Author

admin

Browsing

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

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

What if Sen. Bernie Sanders is right and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is wrong?

What if the AI revolution causes mass layoffs of American workers, as the Vermont senator warned in a recent Fox News op-ed? And what if Powell is wrong that the softening labor market is due primarily to supply issues — lower immigration and a lower labor participation rate — rather than AI-produced ‘efficiencies’?

What will be the response of policymakers? What should it be?

AI will soon become a political battleground. Democratic socialist Sanders, ever the class warrior, has already questioned whether AI will help all Americans or only ‘a handful of billionaires.’ Like the trade deals that sent millions of jobs overseas, Sanders worries that the massive investment flowing into AI could result in up to 100 million Americans losing their jobs over the next decade. He could be right; imagine the repercussions.

Young people are already losing faith in capitalism and cozying up to socialism. Two-thirds of Democrats now view socialism more positively than capitalism. Nothing could undermine our capitalist system faster than widespread job losses stemming from a tech breakthrough cheered by the investor class.

This is the critical issue of our day — one getting scant attention, even from self-described ‘data-driven’ Powell, who is perennially looking backward rather than forward. In his latest press conference, Powell answered one question about employment by saying, ‘The supply of workers has dropped very, very sharply due to mainly immigration, but also lower labor force participation. So, and that means there’s less need for new jobs, because there’s — there isn’t this flow into the pool of labor where people need jobs.’ Excuse me, what?

The economy is growing, yet hiring is declining. Though the government shutdown has blocked the usual monthly labor reports, plenty of data suggests the job market is weakening. Companies are increasingly citing AI investment as a factor in lower headcounts.

Corporate America is spending tens of billions of dollars on AI, promising shareholders great gains in productivity. But where will that productivity come from, other than reducing headcounts? Certainly, people armed with artificial intelligence can deliver information and analyses more rapidly, making themselves and their organizations more productive. But ultimately, it will also make some people redundant and slow new hiring. The impact on America’s labor market will be profound — and is largely being ignored.

Amazon recently announced it was laying off 14,000 employees. A top human resources official at the firm sent a note titled ‘Staying nimble and continuing to strengthen our organizations.’ She wrote that ‘the world is changing quickly. This generation of AI is the most transformative technology we’ve seen since the Internet, and it’s enabling companies to innovate much faster than ever before.’

What kinds of workers are at risk? Factory workers and truck drivers, for sure, who are already being replaced by robots and AI — but also white-collar employees. Fortune notes that the Amazon layoffs ‘show it’s coming for middle management first.’ The world’s largest retailer employs about 1.5 million people; 14,000 is a drop in the bucket. But the trend is worrisome — and for those 14,000 people, devastating.

Amazon is not alone. UPS recently announced it has cut 48,000 jobs this year — 14,000 management positions and 34,000 in operations. UPS started the year with about 500,000 employees. Target also made headlines recently, saying it will cut 8% of its corporate workforce — its first significant layoffs in a decade.

Outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas cites market and economic conditions as the main reason for most corporate layoffs to date but also points to AI. That makes sense. After all, the economy is growing briskly — second-quarter real GDP growth was 3.8%, and it looks like we’ll see robust expansion for the third quarter as well.

There has never been a faster adoption of new technology. Already, an estimated one-third of Americans use AI; ChatGPT receives 5.4 billion visits per month. Global AI revenues are expected to total $391 billion this year and could reach $3.5 trillion by 2033. These estimates may be optimistic, but top tech firms are investing about $400 billion this year alone to expand capacity, according to The Wall Street Journal. They clearly believe the projections.

Bernie Sanders aside, no one should want to halt the AI revolution. Artificial intelligence promises extraordinary advances in medicine and other sciences — and could radically improve education for America’s children.

It’s also largely American companies that will benefit from the explosion in AI spending, reaping the profits and influence that come with global dominance of a new technology. Rising productivity will spur hiring in certain industries and boost real wages. It will also allow for the retirement of the 20-plus million baby boomers still working.

But there may well be a period of adjustment when layoffs exceed job creation. Unemployment may rise, fueling anger at the innovations producing more out-of-work Americans and resentment toward the companies behind the disruptions.

Lawmakers and financial leaders need to be prepared for this possibility — one that could deepen voters’ growing affection for socialism and rejection of capitalism. That would be a disaster for a country that has outperformed every other nation on Earth, producing unprecedented opportunity and wealth.

