025). Our overall averaged realized sales price per boe was $63.20 /boe (-12% from Q2 2024 and -1% from Q1 2025).
  • With higher sales volumes, our natural gas, oil and condensate revenue increased to $14.0 million (+31% from Q2 2024).
  • Our operating netback in the quarter was $54.72 per boe, a decrease of $9.58 per boe compared to Q2 2024 due mainly to lower realized sales prices as well as higher royalties. Compared to Q1 2025, our operating netback increased $3.95 per boe with lower royalties partially offset by lower realized prices.
  • We generated funds flows from operations of $10.4 million ( $0.28 per basic and $0.27 per diluted share), increases of $2.5 million compared to Q2 2024 and $1.1 million compared to Q1 2025.
  • We reported net income of $6.8 million ( $0.18 per basic and diluted share), an increase of $4.5 million compared to Q2 2024 due to higher sales volumes as well as foreign exchange gains (compared to foreign exchange losses in Q2 2024), partially offset by lower realized prices and higher royalties, production expenses, depletion and depreciation expense and tax expense.
  • Capital expenditures totaled $9.0 million , including drilling costs for the 183-D4 well on Alvopetro’s 100% Murucututu field as well as Alvopetro’s share of costs incurred on unit development, including costs for two (1.1 net) of five development wells (2.8 net) which commenced drilling in the quarter.
  • Our working capital surplus was $6.8 million as of June 30, 2025 , decreasing $2.9 million from March 31, 2025 .

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

June 30,

As at and Six Months Ended

June 30,

2025

2024

Change

2025

2024

Change (%)

Financial

($000s, except where noted)

Natural gas, oil and condensate sales

14,010

10,672

31

28,023

22,424

25

Net income

6,830

2,350

191

12,900

6,900

87

Per share – basic ($) (1)

0.18

0.06

200

0.35

0.19

84

Per share – diluted ($) (1)

0.18

0.06

200

0.34

0.18

89

Cash flows from operating activities

10,473

8,860

18

19,290

17,073

13

Per share – basic ($) (1)

0.28

0.24

17

0.52

0.46

13

Per share – diluted ($) (1)

0.28

0.24

17

0.51

0.45

13

Funds flow from operations (2)

10,366

7,910

31

19,588

16,423

19

Per share – basic ($) (1)

0.28

0.21

33

0.53

0.44

20

Per share – diluted ($) (1)

0.27

0.21

29

0.52

0.44

18

Dividends declared

3,660

3,296

11

7,303

6,592

11

Per share (1) (2)

0.10

0.09

11

0.20

0.18

11

Capital expenditures

8,986

3,437

161

17,361

5,876

195

Cash and cash equivalents

15,001

19,681

(24)

15,001

19,681

(24)

Net working capital (2)

6,838

14,692

(53)

6,838

14,692

(53)

Weighted average shares outstanding

Basic (000s) (1)

37,261

37,286

–

37,278

37,282

–

Diluted (000s) (1)

37,795

37,600

1

37,770

37,647

–

Operations

Average daily sales volumes (3) :

Brazil:

Natural gas (Mcfpd), by field:

Caburé (Mcfpd)

11,811

8,822

34

11,761

9,029

30

Murucututu (Mcfpd)

1,191

422

182

1,639

426

285

Total natural gas (Mcfpd)

13,002

9,244

41

13,400

9,455

42

NGLs – condensate (bopd)

128

76

68

131

77

70

Oil (bopd)

3

12

(75)

7

12

(42)

Total (boepd) – Brazil

2,298

1,629

41

2,371

1,665

42

Canada:

Oil (bopd) – Canada

138

–

–

69

–

–

Total Company (boepd)

2,436

1,629

50

2,440

1,665

47

Average realized prices (2) :

Natural gas ($/Mcf)

10.62

11.83

(10)

10.53

12.21

(14)

NGLs – condensate ($/bbl)

72.32

92.27

(22)

76.78

90.06

(15)

Oil ($/bbl)

47.10

71.87

(34)

48.31

68.54

(30)

Total ($/boe)

63.20

71.97

(12)

63.43

74.00

(14)

Operating netback ($/boe) (2)

Realized sales price

63.20

71.97

(12)

63.43

74.00

(14)

Royalties

(2.97)

(1.94)

53

(5.28)

(1.98)

167

Production expenses

(5.37)

(5.73)

(6)

(5.34)

(6.77)

(21)

Transportation expenses

(0.14)

–

–

(0.07)

–

–

Operating netback

54.72

64.30

(15)

52.74

65.25

(19)

Operating netback margin (2)

87 %

89 %

(2)

83 %

88 %

(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.

