Author

admin

Browsing

  • LSU interim coach Frank Wilson has named Garrett Nussmeier the starting quarterback but hinted at a significant role for backup Michael Van Buren Jr.
  • Van Buren Jr. is a dual-threat quarterback who previously played at Mississippi State and is being compared to Florida State’s Thomas Castellanos.
  • With LSU out of championship contention, the coaching staff has little to lose by experimenting with the quarterback position.

The noise is all that’s heard. The odd soundbite, the strange analogy. 

Frank Wilson compared his four games as LSU’s interim coach to Pearl Harbor. Really, he did.

But look deeper. When bombs drop and sirens blare into the fog of LSU war, it’s time for everyone to come together.

It’s also a time for the unexpected. 

“Garrett (Nussmeier) is our starting quarterback,” Wilson said Monday at LSU’s weekly news conference ― and then, well, the bomb dropped. “We do think that Michael (Van Buren Jr.) brings some special things to the table that makes a defense have to defend him.”

And away we go. 

Make no mistake, if you’re given the keys to one of the top five programs in college football with four games to play, coach like there’s nothing to lose. Because there sure as hell isn’t. 

LSU can’t win the SEC, can’t reach the College Football Playoff and the season — and fired coach Brian Kelly’s tenure — is already a spectacular fail. The grease board is clean, go dirty it up with something no one expects. 

Something that may just give bitter rival Alabama fits.

Van Buren Jr. isn’t your typical backup. He played extensively last season at Mississippi State, and proved he could play at a high level in the SEC. 

Here’s the best way to describe Van Buren Jr.: Thomas Castellanos, with the ability to throw accurately. 

If that comparison sends PTSD down the spines of all things Crimson Tide, it’s doing exactly what Wilson wants. Put the idea of what could be into the minds of the Alabama defensive staff, which had no answers for Castellanos in the season-opening loss to Florida State. 

It’s no coincidence that Alabama’s defense has looked among the nation’s best in ranked games against Georgia and Tennessee, and looked susceptible against Florida State, Vanderbilt, Missouri and South Carolina.

Or more to the point, susceptible against Castellanos, Diego Pavia, Beau Pribula and LaNorris Sellers. Those four dual-threat quarterbacks combined to rush for 264 yards (that number includes losses because of sacks) and three touchdowns.

Now you see the allure of Van Buren Jr., and why Wilson says the backup will be more involved in the game plan this week.  

So while Nussmeier is LSU’s starter, while he was paid NIL millions to stay in Baton Rouge this season and not leave for another school or the NFL, Wilson has already been shown what cost of doing business means to LSU. 

If the school — and state, according to The Gov — are on the hook for $54 million to tell Kelly his services are no longer needed, what’s another couple million to see what you’ve got with Van Buren? 

The quarterback who had 16 touchdowns (five rush) in eight starts last season for the worst team in the SEC. Who threw for 306 yards and three touchdowns at Georgia, in a 41-31 loss that was dangerously too close for Georgia coach Kirby Smart. 

The quarterback who went right down the field on the last drive of the Texas A&M blowout loss that got Kelly fired. Nussmeier got sacked and dinged, and Van Buren entered and the next thing you know, he hits tight end Trey’Dez Green for a 28-yard gain. 

Van Buren runs four times for 18 yards, takes a couple of sacks, and completes two more passes, the last a 12-yard dart to Kyle Parker for LSU’s only score of the second half. 

A 75-yard drive where he accounted for 68 yards. Now that’s a bomb — figuratively speaking, of course. 

Wilson knows what he has in Nussmeier: a talented thrower who is getting punished because the LSU offensive line has struggled all season. When protected, Nussmeier can make every throw and the pass game is dangerous. 

When protection breaks down (as it often has), Nussmeier’s accuracy dips and he forces reckless throws. And — here’s the key — he doesn’t have the ability to extend plays downfield with his legs.

Like Castellanos. You remember him, right? 

The quarterback who ran 18 times for 78 yards against the Tide, numerous runs on second or third and make a play to extend drives. It’s simple math: The more your quarterback runs, the more the defense must account for him. 

From accounting for five, to accounting for six. And if the sixth has dynamic run ability from the quarterback position, everything changes on defense. 

Especially in the fog of war. 

“We’ll look at the opportunities that present itself for them, for us,” Wilson said. “And when they present themselves, we’ll take advantage of it.”

There’s nothing odd about that soundbite.

Matt Hayes is the senior national college football writer for USA TODAY Sports Network. Follow him on X at @MattHayesCFB.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

The Los Angeles Dodgers completed their quest to win back-to-back World Series last week, and a busy schedule has followed.

Members of the Dodgers have made appearances on “Dancing with the Stars,” “The Tonight Show,” and more.

Will Smith, Blake Snell and Tyler Glasnow were among the Dodgers at the Lakers’ game against the San Antonio Spurs on Wednesday at Crypto.com Arena.

The players were seen posing for photographs and shooting a basketball on the court during pregame.

Luka Doncic and Rui Hachimura of the Lakers also got to take a photo with the Dodgers and the World Series Trophy.

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fastDownload for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

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

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

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

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

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

President & CEO, Corey C. Ruttan commented:

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

Operational Update

October Sales Volumes

Natural gas, NGLs and crude oil sales:

October

2025

September

2025

Q3
2025

Brazil:

      Natural gas (Mcfpd), by field:

      Caburé

9,136

5,463

8,735

      Murucututu

6,115

5,812

3,558

      Total natural gas (Mcfpd)

15,251

11,275

12,293

      NGLs (bopd)

206

180

147

      Oil (bopd)(1)

18

9

9

Total (boepd) – Brazil

2,766

2,069

2,205

Canada:

      Oil (bopd) – Canada

157

163

138

Total Company – boepd(2)

2,923

2,232

2,343

(1)

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

(2)

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

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

Quarterly Natural Gas Pricing Update

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

Development Activities – Brazil

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

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

Development Activities – Western Canada

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

Financial and Operating Highlights – Third Quarter of 2025

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

(1)

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

(2)

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

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

As at and Three Months Ended

September 30,

As at and Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

Change (%)

2025

2024

Change (%)

Financial

($000s, except where noted)

Natural gas, oil and condensate sales

14,175

12,879

10

42,198

35,303

20

Net income

4,613

7,152

(36)

17,513

14,052

25

      Per share – basic ($)(1)

0.12

0.19

(37)

0.47

0.38

24

      Per share – diluted ($)(1)

0.12

0.19

(37)

0.46

0.37

24

Cash flows from operating activities

12,153

10,714

13

31,443

27,787

13

      Per share – basic ($)(1)

0.33

0.29

14

0.84

0.75

12

      Per share – diluted ($)(1)

0.32

0.28

14

0.83

0.74

12

Funds flow from operations(2)

10,448

9,886

6

30,036

26,309

14

      Per share – basic ($)(1)

0.28

0.27

4

0.81

0.71

14

      Per share – diluted ($)(1)

0.28

0.26

8

0.79

0.70

13

Dividends declared

3,673

3,295

11

10,976

9,887

11

Per share(1) (2)

0.10

0.09

11

0.30

0.27

11

Capital expenditures

11,249

4,747

137

28,610

10,623

169

Cash and cash equivalents

12,081

24,515

(51)

12,081

24,515

(51)

Net working capital(2)

2,209

15,848

(86)

2,209

15,848

(86)

Weighted average shares outstanding

      Basic (000s)(1)

37,263

37,300

37,273

37,286

      Diluted (000s)(1)

37,851

37,662

1

37,801

37,671

Operations

Average daily sales volumes(3):

Brazil:

      Natural gas (Mcfpd), by field:

          Caburé (Mcfpd)

8,735

11,378

(23)

10,741

9,817

9

          Murucututu (Mcfpd)

3,558

616

478

2,286

490

367

      Total natural gas (Mcfpd)

12,293

11,994

2

13,027

10,307

26

      NGLs – condensate (bopd)

147

95

55

137

83

65

      Oil (bopd)

9

12

(25)

8

12

(33)

      Total (boepd) – Brazil

2,205

2,106

5

2,315

1,813

28

Canada:

      Oil (bopd) – Canada

138

93

Total Company (boepd)

2,343

2,106

11

2,408

1,813

33

 

As at and Three Months Ended

September 30,

As at and Three Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

Change (%)

2025

2024

Change (%)

Average realized prices(2):

      Natural gas ($/Mcf)

11.04

10.92

1

10.69

11.70

(9)

      NGLs – condensate ($/bbl)

74.16

86.70

(14)

75.83

88.77

(15)

      Oil ($/bbl)

50.42

68.36

(26)

49.36

68.48

(28)

      Total ($/boe)

65.76

66.46

(1)

64.19

71.06

(10)

Operating netback ($/boe)(2)

      Realized sales price

65.76

66.46

(1)

64.19

71.06

(10)

      Royalties

(3.54)

(1.89)

87

(4.71)

(1.94)

143

      Production expenses

(6.10)

(5.38)

13

(5.58)

(6.23)

(10)

      Transportation expenses

(0.22)

(0.12)

      Operating netback

55.90

59.19

(6)

53.78

62.89

(14)

 Operating netback margin(2)

85 %

89 %

(4)

84 %

89 %

(6)

Notes:

(1)

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

(2)

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

(3)

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

Q3 2025 Results Webcast

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

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

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

Corporate Presentation

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

Social Media

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

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

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

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

Abbreviations:

$000s

=

     thousands of U.S. dollars

boepd

=

     barrels of oil equivalent (‘boe’) per day

bopd

=

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

BRL

=

     Brazilian Real

e3m3/d

=

     thousand cubic metre per day

m3 

=

     cubic metre

m3/d

=

     cubic metre per day

Mcf

=

     thousand cubic feet

Mcfpd

=

     thousand cubic feet per day

MMcf

=

     million cubic feet

MMcfpd

=

     million cubic feet per day

NGLs

=

     natural gas liquids (condensate)

Q1 2025

=

     three months ended March 31, 2025

Q3 2024

=

     three months ended September 30, 2024

Q2 2025

=

     three months ended June 30, 2025

Q3 2025

=

     three months ended September 30, 2025

USD

=

     United States dollars

GAAP or IFRS

=

     IFRS Accounting Standards

Non-GAAP and Other Financial Measures

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

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Operating Netback

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

Non-GAAP Financial Ratios

Operating Netback per boe

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

Operating netback margin

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

Three Months Ended

 September 30,

Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

2025

2024

Operating netback – $ per boe

55.90

59.19

53.78

62.89

Average realized price – $ per boe

65.76

66.46

64.19

71.06

Operating netback margin

85 %

89 %

84 %

89 %

Funds Flow from Operations Per Share

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

Three Months Ended

 September 30,

Nine Months Ended

September 30,

$ per share

2025

2024

2025

2024

Per basic share:

Cash flows from operating activities

0.33

0.29

0.84

0.75

Funds flow from operations

0.28

0.27

0.81

0.71

Per diluted share:

Cash flows from operating activities

0.32

0.28

0.83

0.74

Funds flow from operations

0.28

0.26

0.79

0.70

Capital Management Measures

Funds Flow from Operations 

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

Three Months Ended

 September 30,

Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2025

2024

2025

2024

Cash flows from operating activities

12,153

10,714

31,443

27,787

Changes in non-cash working capital

(1,705)

(828)

(1,407)

(1,478)

Funds flow from operations

10,448

9,886

30,036

26,309

Net Working Capital

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

As at September 30,

2025

2024

Total current assets

18,582

30,197

Total current liabilities

(16,373)

(14,349)

Net working capital

2,209

15,848

Supplementary Financial Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOE Disclosure

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

Contracted Natural Gas Volumes

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

Well Results

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

Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Language

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

www.alvopetro.com 
TSX-VALV, OTCQX: ALVOF

SOURCE Alvopetro Energy Ltd.

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

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

  • The New York Jets traded cornerback Sauce Gardner and defensive tackle Quinnen Williams at the NFL trade deadline.
  • In return, the Jets acquired multiple first-round draft picks for 2026 and 2027, among other assets.
  • These trades signal a major rebuild for the 1-7 Jets, who are now without their top defensive players.
  • The team has accumulated significant draft capital to address its long-standing quarterback issues and reconstruct the roster.

A yard sale sign outside the New York Jets’ Florham Park team facility would’ve been appropriate.

Everything (almost) must go.

That’s precisely the message the 1-7 Jets sent at the NFL’s Nov. 4 trade deadline when they sent cornerback Sauce Gardner to the Indianapolis Colts for a 2026 first-round pick, a 2027 first-round pick and wide receiver Adonai Mitchell. And moments later, shipped defensive tackle Quinnen Williams to the Dallas Cowboys in exchange for a 2026 second-round pick, a 2027 first-round pick and defensive tackle Mazi Smith.

The Jets have two first-round and two second-round picks in the 2026 draft and three first-round picks in the 2027 draft after the trades.

The moves represent a calculated gamble by Jets general manager Darren Mougey that were undoubtedly greenlit by head coach Aaron Glenn and owner Woody Johnson.

The good news is the Jets have enough draft capital to get a top quarterback in either the 2026 or 2027 draft, and have enough premium picks to select other impact players.

Mougey and the Jets realize the quarterback position has held the team back for years. The Jets haven’t had a QB earn a Pro Bowl invitation since Brett Favre in 2008. New York currently has the worst passing offense in the NFL and Justin Fields ranks in the bottom half of the league in most major quarterback statistical categories.

Johnson even announced New York’s ineptitude at the quarterback position when he threw Fields under the bus last month.

The bad news is the Jets essentially have no blue-chip players left on defense. Gardner has not allowed more than two receptions to a single receiver in a game this season and has forced a tight window on 52% of his targets, the highest rate of any player targeted at least 20 times in coverage, per Next Gen Stats. Williams’ 190 pressures since 2022 are the fourth most among defensive tackles in that span. Gardner and Williams were linchpins on a Jets top-five defense from 2022-2024.

Mougey and Glenn have the tough task of reconstructing what was once a top-five defense while simultaneously renovating an offense that features just wide receiver Garrett Wilson as a foundational skill position player.

Buckle up for the long-haul, Jets fans. It’s a multi-year job for Mougey and Glenn. Tuesday’s fire sale was a proclamation that the Jets are in another rebuild.

Mougey and Glenn have plenty of draft assets in the next two drafts to construct the roster they envision.

Time will determine whether the Jets won the two blockbuster trades. But bold moves are necessary for a franchise that harbors the longest active playoff drought in the NFL.

Follow USA TODAY Sports’ Tyler Dragon on X @TheTylerDragon.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

The New York Jets did something that most NFL teams don’t do on trade deadline day – make trades.

There was no such luck for Breece Hall, however, who is one of the players left holding the bag after the sell-off. The running back seemingly wanted a trade, as reported by Jordan Schultz, and later expressed his feelings following the deadline.

‘Sick about my bruddas man happy for them but man im sick rn,’ Hall said on X in a now-deleted post after the deadline passed.

Rumors swirled that even more deals were on the table, including one with Hall, but the Jets only managed to complete trades for Sauce Gardner and Quinnen Williams on Nov. 4.

Gardner was traded to the Indianapolis Colts for a pair of first-round picks and Adonai Mitchell, while Williams was shipped to the Dallas Cowboys in exchange for a first and a second-round pick.

Hall seemed like one of the likelier players to be on the move ahead of the deadline, but he is one of the few who remain.

The running back was taken in the 2022 NFL Draft along with Gardner, Garrett Wilson and Jermaine Johnson II. All of those players were viewed as building blocks for a Jets team that was on the upswing.

Just a few years later, New York is cleaning house and building a new roster in the vision of Aaron Glenn and Darren Mougey.

The offseason will reveal whether Hall is one of those who remain.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

The UConn women’s basketball team looked like it was cruising to a blowout victory over Louisville in the season opener Tuesday, but the Cardinals made it interesting down the stretch.

The Huskies, who are ranked No. 1 in USA TODAY Sports women’s basketball coaches poll, started their title defense with a 79-66 win over Louisville at the Armed Forces Classic at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The reigning champions, however, stumbled down the stretch.

UConn came out red-hot and climbed to a 28-point lead over the Cardinals, but Louisville appeared to settle in during the second half and went on a 13-2 run in the fourth quarter to cut its deficit to 10 points with 2:22 remaining. The Huskies’ experience came through and UConn ended the game on a 6-2 run to ice the game.

Sure, the Huskies didn’t have the best night from beyond the arc, ‘shooting four for a thousand from the 3-point line,’ head coach Geno Auriemma said postgame, referring to his team going a 4-of-26 from 3. But Auriemma said that’s to be expected from a new mix of players and noted he’s ‘happy’ with how the Huskies responded to adversity.

‘I don’t want this to be one of those seasons where even wins feel like losses. That’s stupid. I mean, we won the game,’ said Auriemma, who admitted he wasn’t upset at his team’s lapse in the second half. ‘At some point, I think they have to enjoy the figuring things out for themselves that coach can’t bail us out all the time. So I’m proud of them. I really am. Because not having Paige (Bueckers) is losing three players.’

The Huskies improve to 44-8 all-time in season openers and have won 30 in a row.

AZZI FUDD embraces the hard as she leads UConn into her final season

Sophmore forward Sarah Strong led the way with a game-high 21 points, nine rebounds, five assists, two steals and two blocks in the win. Despite being one rebound away from a double-double, Auriemma said it ‘wasn’t a great game for her,’ which should be a scary thought for the rest of the nation. Senior guard Azzi Fudd added 20 points, while sophomore transfer Kayleigh Heckel finished with 14 points and junior guard KK Arnold had 13 points and seven rebounds.

Louisville’s Laura Ziegler finished with a team-high 16 points and 18 rebounds in the losing effort. Imari Berryand Skylar Joes each added 13 points.

USA TODAY Sports provided live updates throughout the Armed Forces Classic. Here’s what you missed:

End of 3Q: UConn 61, Louisville 40

Louisville and UConn both scored 17 points in the third quarter, but the Cardinals are trailing by 21.

Four Huskies have reached double-digits, including Sarah Strong (15 points), KK Arnold (13 points), Azzi Fudd (12 points) and sophomore transfer Kayleigh Heckel (10 points). Despite having a 21-point lead, the Huskies are struggling to get much going from the 3-point line and are 4-of-23 from beyond the arc.

Skylar Jones is the only player from Louisville to reach double-digits with 11 points off the bench. Laura Ziegler added seven points and has accounted for 16 of Louisville’s 35 total rebounds.

Kayleigh Heckel stats

Sophmore guard Kayleigh Heckel transferred to UConn following one season at USC, where she averaged 6.1 points, 1.9 assists, 1.4 rebounds and 1.3 steals in 34 games (seven starts) during her freshman campaign. Heckel is up to 12 points, two rebounds, one assist and one steal in her first game in a Huskies uniform on Tuesday vs. Louisville.

Halftime: UConn 44, Louisville 23

UConn sophomore forward Sarah Strong came alive in the second quarter, dropping 11 of her 13 points to give the Huskies a 21-point lead over Louisville at halftime. Strong rounded out her stat line with six rebounds, four assists and two blocks. KK Arnold added 13 points in the first half and Azzi Fudd is up to eight points.

The Huskies have been dominant through two quarters. UConn is not only shooting 48.7% from the field compared to 26.5% for Louisville, the Huskies have an advantage in rebounds (27-20), fast break points (11-5) and in the paint (28-8).

Imari Berry and Skylar Jones have a team-high six points each for Louisville.

End of Q1: UConn 25, Louisville 9

UConn junior guard KK Arnold scored nine points in the first quarter, single handedly tying Louisville team after 10 minutes of play. Arnold went 4-of-4 from the field including a 3-pointer. Azzi Fudd added eight points with a pair of 3-pointers. The Huskies are shooting a red-hot 55% from the field and 37.5% from the 3-point line.

Louisville is looking to find its offensive rhythm. The team was held to a dismal 3-of-18 from field (16.7%) and 1-of-6 from the 3-point line. Skylar Jones and Reyna Scott each scored three points off the bench in the first quarter. The Cardinals also gave up four turnovers for eight points.

What time is UConn vs. Louisville?

The UConn Huskies open the season against the Louisville Cardinals on Tuesday, Nov. 4 at 5:30 p.m. ET at Alumni Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Paige Bueckers in the building

The Huskies are playing their first game without Paige Bueckers since 2020, but she was spotted in the crowd at Alumni Hall in Maryland to cheer on her former team. Bueckers finished her career at UConn with 2,439 points, the third-most in program history.

“Definitely weird and definitely a surreal feeling of just being in a different position and watching from a different perspective,’ Bueckers told ESPN’s Holly Rowe during the broadcast. ‘Not being yelled at when a UConn game is on. So it’s all different vibes, but I’m very happy to be here and very excited to watch.’

Huskies jump to early 8-0 lead

We’re underway at the U.S. Naval Academy. UConn appeared to pick up right where they left off and got off to a hot start. The Huskies jumped to a 8-0 lead over Louisville, led by a pair of 3-pointers from KK Arnold and Azzi Fudd. The Huskies are 2-for-3 from the 3-point line, while the Cardinals are 0-of-3 from the field and 0-of-2 from 3. Louisville needs to settle in and take better care of the ball. Five of the Huskies eight points come from turnovers.

UConn vs. Louisville score: TV, streaming for Game 4

  • Date: Tuesday, Nov. 4
  • Time: 5:30 p.m. ET (2:30 p.m. PT)
  • Location: U.S, Naval Academy’s Alumni Hall (Annapolis, Maryland)
  • TV: ESPN
  • Stream: Fubo, ESPN Unlimited

UConn Huskies starting lineup

  • (2) KK Arnold
  • (12) Ashlynn Shade
  • (21) Sarah Strong
  • (22) Serah Williams
  • (35) Azzi Fudd

Louisville Cardinals starting lineup

Head coach: Jeff Walz

  • (0) Laura Ziegler
  • (2) Imari Berry
  • (4) Mackenly Randolph
  • (11) Elif Istanbulluoglu
  • (22) Tajianna Roberts

Check out UConn’s championship rings

The ‘Power of Friendship’ lifted the UConn women’s basketball team to the program’s 12th national championship in April and the phrase has been commemorated forever in the team’s new bling.

Nearly seven months after the Huskies defeated South Carolina 82-59 in the 2025 NCAA championship game to win the university’s first title since 2016, Dallas Wings guard Paige Bueckers returned to Storrs, Connecticut, to receive the first national championship ring of her career alongside former teammates.

‘The power of friendship … is the reason that we did win it,’ said Bueckers, who helped design the ring alongside Azzi Fudd and Caroline Ducharme. ‘We just went off of straight vibes and we stuck together through it all.’

UConn women’s basketball roster

Azzi Fudd embraces the hard as she leads UConn into her final season

Azzi Fudd opted to return for her fifth and final year of eligibility to unlock her full potential, at the advice of UConn coach Geno Auriemma. The appreciation of embracing the opportunity highlights Fudd’s maturity as a redshirt senior preparing to step into a leadership role for UConn.

The Huskies, who are ranked No. 1 in USA TODAY Sports women’s basketball coaches poll to start the season for the first time since 2017, are looking to repeat as champion. After the departure of three-time All-American guard Paige Bueckers, the Huskies will rely on Fudd, a quiet and introverted star, to take over.

Preseason women’s college basketball rankings

The defending champion Connecticut Huskies took the No. 1 spot in the initial USA TODAY Sports Coaches Poll, released on Thursday, Oct. 23. UConn may have lost Paige Bueckers to the WNBA, but does return Azzi Fudd and other stars as it looks to become the first repeat champion since winning four straight from 2013-16.

However, the path for UConn will once again feature Dawn Staley and South Carolina, which comes in No. 2. The Gamecocks added firepower with Florida State transfer Ta’Niya Latson, who led the NCAA with 25.2 points per game last season.

USA TODAY Sports Coaches Poll

  1. UConn (28)
  2. South Carolina (3)
  3. Texas
  4. UCLA
  5. LSU
  6. Duke
  7. Oklahoma
  8. North Carolina State
  9. Tennessee
  10. Maryland
  11. North Carolina
  12. TCU
  13. Notre Dame
  14. Mississippi
  15. Michigan
  16. Southern California
  17. Iowa State
  18. Baylor
  19. Louisville
  20. Kentucky
  21. Vanderbilt
  22. Oklahoma State
  23. Iowa
  24. Ohio State
  25. Kansas State

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fastDownload for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

  • Deion Sanders has removed play-calling duties from offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur.
  • The change occurred after Colorado’s loss to Utah on October 25.
  • Passing game coordinator Brett Bartolone has taken over as the new play-caller.

Colorado football coach Deion Sanders stripped play-calling duties from offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur after the Buffaloes lost at Utah Oct. 25, demoting him to quarterbacks coach before the team got beat again last week against Arizona, a person with knowledge of the situation told USA TODAY Sports.

The person didn’t want to be named because of the sensitivity of the situation. The person said Colorado tight ends coach and passing game coordinator Brett Bartolone has called plays instead of Shurmur since the Utah game.

Colorado didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment. But Sanders hinted at coaching staff changes Tuesday during his weekly news conference in Boulder. His team is 3-6 this season and has struggled with quarterback play this year since losing Sanders’ son Shedeur to the NFL.

“I might have already changed it, and you don’t know,” Sanders said. “I don’t do stuff and blow the whistles and make major announcements.”

Deion Sanders has demoted his play-caller before

It marks the second time in three seasons Sanders has demoted his offensive play-caller during the season. In 2023, he promoted Shurmur to co-offensive coordinator to call plays while taking away play-calling duties from offensive coordinator Sean Lewis. The Buffs were 4-4 at the time after starting the season 3-0. They finished the season at 4-8, and Lewis left to become head coach of San Diego State, where his team is now 7-1.

Shurmur joined the Colorado staff in 2023 as analyst after previously serving as head coach of the NFL’s New York Giants and Cleveland Browns. He served as Colorado’s offensive coordinator and play-caller since then and helped lead the team to a 9-4 record in 2024.

In his place as play-caller last week, Bartolone took over against Arizona, a game the Buffs lost 52-17. Bartolone played college football under offensive mastermind Mike Leach at Washington State and went on to work for Sanders as his offensive coordinator when Sanders was head coach at Jackson State.

Both Shurmur and Bartolone will try to break the Buffs’ skid at West Virginia on Saturday, Nov. 8 with a new starting quarterback — freshman Julian “JuJu” Lewis, who will be making his first college start.

Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@usatoday.com

This post appeared first on USA TODAY