Otherwise, it will be Bernie Sanders and his left-wing colleagues dictating the response. Sanders advocates a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay, giving workers significantly more power and imposing a ‘robot tax’ on big tech companies. Such measures would slow American competitiveness and growth, as they have in Europe.

We cannot allow that to happen.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Department of Justice on Monday urged a federal court to reject former FBI Director James Comey’s bid to dismiss his case, arguing that his claims of selective prosecution are unfounded.

The DOJ, in its 48-page filing, also denied that President Donald Trump’s September Truth Social post calling on U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute prominent political adversaries, including Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and New York Attorney General Letitia James, had any influence on the decision to bring charges.

‘These posts reflect the President’s view that the defendant has committed crimes that should be met with prosecution. They may even suggest that the President disfavors the defendant. But they are not direct evidence of a vindictive motive,’ prosecutors argued.

‘The defendant spins a tale that requires leaps of logic and a big dose of cynicism, then he calls the President’s post a direct admission,’ they continued. ‘There is no direct admission of discriminatory purpose. To the contrary, the only direct admission from the President is that DOJ officials decided whether to prosecute, not him.’

Trump wrote in a Sept. 20 post on his Truth Social platform that ‘nothing is being done’ to Comey, Schiff or James.

‘They’re all guilty as hell,’ he said. ‘They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!’

The Wall Street Journal reported that the public Truth Social post was intended as a private message to Bondi.

Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury in late September on charges of false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding. He pleaded not guilty.

His legal team filed a motion on Oct. 20 to dismiss the indictment on grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution. They also argued that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was unlawfully appointed.

Halligan, Trump’s former personal attorney, was appointed by the president after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, resigned. Siebert reportedly resigned amid mounting pressure from the White House to bring charges against Comey and James.

‘The official who purported to secure and sign the indictment was invalidly appointed to her position as interim U.S. Attorney. Because of that fundamental constitutional and statutory defect, the indictment is a nullity and must be dismissed,’ Comey’s legal team wrote.

The Justice Department maintains that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was lawful, arguing that it was in line with federal statute and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Comey’s trial is scheduled to begin in January 2026.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

While President Donald Trump is pressuring Senate Republicans to nix the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during an interview on Fox News Radio’s ‘Guy Benson Show’ that ‘there just simply aren’t the votes’ to eliminate the ’60-vote threshold.’

While Republicans hold the majority in the upper chamber, the procedural hurdle serves as a check on the majority party’s power due to the threshold required to advance matters towards a vote in the chamber.

Thune suggested that there is likely no more than 10 to 12 of the 53 GOP senators who would vote to eliminate the filibuster.

The senator said it had been an ‘important tool’ for Republicans when they had the minority, noting that last year they ‘blocked a whole host of terrible Democrat policies’ due to ‘the 60-vote threshold.’

While Thune suggested that Democrats would vote to eliminate the filibuster if they have the majority, he warned that if Republicans ‘do their dirty work for them,’ Republicans will ‘own all the crap’ Democrats would later do.

President Donald Trump is pushing Republicans to end the procedural hurdle.

‘The Democrats are far more likely to win the Midterms, and the next Presidential Election, if we don’t do the Termination of the Filibuster (The Nuclear Option!), because it will be impossible for Republicans to get Common Sense Policies done with these Crazed Democrat Lunatics being able to block everything by withholding their votes. FOR THREE YEARS, NOTHING WILL BE PASSED, AND REPUBLICANS WILL BE BLAMED. Elections, including the Midterms, will be rightfully brutal,’ the president declared in a portion of a lengthy Truth Social post.

‘TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER NOW, END THE RIDICULOUS SHUTDOWN IMMEDIATELY, AND THEN, MOST IMPORTANTLY, PASS EVERY WONDERFUL REPUBLICAN POLICY THAT WE HAVE DREAMT OF, FOR YEARS, BUT NEVER GOTTEN. WE WILL BE THE PARTY THAT CANNOT BE BEATEN – THE SMART PARTY!!!’ he declared.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues to play out, the USAID Office of the Inspector General (USAID OIG) pursues its investigation into allegations of U.S. taxpayer dollars being diverted to foreign terrorist organizations.

A U.S. diplomatic official briefed on USAID OIG’s ongoing investigations told Fox News Digital that the OIG’s office ‘received and continues to receive reports directly from aid workers and other parties on the ground that counters the sanitized narrative that Hamas was never involved in the theft of American funded aid.’ The official reported that reports are still being ‘sent in by whistleblowers and aid workers who are fed up with the U.N.’s failure to identify Hamas as the culprit.’

USAID OIG issued its first warnings about the possible diversion of American aid to Gaza in Nov. 2023, noting that it was an ‘investigative priority to ensure that assistance does not fall into the hands of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), including, but not limited to, Hamas.’

In a July 30 update, USAID OIG reported that it was ‘investigating credible allegations of Hamas interference, diversion, and theft of humanitarian aid in Gaza, as well as allegations of smuggling contraband into Gaza through humanitarian aid shipments.’

The United Nations has admitted that most of the aid it sent into Gaza after May 2025 was diverted by armed actors and hungry Gazans. Yet the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has stated that Hamas was not responsible for widespread aid diversion.

In July, Reuters reported that a USAID analysis found little evidence of Hamas theft of Gaza aid, something the State Department and the White House disputed. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, told Reuters that it ‘was likely produced by a deep state operative,’ seeking to discredit President Donald Trump’s ‘humanitarian agenda.’

Over half of USAID programming is obligated to U.N. organizations. However, the USAID OIG reported in July 2024 that since October 2023, it had received ’17 reports of alleged misconduct from five USAID-funded implementers,’ only two of which were submitted by U.N. organizations.

The OIG also noted that U.N. organizations were exempt from USAID’s partner vetting process, which ‘creates risk to USAID’s programs.’

The diplomatic source also reported seeing U.N. duplicity over food deliveries into Gaza firsthand. The source attended Joint Coordination Board meetings where officials from the Israel Defense Forces, U.S. Army, U.S. aid organizations, the U.N. and the International Committee of the Red Cross had ‘robust, extensive, and productive’ discussions about aid deliveries and appeared to share ‘a sense of mission.’

‘It was shocking then to read press releases by those same U.N. agencies, the very next day totally body-slamming the government of Israel for failing to coordinate delivery of aid,’ the official said.

Much of the USAID OIG’s effort since the outbreak of war following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks has concerned Hamas’ infiltration of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

The office concluded an investigation in April 2025 that found three UNRWA members were connected with the Oct. 7 attack and another 14 were affiliates of Hamas.

UNRWA previously fired nine employees for their association with the attacks, according to reports.

In July, USAID OIG reported being ‘unable to obtain from UNRWA’ the names of the personnel it fired.

The diplomatic source said that the USAID OIG investigators ‘opened an independent investigation, obtaining information that UNRWA refused to provide through other sources and methods,’ with the goal of ensuring ‘that UNRWA officials associated with Hamas do not recirculate to other U.S. taxpayer-funded organizations operating in Gaza,’ the official said.

Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., has begun an investigation into UNRWA staff participation in the Oct. 7 attacks, which led to over 1,200 Israelis and 32 Americans being killed and 251 people taken hostage.

In an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres dated Oct. 27, Comer requested unredacted copies of a U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report into UNRWA participation in the deadly attack and asked for correspondence and other details about staff who were investigated for their possible roles.

Comer noted that the U.S. provides 22% of the U.N.’s general budget, 40% of its humanitarian budget and 25% of its peacekeeping budget, in addition to providing $343 million in 2022 and $422 million in 2023 to UNRWA. ‘The requested documents and communications are required for verification that no U.N. entity or NGO receiving American taxpayer funds employs individuals affiliated with or supporting terrorist entities,’ Comer said.

Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for Guterres, told Fox News Digital that the U.N. has been ‘sharing information with the United States government on matters raised in the letter. We are presently considering the committee’s request and intend to respond with relevant information.’ Dujarric said he would ‘not say anything more publicly at this time.’

William Deere, director of the UNRWA Representative Office in Washington, D.C., told Fox News Digital that ‘the United Nations provided the USAID IG with an unredacted copy of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigation report months ago. To suggest information is being withheld from the U.S. is simply disingenuous. Following the government of Israel’s initial allegations in January of 2024 of potential UNRWA staff misconduct, Commissioner-General Lazzarini immediately terminated the appointments of the named staff ‘in the interest of the Agency,’ to protect UNRWA’s ability to deliver humanitarian assistance.’