Q2 2025 Results Webcast

Alvopetro will host a live webcast to discuss our Q2 2025 financial results at 8:00 am Mountain time on Thursday August 7, 2025. Details for joining the event are as follows:

DATE: August 7, 2025
TIME : 8:00 AM Mountain/ 10:00 AM Eastern
LINK: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87200931927
DIAL-IN NUMBERS: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kdLidYPIoO
WEBINAR ID: 872 0093 1927

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:

Twitter – https://twitter.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

e 3 m 3 /d

=

thousand cubic metre per day

m 3

=

cubic metre

m 3 /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

Q2 2024

=

three months ended June 30, 2024

Q2 2025

=

three months ended June 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 June 30,

Six Months Ended June 30,

2025

2024

2025

2024

Operating netback – $ per boe

54.72

64.30

52.74

65.25

Average realized price – $ per boe

63.20

71.97

63.43

74.00

Operating netback margin

87 %

89 %

83 %

88 %

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 June 30,

Six Months Ended June 30,

$ per share

2025

2024

2025

2024

Per basic share:

Cash flows from operating activities

0.28

0.24

0.52

0.46

Funds flow from operations

0.28

0.21

0.53

0.44

Per diluted share:

Cash flows from operating activities

0.28

0.24

0.51

0.45

Funds flow from operations

0.27

0.21

0.52

0.44

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 June 30,

Six Months Ended June 30,

2025

2024

2025

2024

Cash flows from operating activities

10,473

8,860

19,290

17,073

Changes in non-cash working capital

(107)

(950)

298

(650)

Funds flow from operations

10,366

7,910

19,588

16,423

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 June 30,

2025

2024

Total current assets

22,915

25,300

Total current liabilities

(16,077)

(10,608)

Net working capital

6,838

14,692

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 e 3 m 3 /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 371e 3 m 3 /d (13.1MMcfpd).

Well Results

Data obtained from the 183-D4 well identified in this press release, including hydrocarbon shows, cased-hole logging data, and potential net pay should be considered preliminary until testing, detailed analysis and interpretation has been completed. Hydrocarbon shows can be seen during the drilling of a well in numerous circumstances and do not necessarily indicate a commercial discovery or the presence of commercial hydrocarbons in a well. 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, the expected timing of production commencement from certain wells, 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.

View original content: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2025/06/c8138.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Westport

Investing 5 Mins Read

Investor Insight

Westport’ innovative technologies and pioneered alternative fuel delivery systems offer a compelling case for investors looking to participate in the opportunities of a low-carbon economy.

Overview

Westport (NASDAQ:WPRT,TSX:WPRT) specializes in delivering advanced fuel technologies, with a focus on heavy-duty vehicles, aimed at reducing carbon emissions without compromising engine performance. As a key player in the clean transportation space, Westport offers innovative solutions that enable internal combustion engines to operate on alternative low-carbon fuels, including natural gas, renewable natural gas (RNG), propane and hydrogen.

Westport is focused on the following transportation market opportunities:

  1. High-pressure Controls and Systems: Focuses on high-pressure fuel management solutions for hydrogen and other alternative fuel engines. Westport is embracing early-stage hydrogen infrastructure development and offers key components such as pressure regulators, injectors and fuel rails for both internal combustion engines and fuel cell applications. While hydrogen is key to the future decarbonization of transport, Westport’s components and solutions are already powering innovation today across a range of gaseous fuels.

In 2025, Westport completed the sale of its Light-Duty Segment to Heliaca Investments, allowing the company to strengthen its balance sheet and focus on high-growth opportunities in heavy-duty and industrial markets.

Market Position and Competitive Advantage

Westport operates in a rapidly growing and changing clean transportation market driven by stringent emission regulations, increasing fuel costs, and rising demand for sustainable mobility solutions. The company’s competitive edge lies in its proprietary HPDI technology, which uniquely delivers diesel-equivalent performance while significantly reducing carbon emissions. Westport’s joint venture with Volvo Group, under the Cespira name, enhances its ability to scale HPDI solutions globally.

Fleet operators and logistics companies are increasingly turning to alternative fuel vehicles to reduce operational costs and meet stringent ESG goals. In response, Westport continues to invest in innovation, particularly in hydrogen and renewable natural gas solutions.

Company Highlights

  • Westport is a pioneer in the development and commercialization of alternative fuel delivery systems for natural gas, renewable natural gas (RNG), propane, and hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines (ICEs).
  • The company is rooted in heavy-duty vehicle market, leveraging Westport’s proprietary fuel technologies to deliver reductions in carbon emissions for both commercial and passenger vehicles.
  • Westport’s High-Pressure Controls and Systems segment focuses on fuel management solutions for hydrogen and other pressurized alternative fuels.
  • The flagship HPDI technology, now part of the company’s Cespira joint venture with Volvo Group, enables heavy-duty trucks to operate on natural gas or hydrogen, thereby substantially lowering CO₂ emissions while delivering diesel-equivalent or better performance.
  • Westport’s growth trajectory is enhanced by key collaborations, most notably via the formation of Cespira, a joint venture with Volvo Group aimed at accelerating the global adoption of the HPDI technology.

Key Technologies

HPDI Fuel System (transferred into the Cespira JV with Volvo Group)

The HPDI fuel system is engineered for heavy-duty trucks and industrial applications. By injecting high-pressure natural gas or hydrogen directly into the combustion chamber, HPDI delivers diesel-like torque and power with up to 98 percent lower CO₂ emissions when using hydrogen. This technology is critical for long-haul trucking and other high-load applications, where maintaining performance and range is essential. This technology is now owned under the Cespira JV, which generated a revenue of $16.2 million in Q3 2024.

The HPDI system features a revolutionary, patented injector with a dual concentric needle design that delivers small quantities of diesel fuel and large quantities of natural gas, at high pressure, to the combustion chamber.

High-pressure Controls and Components

Westport’s high-pressure gaseous controls segment is at the forefront of the clean energy revolution, designing, developing and producing high-demand components for transportation and industrial applications. The company partners with the world’s leading fuel cell manufacturers and companies committed to decarbonizing transport, offering versatile solutions that serve a variety of fuel types. While hydrogen is key to the future decarbonization of transport, Westport components and solutions are already powering innovation today across a range of gaseous fuels. With decades of experience, market-leading brands, and unmatched engineering expertise, the company is a leader in the market. While still small, its strategic position and innovative capabilities put Westport on the cusp of significant growth, ensuring it is the go-to choice for those shaping the future of clean energy, today and tomorrow.

Management

Westport is helmed by an accomplished executive team with extensive experience in automotive technology, alternative fuels and corporate strategy.

Dan Sceli – CEO

Dan Sceli was appointed as CEO in January of 2024. His distinguished 37-year career in the global manufacturing sector marks him as a visionary leader, whose strategic acumen and commitment to excellence have propelled companies to new heights.

Bill Larkin – CFO

Bill Larkin has been instrumental in strengthening the company’s financial position since joining in 2022. With prior experience as CFO of Fuel Systems Solutions and Westport Innovations, Larkin’s experience spans a diverse set of corporate environments ranging from entrepreneurial startups, high growth small-caps and mature multi-billion dollar enterprises across various industries.

Ashley Nuell – VP of Investor Relations

Ashley Nuell joined Westport in May of 2022 and currently has approximately 20 years of experience in investor relations. Her career includes roles with companies at various parts of the energy sector value chain, as well as in the investor relations and stakeholder communications practice area of a global consulting firm.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Politics

Senate hopefuls jostle for high-stakes seat after Blackburn jumps into governor race

Politics 2 Mins Read

The horse race for the next open Senate seat in Tennessee is already kicking off after Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., announced a bid for the governorship earlier Wednesday.

Tennessee Republican Reps. Andy Ogles and Tim Burchett both told Fox News Digital they’re interested in Blackburn’s seat.

Ogles said, ‘Absolutely,’ when asked if he would consider a push for Congress’ upper chamber. Burchett noted that any such situation was a ‘long ways off’ but confirmed he was looking at it as well.

Blackburn just won re-election for her second term in the U.S. Senate in the November 2024 cycle.

If she ran for governor and won, Blackburn would have to vacate her seat – setting up a potential power vacuum in the Volunteer State.

Tennessee law grants the governor the ability to appoint someone to fill Senate vacancies until the next regularly scheduled election.

That means that if Blackburn leaves by 2026, her successor would be tapped to serve until 2031. 

Both Ogles and Burchett said they would be interested in running for the seat in the 2030 election cycle if appointed to the upper chamber.

But it could very well be up to Blackburn to choose her successor, depending on when she hypothetically resigned from the Senate.

Tennessee state law does not specify when she has to step down from the Senate, according to local outlet Knox News.

If the vacancy occurred before Blackburn stepped down, the decision would likely fall to term-limited Gov. Bill Lee. But Lee could leave the decision to Blackburn if she resigned after being sworn in to take his place.

‘Trump is back, America is blessed, and Tennessee – better than ever,’ Blackburn said in a video announcing her campaign launch on Wednesday. ‘I love Tennessee, I believe in Tennesseans, and I’m ready to deliver the kind of conservative leadership that will ensure our state is America’s conservative leader for this generation and the next.

Her candidacy sets up a high-stakes GOP primary against her congressional colleague, Rep. John Rose.

If she wins, Blackburn would be the first female governor of Tennessee.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading