Breaking
Liberty Stock News
Author

admin

Browsing
Politics

Key House committee advances nationwide voter ID bill, setting up 2026 election fight

Politics 3 Mins Read

The House of Representatives is readying to vote on a bill that would mandate photo identification for voters across the United States in the coming 2026 midterm elections.

The House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most bills see a chamber-wide vote, advanced the SAVE America Act on Tuesday as conservatives continue to pressure the Senate to take up the bill after its likely House passage.

It’s a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at keeping non-citizens from participating in U.S. elections.

Democrats have attacked the bill as tantamount to voter suppression, while Republicans argue that it’s necessary after the influx of millions of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. during the four years of the Biden administration.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters it would get a vote on Wednesday.

The legislation is led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, in the House, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate.

It is an updated version of Roy’s Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the House in April 2025 but was never taken up in the Senate.

Whereas the SAVE Act would create a new federal proof of citizenship mandate in the voter registration process and impose requirements for states to keep their rolls clear of ineligible voters, the updated bill would also require photo ID to vote in any federal elections.

It would also require information-sharing between state election officials and federal authorities in verifying citizenship on current voter rolls and enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to pursue immigration cases if non-citizens were found to be listed as eligible to vote.

The legislation is highly likely to pass the House, where the vast majority — if not virtually all — Republicans have supported similar pushes in the past.

But in the Senate, where current rules say 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster and hold a final vote on a bill, at least seven Democrats would be needed even if all Republicans stuck together.

It’s why House conservatives are pushing Senate GOP leaders to change rules in a way that would effectively do away with the 60-vote threshold, even if alternative paths mean paralyzing the upper chamber with hours of nonstop debate.

‘[Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.] will take it up. The only question is, will he take it up in an environment where it can pass?’ Roy posed to Fox News Digital on Tuesday. 

‘My view is that the majority leader can and should. I’m not afraid of amendment votes…we should table all their amendments, force them to run through all their speaking, make them take the floor and filibuster.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Trump DOJ appointee Thomas Albus tapped to lead Fulton County search warrant fight

Politics 4 Mins Read

The Justice Department has installed a Missouri-based U.S. prosecutor to head the Trump administration’s election probe in Fulton County, Georgia, according to recent court records, marking the latest instance in which an out-of-state prosecutor has been tasked with a leading role in a politically charged case.

The involvement of Thomas Albus, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, was revealed last month when he signed off on a Fulton County search warrant that authorized the FBI’s raid of a key Georgia election hub. The warrant authorized federal agents to seize a broad range of election records, voting rolls, and other data tied to the 2020 election, according to a copy reviewed by Fox News Digital.

The news, and the timing of Albus’ appointment, have sparked questions over the scope of the effort, including whether it is a one-off designed to shore up election-related vulnerabilities ahead of the midterms or part of a broader test case for expanded federal authority.

It also prompted Fulton County officials to sue the FBI earlier this month, demanding the return of the seized ballots.

The FBI’s decision to order the raid remains unclear, adding further uncertainty as to why Trump may have tapped Albus.

But the scope of the case is significant. Fulton County officials told reporters this month that FBI agents were seen carrying some 700 boxes of ballots from a warehouse near the election hub and loading them into a truck.

More answers could be revealed soon. The judge assigned to rule on Fulton County’s motion ordered the Justice Department to file by 5 p.m. Tuesday the arguments it made in its effort to obtain the search warrant. 

But it’s unclear how much information will be revealed as many of the documents are widely expected to remain under seal. 

Still, the installation comes as Fulton County emerged as ‘ground zero’ for complaints about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 presidential elections, including from Trump, who lost the state to former President Joe Biden by a razor-thin margin.

And while it’s not the first time Trump’s Justice Department has sought to assign prosecutors to issues outside their district lines, unlike other efforts, the legality of Albus’s role in the district is likely to be upheld. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly tapped Albus last month to oversee election integrity cases nationwide, according to multiple news outlets. 

The DOJ did not immediately return Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the nature of his role in Georgia or elsewhere.

Under federal law — 28 U.S. Code § 515 — Bondi has the legal authority to appoint an individual to coordinate civil and criminal cases, including grand jury proceedings, across all federal districts nationwide. 

Albus also spent years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Justice Department, where he helped prosecute hundreds of federal cases and jury trials, including on charges of white-collar crime, tax offenses, public corruption, and more.

Still, his installment is not completely without criticism. 

Some have played up his role as a former deputy attorney for then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt in 2020. 

Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, was one of 17 Republican attorneys general who filed a brief supporting Trump’s push to invalidate the election results of four battleground states after the election. 

There are key differences between his installment and the installment of former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan, tapped last year to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She was also the sole prosecutor who secured the indictments against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

A judge ruled in November she was illegally appointed to her role, prompting the dismissals of both cases.

Legal experts have cited differences between Halligan’s role and Albus’s role, which appears to enjoy wide protection under federal law.

‘Unlike Halligan, Albus’ appointment appears to be lawful under a federal statute that permits the attorney general to direct ‘any other officer of the Department of Justice’ to ‘conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal … whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought,’’ Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and University of Michigan Law School professor, said in a Bloomberg op-ed.

‘But sidelining Atlanta U.S. Attorney Theodore Hertzberg in favor of Albus is concerning nonetheless — especially given his ties to Trump allies.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Shutdown clock ticks as Schumer, Democrats dig in on DHS funding demands

Politics 3 Mins Read

Senate Democrats aren’t ready to concede in their push for stringent reforms to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and are ready to buck Senate Republicans’ plans to avert a partial shutdown. 

Their resistance comes as Senate Republicans and the White House have floated a counteroffer to Democrats’ proposed DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reforms. But the two sides remain far apart on a deal to fund the agency, and they are quickly running out of time.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., the top-ranking Senate Democrat on the Homeland Security spending panel, said he would not support another short-term DHS funding extension unless Republicans made meaningful concessions on immigration enforcement.

Murphy also dismissed the White House’s proposal as a list of ‘sophomoric talking points.’

‘We had plenty of time, they wasted two weeks,’ Murphy said. ‘They still haven’t given us any meaningful answer or response.’ 

His position is shared by several Senate Democrats who have unified around a push to codify a list of 10 DHS reforms. Those include requirements that ICE agents obtain judicial warrants, unmask and display identification, provisions Republicans have labeled red lines.

The standoff follows criticism late Monday from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who rejected President Donald Trump’s counteroffer.

In a joint statement, the leaders said the proposal ‘is both incomplete and insufficient in terms of addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.’ Jeffries added he would not support another short-term funding patch, known as a continuing resolution (CR), Tuesday morning. 

Schumer argued that there was plenty of time to hash out a deal. 

‘There’s no reason we can’t get this done by Thursday,’ he said. 

With Friday’s funding deadline approaching, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., teed up a backup plan Tuesday night as the risk of a shutdown grew.

Thune and Senate Republicans have warned since Trump and Schumer finalized a broader funding agreement earlier this month that Congress did not have enough time to negotiate and pass a revised DHS funding bill in just two weeks.

‘I understand that, on the other side of the Capitol, the Democrats are already objecting to that, which is no big surprise since they haven’t voted for anything yet,’ Thune said.

‘I think there are Democrats in both the House and the Senate who do want to see this addressed,’ he added. ‘I’m hopeful the conversations lead to an outcome, but we probably won’t know by the time the current CR expires.’

As with most funding fights, both parties accuse the other of failing to negotiate in good faith.

‘I’m not for putting DHS on a CR until they show us they are serious about doing something,’ Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told Fox News Digital.

Republicans counter that Democrats spent more than a week drafting their proposal, while the White House produced a counteroffer in less than two days.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital Republicans didn’t expect their counterparts to accept their offer, ‘but we didn’t accept theirs either.’ 

‘Hopefully, this is a working footprint,’ Mullin said. ‘We can start negotiating because we’re definitely not accepting their things. But the thing is, what we’re trying to do is protect the ability for ICE and our border agents to do their job. I think it’s pretty clear, though, unless the Democrats want to shut down DHS, we’re going to have to do another CR.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Trump, Netanyahu to meet at White House in high-stakes talks on Iran, Gaza plan

Politics 5 Mins Read

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday in a visit expected to center on Iran, as Washington weighs diplomacy against the threat of military action and Israel pushes to shape the scope of negotiations.

Trump has signaled the Iranian file will dominate the agenda. In a phone interview with Axios, the president said Tehran ‘very much wants to reach a deal,’ but warned, ‘Either we make a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough — like last time.’

Netanyahu, speaking before departing Israel for Washington, said he intends to present Israel’s position. ‘I will present to the president our concept regarding the principles of the negotiations — the essential principles that are important not only to Israel but to anyone who wants peace and security in the Middle East,’ he told reporters.

The meeting comes days after U.S. and Iranian officials resumed talks in Oman for the first time since last summer’s 12-day war, while the United States continues to maintain a significant military presence in the Gulf — a posture widely viewed as both deterrence and for holding leverage in negotiations with Tehran.

From the U.S. perspective, Iran is seen as a global security challenge rather than a regional one, according to Jacob Olidort, chief research officer and director of American security at the America First Policy Institute. ‘It’s an important historic time of potentially seismic proportions,’ he told Fox News Digital.

‘Iran is not so much a Middle East issue. It’s a global issue affecting U.S. interests around the world,’ he added, calling the regime ‘probably the world’s oldest global terror network… [with] thousands of Americans killed through proxies.’

Olidort said the administration’s strategy appears to combine diplomacy with visible military pressure. ‘The president has been clear… should talks not be successful, the military option cannot be off the table,’ he said. ‘Military assets in the region serve as part of the negotiation strategy with Iran.’

For Israel, the main concern is not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its ballistic missile arsenal and regional network of armed groups.

Trump indicated to Axios that the United States shares at least part of that view, saying any agreement would need to address not only nuclear issues but also Iran’s ballistic missiles. 

Israeli intelligence expert Sima Shein has warned that negotiations narrowly focused on nuclear restrictions could leave Israel exposed. ‘The visit signals a lack of confidence that American envoys, Witkoff and Kushner, alone can represent Israel’s interests in the best way. They were in Israel just a week ago — but Netanyahu wants to speak directly with Trump, so there is no ambiguity about Israel’s position,’ she added.

Shein says Iran may be stalling diplomatically to see whether Washington limits talks to nuclear issues while avoiding missile constraints. Her analysis further suggests that a sanctions-relief agreement that leaves Iran’s broader capabilities intact could stabilize the regime at a moment of internal pressure while preserving its military leverage. 

‘An agreement now would effectively save the regime at a time when it has no real solutions to its internal problems. Lifting sanctions through a deal would give it breathing room and help stabilize it,’ she said.

‘If there is an agreement, the United States must demand the release of all detainees and insist on humanitarian measures, including medical support for those who have been severely injured. Washington would need to be directly involved in enforcing those provisions.’

Netanyahu said before leaving Israel that he and Trump would discuss ‘a series of topics,’ including Gaza, where a U.S.-backed postwar framework and ceasefire implementation remain stalled. 

According to Israeli reporting, Netanyahu plans to tell Trump that phase two of the Gaza peace plan ‘is not moving,’ reflecting continued disputes over disarmament, governance and security arrangements.

The timing of Netanyahu’s visit may also allow him to avoid returning to Washington the following week for the inaugural session of the Board of Peace, Shein said, noting the initiative is controversial in Israel’s parliament. 

‘Israel is deeply concerned about the presence of Turkey and Qatar on the board of peace and their malign influence on other members as well as on the Palestinian authority’s technocratic government,’ Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told Fox News Digital.

‘Hamas’s control of Gaza has not weakened, while international commitments to disarm Hamas have appeared to weaken,’ he added, ‘The longer the U.S. waits before taking action against the Iranian regime, the more compromised Israel is in its ability and determination to forcibly disarm Hamas, both of which require the sanction and the blessing of the new international structures on Gaza.’

‘The prime minister’s deep concern is the stalled state of affairs both against the Iranian regime and apparently in Gaza. Timing is critical on both fronts. And for Israel, the window seems to be closing,’ Diker said.  

 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Business

Landmark trial accusing social media companies of addicting children to their platforms begins

Business 5 Mins Read

LOS ANGELES — The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements for the first, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, begin this week.

Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube will face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

“Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants’ products,” the lawsuit says. “They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops.”

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

José Castañeda, a Google Spokesperson, said that the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true.” In a statement, he said, “Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.”

The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being.

In New Mexico, opening statements begin Monday for trial on allegations that Meta and its social media platforms have failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

Prosecutors have said that New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for its content but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful, saying they uncovered internal documents in which Meta employees estimate that about 100,000 children every day are subjected to sexual harassment on the company’s platforms.

Meta denies the civil charges while accusing Torrez of cherry-picking select documents and making “sensationalist” arguments. The company says it has consulted with parents and law enforcement to introduce built-in protections to social media accounts, along with settings and tools for parents.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

FDA refuses to review Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine application

Politics 3 Mins Read

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to consider Moderna’s application for a new flu vaccine using mRNA technology, the company announced Tuesday, a decision that could delay the introduction of a shot designed to offer stronger protection for older adults.

Moderna said it received what’s known as a ‘refusal-to-file’ (RTF) letter from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), citing the lack of an ‘adequate and well-controlled’ study with a comparator arm that ‘does not reflect the best-available standard of care.’

Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said the FDA’s decision did not ‘identify any safety or efficacy concerns with our product’ and ‘does not further our shared goal of enhancing America’s leadership in developing innovative medicines.’

‘It should not be controversial to conduct a comprehensive review of a flu vaccine submission that uses an FDA-approved vaccine as a comparator in a study that was discussed and agreed on with CBER prior to starting,’ Bancel said in a statement. ‘We look forward to engaging with CBER to understand the path forward as quickly as possible so that America’s seniors, and those with underlying conditions, continue to have access to American-made innovations.’

The rare decision from the FDA comes amid increased scrutiny over vaccine approvals under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has criticized mRNA vaccines and rolled back certain COVID-19 shot recommendations over the past year.

Kennedy previously removed members of the federal government’s vaccine advisory panel and appointed new members, and moved to cancel $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts.

The FDA authorized COVID-19 vaccines for the fall for high-risk groups only. Last May, Kennedy announced the vaccines would be removed from the CDC’s routine immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women.

According to Moderna, the refusal-to-file decision was based on the company’s choice of comparator in its Phase 3 trial — a licensed standard-dose seasonal flu vaccine — which the FDA said did not reflect the ‘best-available standard of care.’

Moderna said the decision contradicts prior written communications from the FDA, including 2024 guidance stating a standard-dose comparator would be acceptable, though a higher-dose vaccine was recommended for participants over 65.

Moderna said the FDA ‘did not raise any objections or clinical hold comments about the adequacy of the Phase 3 trial after the submission of the protocol in April 2024 or at any time before the initiation of the study in September 2024.’

In August 2025, following completion of the Phase 3 efficacy trial, Moderna said it held a pre-submission meeting with CBER, which requested that supportive analyses on the comparator be included in the submission and indicated the data would be a ‘significant issue during review of your BLA.’

Moderna said it provided the additional analyses requested by CBER in its submission, noting that ‘at no time in the pre-submission written feedback or meeting did CBER indicate that it would refuse to review the file.’

The company requested a Type A meeting with CBER to understand the basis for the RTF letter, adding that regulatory reviews are continuing in the European Union, Canada and Australia.

Fox News has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

Dr. Adam Trexler: Physical Gold Market Broken, Crisis Unfolding Now

Investing 1 Min Read

Dr. Adam Trexler, founder and president of Valaurum, shares his thoughts on gold, identifying a key issue he sees developing in the physical market.

‘There’s a crisis in the physical gold market,’ he said, explaining that sector participants need to figure out how to serve investors who want to own gold, but can’t afford current bar and coin prices.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Valeura Energy Inc. Announces Record 2P Reserves, Higher Reserves Life Index

Investing 28 Mins Read

CALGARY, AB / ACCESS Newswire / February 10, 2026 / Valeura Energy Inc. (TSX:VLE,OTC:VLERF)(OTCQX:VLERF) (‘Valeura’ or the ‘Company’) announces record high proved plus probable (‘2P’) reserves, an increase in its 2P reserves life index (‘RLI’), and a third consecutive year of approximately 200% 2P reserves replacement ratio.

Highlights

  • Record high proved (‘1P’) reserves of 37.9 MMbbls, proved plus probable (‘2P’) reserves of 57.8 MMbbls, and proved plus probable plus possible (‘3P’) reserves of 71.2 MMbbls;

  • Adding, not just replacing reserves, with a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%;

  • 2P reserves net present value (‘NPV 10 ‘) before tax of US$872 million and US$692 million on an after tax basis (1) ;

  • Year-end 2025 cash position of US$306 million, and a net asset value (‘NAV’) of US$998 million, equating to approximately C$13 per common share (2) ;

  • RLI increased to a new record of 7.5 years, on a 2P basis (3) ; and

  • Above volumes and values do not include the recent farm-in to blocks G1/65 and G3/65 in the Gulf of Thailand, which will be additive upon completion (4) (the ‘Farm-in Transaction’).

(1) Discounted at 10% (‘NPV 10 ‘)
(2) 2P NPV 10 after tax plus cash of US$305.7 million (no debt), using US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.3722 and 105.5 million common shares of the Company (the ‘Common Shares’) outstanding, as at 31 December 2025
(3) Based on 2P reserves divided by the mid-point of the Company’s 2026 guidance production of 21 Mbbls/d
(4) Subject to government approval

Dr. Sean Guest, President and CEO commented:

‘For the third time in a row we have added approximately double the reserves we produced during the year, achieving a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%. This outcome is especially strong given the sharp drop in oil prices in 2025, meaning our reserves were evaluated at a forward price much lower than in the prior year.

We are committed to seeing through the volatility in the global commodity market and have maintained our focus on adding to the ultimate potential and longevity of our portfolio. This is reflected in an improvement to our RLI, which is now at a new record high of 7.5 years (based on 2P reserves and anticipated 2026 production). Our RLI has increased steadily over the three years we have been operating in Thailand, and we see this as affirmation of our ability to add more years of future cash flow, for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The net asset value of our business, defined as year-end cash plus our 2P net revenue (NPV 10 ), is US$1 billion which equates to approximately C$13/Common Share.

We are mindful of the concept of portfolio renewal and therefore continue to focus on contingent resources as well, which provides the feedstock for future reserves additions. We believe our decision to redevelop the Wassana field is an excellent example of this progression. At the same time, we have added more volumes through life-extending work with our Jasmine licence and through ongoing drilling success across the portfolio. In addition, upon completion of our strategic Farm-in Transaction to blocks G1/65 and G3/65 in the Gulf of Thailand, these new volumes will be additive to the volumes we have reported today.

We believe our year-end 2025 reserves and resources demonstrate our ability to drive deeper and longer-lived value from our assets, even when faced with a correction in commodity prices. I believe this underscores both the robustness of our portfolio and the relentless commitment to value shared by our world class team.’

Independent Reserves and Resources Evaluation

Valeura commissioned Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (‘NSAI’) to assess reserves and resources for all of its Thailand assets as of 31 December 2025. NSAI’s evaluation is presented in a report dated 09 February 2026 (the ‘NSAI 2025 Report’). This follows previous evaluations conducted by NSAI for the previous three years ended 31 December 2024 (the ‘NSAI 2024 Report’), 31 December 2023 (the ‘NSAI 2023 Report’), and 31 December 2022.

NSAI 2025 Report: Oil and Gas Reserves by Field Based on Forecast Prices and Costs

Reserves by Field

Gross (Before Royalties) Reserves, Working Interest Share (Mbbls)

Jasmine (Light/Med.)

Manora (Light/Med.)

Nong Yao (Light/Med.)

Wassana (Heavy)

Total

Proved

Producing Developed

6,465

1,557

4,751

1,319

14,091

Non-Producing Developed

1,413

77

153

432

2,074

Undeveloped

3,301

842

3,823

13,753

21,719

Total Proved (1P)

11,179

2,476

8,726

15,504

37,884

Total Probable (P2)

10,032

469

5,193

4,201

19,896

Total Proved + Probable (2P)

21,211

2,945

13,919

19,705

57,780

Total Possible (P3)

6,295

475

4,120

2,569

13,459

Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P)

27,506

3,420

18,039

22,274

71,238

Summary of Reserves Replacement, Value, and Field Life

Valeura added volumes within the 1P, 2P, and 3P categories in 2025. As compared to the NSAI 2024 Report, the NSAI 2025 Report indicates an increase of 5.6 MMbbls of proved (1P) reserves and 7.8 MMbbls of proved plus probable (2P) reserves, after having produced 8.5 MMbbls of oil in 2025. This implies a 1P reserves replacement ratio of 166% and a 2P reserves replacement ratio of 192%. 2025 was the Company’s third consecutive year of recording new reserves additions well in excess of volumes produced. The Company’s reserves replacement ratio on a 2P basis was 245% in 2024 and 218% in 2023.

Valeura’s RLI has increased for a third year in a row. Based on the mid-point of the Company’s 2026 production guidance of 19.5 – 22.5 Mbbls/d (21.0 Mbbls/d), on a 2P reserves basis as of 31 December 2025, the Company estimates its RLI to be approximately 7.5 years. This represents an increase from the Company’s RLI of 5.6 years as at 31 December 2024 and 4.5 years as at 31 December 2023 (calculated on the same basis).

While the 2025 2P reserves increased relative to 2024, the revenue and NPV 10 associated with these reserves is slightly lower than 2024. This reduction in value is driven by the significant drop in benchmark oil prices in 2025, causing NSAI to use a much lower oil price forecast in their year-end 2025 evaluation. The Company estimates that, based on the 2P net present value of estimated future revenue after income taxes in the NSAI 2025 Report (based on a 10% discount rate), plus the Company’s 2025 year-end cash position of US$305.7 million, the Company has a 2P NAV of US$997.7 million. Using the year-end count of Common Shares outstanding (being 105,535,429 Common Shares) and 31 December 2025 foreign currency exchange rates (which reflects a stronger Canadian dollar), Valeura’s NAV equates to approximately C$13/Common Share.

NAV Estimate

1P NPV 10

2P NPV 10

3P NPV 10

Before Tax

After Tax

Before Tax

After Tax

Before Tax

After Tax

NPV 10 (US$ million)

401.1

370.6

871.9

692.0

1,304.6

947.9

Cash at 31 December 2025 (US$ million) (1)

305.7

305.7

305.7

305.7

305.7

305.7

Net Asset Value (US$ million)

706.8

676.3

1,177.6

997.7

1,610.3

1,253.6

Common shares (million) (2)

105.5

105.5

105.5

105.5

105.5

105.5

Estimated NAV per basic share (C$ per share) (3)

9.2

8.8

15.3

13.0

20.9

16.3

(1) Cash at 31 December 2025 of US$305.7 million
(2) Issued and outstanding Common Shares as at 31 December 2025
(3) US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.3722 at 31 December 2025

The NSAI 2025 Report indicates a further extension in the anticipated end of field life for the Jasmine, Wassana and Manora fields, and a slight reduction in the anticipated end of field life for the Nong Yao field.

Fields

Gross (Before Royalties) 2P Reserves,
Working Interest Share

End of Field Life

2P NPV10 After Tax
(US$ million)

31 December 2024 (MMbbls)

2025 Production (MMbbls)

Additions (MMbbls)

31 December 2025 (MMbbls)

Reserves Replacement Ratio (%)

NSAI 2024 Report

NSAI 2025 Report

31 December 2024

31 December 2025

Jasmine

16.8

(3.0)

7.4

21.2

249%

Aug-31

Oct-34

163.9

177.2

Manora

3.4

(0.8)

0.4

2.9

47%

Apr-30

Aug-31

45.7

17.2

Nong Yao

16.9

(3.6)

0.6

13.9

16%

Dec-33

Sep-33

416.1

257.4

Wassana

12.9

(1.2)

7.9

19.7

686%

Dec-35

Dec-41

126.6

240.1

Total

50.0

(8.5)

16.3

57.8

192%

752.2

692.0

2P reserves by field, and their associated after-tax 2P NPV 10 values are indicated below. The year-on-year change between the NSAI 2024 Report and NSAI 2025 Report indicates an increase in both 2P reserves volumes and the associated after-tax value for both the Jasmine and Wassana fields, reflecting the conversion of 2C resources to 2P reserves in both instances, bolstered in particular by the Company’s decision to proceed with redevelopment of the Wassana field, for which the final investment decision was announced in May 2025.

Reserves volumes and associated after-tax 2P values for the Manora and Nong Yao fields have decreased between the NSAI 2024 Report and NSAI 2025 Report, driven primarily by the significantly reduced forecast oil pricing applied in the year-end 2025 evaluation vs the year-end 2024 evaluation. In the case of Nong Yao, the year-on-year decline in NPV 10 is also influenced by the valuation ‘roll-forward’ effect: following the field’s expansion in 2024, Nong Yao delivered strong production in 2025, effectively bringing forward and monetising a meaningful portion of the value previously reflected in NSAI 2024 Report. This value realisation was partially offset by reserves replacement at Nong Yao, with NSAI reporting additions during 2025 that helped replenish the reserve base and support ongoing field life.

Fields

Gross (Before Royalties) 2P Reserves,
Working Interest Share (MMbbls)

2P NPV 10 After Tax (US$ million)

31 December 2023

31 December 2024

31 December 2025

31 December 2023

31 December 2024

31 December 2025

Jasmine

10.4

16.8

21.2

81.8

163.9

177.2

Manora

2.2

3.4

2.9

21.2

45.7

17.2

Nong Yao

12.4

16.9

13.9

185.6

416.1

257.4

Wassana

12.9

12.9

19.7

139.9

126.6

240.1

Total

37.9

50.0

57.8

428.5

752.2

692.0

Near-term forecast oil prices in the NSAI 2025 Report are 19% lower than in the NSAI 2024 Report. The Brent crude oil reference prices used in estimating the future net revenue from oil reserves have been revised downward in accordance with the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook requirements, which mandates the use of forward curve prices in near-term forecasts.

Report

Brent crude oil reference price for the year ended

31 December 2026

31 December 2027

31 December 2028

31 December 2029

31 December 2030

Thereafter

NSAI 2024 Report (US$/bbl)

78.51

79.89

81.82

83.46

85.13

2% inflation

NSAI 2025 Report (US$/bbl)

63.92

69.13

74.36

76.10

77.62

2% inflation

Difference (US$/bbl)

(14.59)

(10.76)

(7.46)

(7.36)

(7.51)

–

Difference (%)

(19%)

(13%)

(9%)

(9%)

(9%)

(9%)

Net present values of future net revenue from oil reserves are based on cost estimates as of the date of the NSAI 2025 Report, and the forecast Brent crude oil reference prices as indicated above. Specific price forecasts for each of the Company’s fields are adjusted for oil quality and market differentials, as guided by actual recent price realisations for each of the fields’ crude oil sales.

All estimated costs associated with the eventual decommissioning of the Company’s fields are included as part of the calculation of future net revenue. As in previous years, this can result in a negative future net revenue estimate for the 1P Proved Producing Developed category as these most conservative volumes are encumbered with the entire decommissioning cost for the field.

Future Net Revenue by Field

Before Tax NPV 10 (US$ million)

Jasmine (Light/Med.)

Manora (Light/Med.)

Nong Yao (Light/Med.)

Wassana (Heavy)

Total

Proved

Producing Developed

(53.7)

(8.1)

25.7

34.3

(70.5)

Non-Producing Developed

63.6

4.5

7.0

20.0

95.2

Undeveloped

(5.4)

3.4

98.6

279.8

376.4

Total Proved (1P)

4.4

(0.2)

131.3

265.5

401.1

Total Probable (P2)

222.5

18.9

177.4

52.0

470.8

Total Proved + Probable (2P)

226.9

18.7

308.7

317.6

871.9

Total Possible (P3)

201.6

19.4

150.5

61.2

432.7

Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P)

428.6

38.2

459.1

378.8

1,304.6

Future Net Revenue by Field

After Tax NPV 10 (US$ million)

Jasmine (Light/Med.)

Manora (Light/Med.)

Nong Yao (Light/Med.)

Wassana (Heavy)

Total

Proved

Producing Developed

(59.0)

(8.1)

25.7

(34.3)

(75.8)

Non-Producing Developed

58.9

4.5

7.0

20.0

90.5

Undeveloped

2.5

3.4

97.1

253.0

356.0

Total Proved (1P)

2.4

(0.2)

129.7

238.7

370.6

Total Probable (P2)

174.9

17.4

127.7

1.4

321.3

Total Proved + Probable (2P)

177.2

17.2

257.4

240.1

692.0

Total Possible (P3)

124.5

14.7

92.4

24.3

255.9

Total Proved + Probable + Possible (3P)

301.7

31.9

349.8

264.4

947.9

Contingent Resources

NSAI assessed the Company’s contingent resources of its Thailand assets for additional reservoir accumulations and reported estimates in the NSAI 2025 Report, as it has done in each of the preceding three years. Contingent resources are heavy crude oil and light/medium crude oil, and are further divided into three subcategories, being Development Unclarified, Development Not Viable, and Development on Hold (see oil and gas advisories). Each subcategory is assigned a percentage risk, reflecting the estimated chance of development. Aggregate totals are provided below.

Contingent Resources

NSAI 2023 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest Share

NSAI 2024 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest share

NSAI 2025 Report
Gross (Before Royalties) Working Interest Share

Unrisked (MMbbls)

Risked (MMbbls)

Unrisked (MMbbls)

Risked (MMbbls)

Unrisked (MMbbls)

Risked (MMbbls)

Low Estimate (1C)

15.2

6.5

29.4

9.2

29.9

10.3

Best Estimate (2C)

19.9

8.9

48.5

13.5

39.5

7.0

High Estimate (3C)

27.9

11.6

72.1

18.0

58.9

8.9

During 2025, Valeura successfully converted a substantial portion of its Best Estimate (2C) Contingent Resources to Reserves.

The above Contingent Resources do not include any resources from the Farm-in Transaction, where Valeura expects to earn a 40% non-operated working interest in Gulf of Thailand blocks G1/65 and G3/65. The Farm-in Transaction is subject to government approval, which is anticipated in due course, following completion of Thailand’s general election.

Further Disclosure

Valeura intends to disclose a summary of the NSAI 2025 Report to Thailand’s upstream regulator later in February 2025. Thereafter, the Company will publish its estimates of reserves and resources in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 51-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities along with its annual information form for the year ended 31 December 2025, in March 2026.

For further information, please contact:

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

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

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

About the Company

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

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

Oil and Gas Advisories

Reserves and contingent resources disclosed in this news release are based on an independent evaluation

conducted by the incumbent independent petroleum engineering firm, NSAI with an effective date of 31 December 2025. The NSAI estimates of reserves and resources were prepared using guidelines outlined in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook and in accordance with National Instrument 51-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Oil and Gas Activities . The reserves and contingent resources estimates disclosed in this news release are estimates only and there is no guarantee that the estimated reserves and contingent resources will be recovered.

This news release contains a number of oil and gas metrics, including ‘NAV’, ‘reserves replacement ratio’, ‘RLI’, and ‘end of field life’ which do not have standardised meanings or standard methods of calculation and therefore such measures may not be comparable to similar measures used by other companies. Such metrics are commonly used in the oil and gas industry and have been included herein to provide readers with additional measures to evaluate the Company’s performance; however, such measures are not reliable indicators of the future performance of the Company and future performance may not compare to the performance in previous periods.

‘NAV’ is calculated by adding the estimated future net revenues based on a 10% discount rate to net cash, (which is comprised of cash less debt) as of 31 December 2025. NAV is expressed on a per share basis by dividing the total by basic Common Shares outstanding. NAV per share is not predictive and may not be reflective of current or future market prices for Valeura.

‘Reserves replacement ratio’ for 2025 is calculated by dividing the difference in reserves between the NSAI 2025 Report and the NSAI 2024 Report, plus actual 2025 production, by the assets’ total production before royalties for the calendar year 2025.

‘RLI’ is calculated by dividing reserves by management’s estimated total production before royalties for 2026.

‘End of field life’ is calculated by NSAI as the date at which the monthly net revenue generated by the field is equal to or less than the asset’s operating cost.

Reserves

Reserves are estimated remaining quantities of commercially recoverable oil, natural gas, and related substances anticipated to be recoverable from known accumulations, as of a given date, based on the analysis of drilling, geological, geophysical, and engineering data, the use of established technology, and specified economic conditions, which are generally accepted as being reasonable. Reserves are further categorised according to the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub-classified based on development and production status.

Proved reserves are those reserves that can be estimated with a high degree of certainty to be recoverable. It is likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will exceed the estimated proved reserves.

Developed reserves are those reserves that are expected to be recovered from existing wells and installed facilities or, if facilities have not been installed, that would involve a low expenditure (e.g., when compared to the cost of drilling a well) to put the reserves on production.

Developed producing reserves are those reserves that are expected to be recovered from completion intervals open at the time of the estimate. These reserves may be currently producing or, if shut in, they must have previously been on production, and the date of resumption of production must be known with reasonable certainty.

Developed non-producing reserves are those reserves that either have not been on production, or have previously been on production, but are shut in, and the date of resumption of production is unknown.

Undeveloped reserves are those reserves expected to be recovered from known accumulations where a significant expenditure (e.g., when compared to the cost of drilling a well) is required to render them capable of production. They must fully meet the requirements of the reserves classification (proved, probable, possible) to which they are assigned.

Probable reserves are those additional reserves that are less certain to be recovered than proved reserves. It is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater or less than the sum of the estimated proved plus probable reserves.

Possible reserves are those additional reserves that are less certain to be recovered than probable reserves. It is unlikely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will exceed the sum of the estimated proved plus probable plus possible reserves. There is a 10% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of the estimated proved plus probable plus possible reserves.

The estimated future net revenues disclosed in this news release do not necessarily represent the fair market value of the reserves associated therewith.

The estimates of reserves and future net revenue for individual properties may not reflect the same confidence level as estimates of reserves and future net revenue for all properties, due to the effects of aggregation.

Contingent Resources

Contingent resources are those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations using established technology or technology under development, but which are not currently considered to be commercially recoverable due to one or more contingencies. Contingencies are conditions that must be satisfied for a portion of contingent resources to be classified as reserves that are: (a) specific to the project being evaluated; and (b) expected to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe.

Contingent resources are further categorised according to the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub‐classified based on a project maturity and/or characterised by their economic status. There are three classifications of contingent resources: low estimate, best estimate and high estimate. Best estimate is a classification of estimated resources described in the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook as the best estimate of the quantity that will be actually recovered; it is equally likely that the actual remaining quantities recovered will be greater or less than the best estimate. If probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 50 percent probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the best estimate.

The project maturity subclasses include development pending, development on hold, development unclarified and development not viable. The contingent resources disclosed in this news release are classified as either development unclarified, development not viable, or development on hold.

Development unclarified is defined as a contingent resource that requires further appraisal to clarify the potential for development and has been assigned a lower chance of development until commercial considerations can be clearly defined. Chance of development is the likelihood that an accumulation will be commercially developed.

Conversion of the development unclarified resources referred to in this news release is dependent upon (1) the expected timetable for development; (2) the economics of the project; (3) the marketability of the oil and gas production; (4) the availability of infrastructure and technology; (5) the political, regulatory, and environmental conditions; (6) the project maturity and definition; (7) the availability of capital; and, ultimately, (8) the decision of joint venture partners to undertake development.

The major positive factor relevant to the estimate of the contingent development unclarified resources referred to in this news release is the successful discovery of resources encountered in appraisal and development wells within the existing fields. The major negative factors relevant to the estimate of the contingent development unclarified resources referred to in this news release are: (1) the outstanding requirement for a definitive development plan; (2) current economic conditions do not support the resource development; (3) limited field economic life to develop the resources; and (4) the outstanding requirement for a final investment decision and commitment of all joint venture partners.

Development not viable is defined as a contingent resource where no further data acquisition or evaluation is currently planned and hence there is a low chance of development, there is usually less than a reasonable chance of economics of development being positive in the foreseeable future. The major negative factors relevant to the estimate of development not viable referred to in this news release are: (1) current economic conditions do not support the resource development; and (2) availability of technical knowledge and technology within the industry to economically support resource development.

Development on hold is defined as a contingent resource where there is a reasonable chance of development, but there are contingencies to be resolved before the project can move forward.

If these contingencies are successfully addressed, some portion of these contingent resources may be reclassified as reserves.

Of the best estimate 2C contingent resources estimated in the NSAI 2025 Report, on a risked basis: 63% of the estimated volumes are light/medium crude oil, with the remainder being heavy oil; 42% are categorised as Development Unclarified, with the remainder being Development Not Viable. Development Unclarified 2C resources have been assigned an average chances of development for the four fields ranging from 5% to 85%, while 2C Development Not Viable resources have been assigned an average chance of development ranging from 10% to 15%.

Contingent resources within the Development on hold category are only in the 1C certainty estimate (low or conservative). The main contingencies are licence extensions and continuation of drilling beyond five years. These contingencies are considered to have a high chance of positive resolution and are therefore not applied in the best estimates of respective reserves and resources (2P and 2C).

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development Unclarified)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Unclarified

1,812

1,698

380

355

10% – 85%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Unclarified

2,334

2,190

528

494

10% – 85%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Unclarified

3,418

3,216

793

744

10% – 85%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Heavy Crude Oil (Development Unclarified)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Unclarified

4,163

3,924

1,836

1,730

5% – 60%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Unclarified

6,006

5,661

2,393

2,256

5% – 60%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Unclarified

9,324

8,788

3,149

2,968

5% – 60%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development Not Viable)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Not Viable

16,808

15,460

2,521

2,319

5% – 15%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Not Viable

30,057

27,577

3,870

3,552

5% – 15%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Not Viable

45,326

41,543

4,801

4,400

5% – 15%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Heavy Crude Oil (Development Not Viable)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development Not Viable

1,256

1,183

188

178

15%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development Not Viable

1,114

1,050

167

158

15%

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development Not Viable

847

799

127

120

15%

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Light and Medium Crude Oil (Development on Hold)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development on Hold

4,224

3,738

3,850

3,409

90% – 95%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development on Hold

–

–

–

–

–

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development on Hold

–

–

–

–

–

Resources Project Maturity subclass

Heavy Crude Oil (Development on Hold)

Chance of Development (%)

Unrisked

Risked

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Gross (Mbbls)

Net (Mbbls)

Contingent Low Estimate (1C) Development on Hold

1,659

1,564

1,506

1,420

90% – 95%

Contingent Best Estimate (2C) Development on Hold

–

–

–

–

–

Contingent High Estimate (3C) Development on Hold

–

–

–

–

–

The NSAI estimates have been risked, using the chance of development, to account for the possibility that the contingencies are not successfully addressed.

Glossary

bbls

barrels of oil

Mbbls

thousand barrels of oil

MMbbls

million barrels of oil

Advisory and Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Certain information included in this news release constitutes forward-looking information under applicable securities legislation. Such forward-looking information is for the purpose of explaining management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes, such as making investment decisions. Forward-looking information typically contains statements with words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘expect’, ‘plan’, ‘intend’, ‘estimate’, ‘propose’, ‘project’, ‘target’ or similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

Forward-looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, management’s anticipation that completion of the Farm-in Transaction will be additive to volumes and values; management’s expectation of receiving governmental approval of the Farm-in Transaction and the timing thereof; management’s continued focus on contingent resources and the anticipated growth of resources; the ability to add more years of future cash flow, for the benefit of all stakeholders; the ability to drive deeper and longer-lived value from the Company’s assets, even when faced with a correction in commodity prices; the Company’s anticipated 2026 production guidance of 19.5 – 22.5 Mbbls/d; dates for the anticipated end of field life of Valeura’s assets; forecast oil prices; the Company’s intention to disclose a summary of the NSAI 2025 Report to Thailand’s upstream regulator and the anticipated timing thereof; and the anticipated filing date of the Company’s annual information form along with its estimates of reserves and resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE: Valeura Energy Inc.

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Panelists: Silver in Bull Market, but Expect Price Volatility

Investing 7 Mins Read

Gold often dominates conversations at the annual Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC), but silver’s price surge, which began in 2025 and continued into January, placed the metal firmly in the spotlight.

At this year’s silver forecast panel, Commodity Culture host and producer Jesse Day sat down with Maria Smirnova, senior portfolio manager and senior investment officer Sprott (TSX:SII,NYSE:SII); GoldSeek President and CEO Peter Spina; Peter Krauth, editor of Silver Stock Investor and Silver Advisor; and Silver Tiger Metals (TSXV:SLVR,OTCQX:SLVTF) President and CEO Glenn Jessome to discuss silver’s meteoric performance and where it could be headed next.

Significant tailwinds supporting silver

Over the past five years, the silver price has largely stagnated, trading between US$20 and US$25 per ounce until mid-2024 when the white metal crossed the US$30 mark. Even then, the price mostly held steady until 2025, when it crossed the US$35 mark in June, then passed US$40 in September and US$50 in October.

However, the most significant rise came at the start of December, when momentum took over, sending silver on a historic run that pushed it to a record high of US$116 by the end of January.

Behind these meteoric gains was a highly volatile silver market, which, despite strong fundamentals, became highly speculative and attractive to investors seeking an alternative to gold, which is also trading at all-time highs.

“You buy gold to prevent losing money, and you buy silver to make money, to buy more gold,” Spina said.

Silver is in the midst of a six-year structural supply deficit, with the expectation that it will continue through 2026.

A key driver of this deficit is silver’s growing role in industrial applications. Although its biggest gains have come from its use in solar panel production, it’s also important to several other sectors, including automotive and defense.

“We wouldn’t have a modern civilization without silver. It’s used in a myriad of different places, and what is interesting now is that silver is very critical to the national defense of the US, of China, of big superpowers. So it’s becoming weaponized,” Spina explained. He noted that the US designated silver a critical mineral in 2025, placing it alongside copper for strategic purposes, and suggested that stockpiling is likely underway.

In addition to demand driving the silver price, Spina also noted that investors who had been absent from the market for many years moved into net-buying positions last year, which has helped to accelerate the market.

“Its more serious than the gold market, because silver is so essential in our daily lives,” Spina said.

While demand increases, a serious situation is developing on the supply side. The majority of silver produced today comes as a byproduct from mining other metals like copper and zinc.

Jessome outlined how perilous the supply side is, noting that in 2025 there were just 52 primary silver mines worldwide; by the end of 2026, that number is expected to fall to 46, and in 2027 to 39.

With so few mines and high prices, the expectation is that there would be new production set to come online, and although there are some in the pipeline, including Jessome’s Silver Tiger, the reality is that starting a new mine is fraught with challenges. He noted that, from the first drill hole to production, the average time is 17 years.

“From that first drill hole to a commercial mine, it’s one in 1,000. So if you think that we’re going to solve this 39 in the next year, it’s not easy, it’s hard,” Jessome told the VRIC audience.

He continued to explain that, regardless of what happens with the price, people don’t realize there’s not enough silver.

Bull markets, retractions and getting ahead

Even though silver’s fundamentals support high prices, the questions on many lips throughout VRIC were: ‘Is it too much too soon?’ and ‘Is it a bull market or is it a bubble?’

The consensus was that the metal remains in a bull market, but is exhibiting some bubble-like characteristics; investors can expect corrections, but silver will likely maintain momentum.

“We’re multiple percent above the 200 day moving average. This is not something that’s sustainable. If we continue at this pace, it would suck all the money from the markets into this one asset. It’s not likely to continue,” Krauth said just days prior to a significant correction that took the silver price back below US$70.

He pointed to the 2001 to 2011 bull market: silver rose from US$4 to nearly US$50, but along the way, there were corrections. “There were five corrections of 15 percent or more. The average correction was 30 percent. That would take us to US$75, US$80 right now,” Krauth emphasized to the audience at VRIC.

While the expert explained that a silver correction of that magnitude wouldn’t be shocking, he also pointed out that miners would still be pretty happy at those prices.

Given the market volatility, Spina echoed much of Krauth’s belief that there is reason for investors to be excited but also urged caution, commenting, “I would be very, very cautious in trying to trade this, especially with leverage or anything like that, but I do think that we’re in the revaluation phase. Silver could go a lot higher, but along the way, we can get some very vicious pullbacks, and so one has to be ready for those events.’

Smirnova urged calm, and that she was hopeful for a correction, agreeing with Krauth that the parabolic trajectory of silver wasn’t sustainable, and saying she sees gold market as more steady.

She also suggested that, rather than chasing opportunities, investors should be patient and wait for them to come to them, rather than being fearful in such a volatile market.

“I would urge people to think, sit back, and think about the reasons why silver ran in the first place, and whether those reasons are continuing right now, and they will. I think the fundamentals haven’t changed for silver, using corrections as opportunities to reload, to enter, to buy things that you know you like as an investor,” Smirnova said.

Investor takeaway

Overall, the panel was in agreement that the main factors fueling a strong silver market, supply and demand, investment, and a bifurcated market, aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Demand for silver goes beyond investment and is set to play a crucial role in the energy transition, AI and technology, and national defense. However, they also agreed that it’s probably run up to fast, and needs a correction, which started to happen on January 29, but none expected the bull market to come to an end.

Smirnova did an excellent job of putting the changing silver market into perspective for investors.

“We mine and produce, between scrap and mining supply, 1 billion ounces a year at US$30. That was a US$30 billion market. At US$100 it’s a US$100 billion market. It’s nothing. We have companies trading at trillion-dollar valuations in the market. The whole silver market is $100 billion a year, so it really does not take a lot of money to move the price, and that’s why I think it’s gone from US$30 to US$100 in no time at all,” she said.

While these price shifts don’t require significant capital inflows, they make a significant difference across the sector. Krauth noted that the price of silver hasn’t really been factored in for silver developers or producers because their projections are currently based on prices that are two-thirds lower.

“Almost nobody ever uses spot prices. They’re arguably two-thirds below spot price,’ he said.

‘So when the next few quarters come in and the market starts to realize what kind of cash these projects are generating, I think that’s when the reality will start to set in,” Krauth added.

The panel was largely optimistic that opportunities will continue to arise in the silver market. They noted that physical silver prices tend to be more volatile, but there are safer options for investors who don’t want to miss out.

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Trevor Hall: Bull Markets Don’t Always Mean Big Returns

Investing 5 Mins Read

Clear Commodity Network CEO and Mining Stock Daily host Trevor Hall opened his talk at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC) with a strong message: It is still possible to go broke in a bull market.

“I want to start with the simple but uncomfortable truth: most investors don’t lose money in bear markets,” he said.

“They lose it in bull markets. Bear markets are honest. Liquidity disappears; prices fall. Risk is obvious, and fear keeps people cautious. Bull markets, on the other hand, are deceptive.”

According to Hall, bull markets feed the idea that everything is working well.

Charts and spreadsheet data convince investors and business owners that it is the perfect time to make big decisions, making this the phase of the cycle where moves are based on impulse.

“Rising prices get confused with good business, compelling stores get confused with durable assets. Bull markets don’t expose bad ideas immediately; they carry, and that’s why the damage is so severe when cycles turn.”

For short, people get too excited, focusing on the potential weight of what they can earn soon without realizing how much they could lose in the long run.

Supercycle review

Ultimately, what is needed is a shift in mindset. Hall specified that the first point that has to be recognised is that bull markets do not mean that everyone is making money.

“High prices produce a false sense of security. They made marginal assets look competitive,” he said. “They mask permitting challenges, metallurgy issues, infrastructure gaps in management, weaknesses and too much capital changed too many projects simply because the spreadsheet said it works. Investors have need to learn from that in today’s market.”

Momentum is not directly proportional to skill, and government involvement does not eliminate risk.

He cited 2011 as the last super cycle that created enormous opportunities, but also created enormous mistakes.

At the time, companies jumped into spending on huge projects and capital expenditure blowout, not accounting for returns.

Some companies also lost control and went all in on mergers and acquisitions, while developers “pursued production growth for the sake of growth.”

The sector focused on volume, therefore burning investors. The market funded every project that screams as economic at high spot prices.

This lack of discipline led to over a decade’s worth of rebuilding mining credibility.

Now, the sector has changed. This time, companies that generate durable margins, stick to realistic timelines, manage risk and focus on humility will be rewarded.

It’s all in discipline.

Advice for companies

Hall specified certain aspects he believes investors who have learned from the super cycle are now looking for. We summarised them into five points:
  • Concrete de-risk plans with achievable milestones
  • Strict capital discipline, especially on operating and construction costs
  • Management teams with experience in leadership, permitting, engineering and community relations
  • Productive offtakes

“Capital is no longer betting solely on geology. It’s betting on execution,” the CEO stated. “Investors want to see alignment with users, so institutional investors are screening for policy alignment projects that strengthen domestic supply chains, support energy security and fit federal or state strategic priorities.”

Above all, across all this is transparency. Hall said that it is a must and called it “the new currency of trust in this sector.”

Advice for investors

“Many deposits look promising, far fewer have teams capable of construction and operations,” Hall said, adding that while high metal prices do help the sector, they also encourage a wave of marginal projects that do not deserve capital.

Maintaining high standards amidst high prices is vital. He advised investors to ask the following questions before making decisions:

  • Does the project work within conservative price limits or not? Does it have structural advantages?
  • Does it have grade, jurisdiction, scale and production cost?
  • Does the project matter? Does it solve a supply deficit?
  • Does it serve a strategic need, or is it simply additive but unnecessary?
  • Can management actually build it?

Making the right moves

Hall likened his industry recommendations to that of a chess game: make decisive moves and manage risks. It’s not just about what’s in front of you; it’s how you can win.

The industry is entering a new era where the investment cycle is not only driven by numbers and market forces, but by strategic necessity.

It is also the first time in decades that government capital, institutional capital and private capital are moving in the same direction, posing bigger opportunities.

Companies must learn to listen and execute to remain in the game for the next decade of resource development, and investors should come into the space with clear expectations.

“I think the ultimate word is check your discipline, because your discipline and your expectations need to be in line and more in tune than ever before,” Hall told companies.

“And for investors out there listening, you have to remember this: bull markets don’t make people rich by default; they reveal who already have the discipline.”

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