Deere claimed that, ‘regrettably, since that time the government of Israel has failed to provide the United States, the United Nations, or UNRWA with the information and evidence that would substantiate its claims against UNRWA employees. Significantly, the government of Israel has also failed to take action against any of the named individuals in their own judicial system. The record is clear, UNRWA investigates every claim brought to it of potential employee misconduct, as evidenced by the multiple requests the agency has made to the Israeli government for the information in these cases.’

The U.S. diplomatic official familiar with UNRWA’s investigation disputes the U.N.’s assertion that members of Hamas do not remain on UNRWA’s payroll, saying that ‘Perhaps ‘some’ of the Oct. 7 terrorists were removed, but UNRWA continues to employ Hamas members, there is no question. They are a subsidiary of Hamas.’

A report on Monday by the Washington Free Beacon said a confidential copy of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report on UNRWA members’ participation in the Oct. 7 attack claimed to show that OIOS dismissed the evidence provided by Israeli intelligence of intercepted calls between Hamas personnel and UNRWA staff as ‘likely authentic’ but ‘insufficient’ proof of cooperation to support the firing of 10 additional UNRWA employees. Additionally, the report said that the U.N. ‘did not investigate ties to Hamas outside participation in the Oct. 7 attacks.’

Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Advisor Richard Goldberg told Fox News Digital that ‘UNRWA was Hamas in Gaza. It remains a terror and radicalization threat elsewhere. When Israel banned UNRWA in Gaza, it was quickly replaced by other U.N. agencies and NGOs. UNRWA proved neither indispensable nor irreplaceable — a lie repeated by many.’

‘We also need to dismantle the entire agency in the context of deradicalization,’ Goldberg said. ‘Oct. 7 will keep happening again and again so long as UNRWA exists. The Trump plan will fail where UNRWA is present. Arab countries are making peace with Israel. UNRWA is still waging the war of 1948.’

USAID OIG confirmed that its ‘investigations of UNRWA officials affiliated with Hamas are active and ongoing, and intended to prevent the recirculation of terrorists to other U.S.-funded organizations operating in Gaza.’

In response to questions about whether the State Department had utilized the USAID OIG report on UNRWA members’ participation in Oct. 7 attacks, a spokesperson told Fox News Digital that ‘As a general matter, the department does not comment on internal or investigative reports, nor on actions that may be under consideration. UNRWA was complicit in Oct. 7 and is unfit for purpose. Our policy is that it will not play a role in Gaza again.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Senate Democrats blocked Republicans’ attempt to reopen the government for a 14th time, all but ensuring that the government shutdown becomes the longest in U.S. history.

The move to again reject the House-passed continuing resolution (CR) comes as winds of optimism and exhaustion have swept through the upper chamber. Lawmakers are engaging in more bipartisan talks, and more believe that an off-ramp is in sight.

Still, Tuesday morning’s vote against the CR came as the shutdown matched the previous 35-day record set in 2019, and it all but ensured that it would surpass that unfortunate milestone later on in the evening.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his Democratic caucus are still largely entrenched in their position that unless an ironclad deal on expiring Obamacare subsidies is struck, they won’t reopen the government.

During a speech on the Senate floor, Schumer squarely placed the blame for the healthcare issue on Republicans and President Donald Trump as Americans got notices of increased premiums over the weekend. 

‘The only plan Republicans have for healthcare seems to be to eliminate it, and then to tell working people to go figure it out on their own,’ he said. ‘That’s not a healthcare plan. That’s cruel.’ 

However, his caucus’ resolve showed signs of weakening on Monday, when a group of nearly a dozen Senate Democrats met behind closed doors to discuss a way out.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he was optimistic about the shutdown coming to an end soon, but he wasn’t confident that it would be by the end of this week.

He noted that Republicans have made a plethora of options available to Senate Democrats, including guaranteeing a vote on the expiring subsidies, or ‘whatever their Obamacare bill is,’ after the government reopens. When asked if he believed lawmakers were close to reaching an end, he said, ‘I hope close.’ 

‘But the pressures, the cross pressures that everybody’s feeling, are great,’ Thune said. ‘But I think there are people who realize this has gone on long enough and that there’s been enough pain inflicted on the American people, and it’s time to end it. So we’ll see whether that’s, you know, sufficient numbers are there.’

Then there’s the reality that the current end date of Nov. 21 for the House-passed CR doesn’t give lawmakers enough time to advance funding bills, which has been a primary objective for Thune and others. And, many don’t want to reopen the government just to see it close back down a few weeks later.

Lawmakers are mulling extending the current CR, either by amending it or with a new bill, which would give them enough time to finish spending bills and avoid a colossal, year-end omnibus spending bill. Some are eyeing January, while others would prefer an extension into December. A trio of spending bills, known as a minibus, could also be tied to the revamped extension.

Those talks are happening parallel to discussions on Obamacare, but neither side has so far made a move to fully construct an off-ramp out of the shutdown.

When asked if he believed that the shutdown could end this week, Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., who has routinely engaged in bipartisan talks since the shutdown began, said, ‘I don’t know, I hope so.’

‘Bottom line is they can stop all this with one vote and get back into it and get back to work on a bipartisan basis,’ he said. ‘Again, that’s what we’re hoping.’

Both sides recognize that changing the subsidies, either through reforms or impacting the rates, will be difficult given that insurers already released rates and guidance over the weekend in line with the start of open enrollment.

Still, lawmakers are discussing a path forward on the subsidies. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has been involved in bipartisan talks, said that her proposal for the subsidies would extend them for two years.

She noted that it would be, ‘Really, really hard to do any reforms right now,’ because the insurance rates had been released, and that her proposal was one of many in the mix.

Ultimately, it’ll come down to the right blend of ideas to build an off-ramp for the subsidies. Murkowski said that changing the income cap, which was eliminated when the subsidies were enhanced under former President Joe Biden, and changes to the low-cost premium contribution were just a couple ideas on the table.

‘There’s no highly brand-new thing that anybody’s really talking about,’ she said. ‘It’s just what’s the right concoction?’

But some Senate Democrats are frustrated that Trump has not gotten more involved and argue that unless he gives an explicit greenlight, any deal crafted on the Hill doesn’t matter.

Trump has agreed to meet with Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., only after the government reopens. And over the weekend, he demanded that Senate Republicans nuke the 60-vote filibuster threshold, something that is unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever.

‘At no point since Oct. 1 has Donald Trump agreed to sit down with Democratic leaders,’ Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said. ‘So, he can talk all he wants about the filibuster, but until he actually puts some skin in the game and sits down and talks to us, like, that is all meaningless to me. And I honestly, like, don’t care about him pontificating this stuff on social media. Like, if he’s got time to tweet, he’s got time to just come and talk to us.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The nation’s largest food aid program will only resume in full when ‘Radical Left Democrats’ open the government, President Donald Trump wrote Tuesday on social media.

Trump posted about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on his Truth Social platform, saying that the benefits, meant to be a lifeline for low-income households, were given out too freely under former President Joe Biden, sending costs skyrocketing.

‘SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly ‘handed’ to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!’ the president’s post read.

Trump’s post comes as funding for the program was set to expire over the weekend as the government shutdown entered its second month.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., signaled that the expiration of funding may not be enough to persuade Democrats to end the government shutdown.

When asked if Democrats voting for the GOP federal funding bill would be the most prudent way to fix that, he said, ‘No.’

The Trump administration told a federal judge on Monday that it will partially resume SNAP benefits for the month of November despite the ongoing government shutdown, though when the payments will be distributed — and how much beneficiaries will receive — remains to be seen.

A senior Trump administration official told the court in a sworn declaration that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will allocate $4.65 billion of its $5 billion contingency fund to keep the SNAP program funded for the month of November.

SNAP supports more than 40 million Americans and has come under recent attention over how expansive the program has become and to the administration’s push to ensure illegal immigrants aren’t among its recipients.

The program was among the first that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins targeted for review, citing concerns about eligibility and oversight.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently pushed new legislation seeking special funding for farmers and food assistance programs amid the government shutdown. The legislation would reinstate federal funding for the Farm Service Agency and SNAP.

‘We need to start forcing Democrats to make some tough votes. We need to start holding their feet to the fire,’ Hawley said in an interview with Fox News Digital last month. ‘I mean, do they really not want people to be able to eat? This situation is ridiculous.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Hawley’s office for comment on Trump’s most recent post about SNAP but did not immediately hear back.

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias, Elizabeth Elkind, Breanne Deppisch and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS