FORTUNE BAY ANNOUNCES POSITIVE PEA FOR GOLDFIELDS PROJECT, SASKATCHEWAN

Average Annual Gold Production of 101 koz, After-Tax NPV5% of C$285M, and IRR of 35.2%

Highlights:

Robust economics with after-tax net present value ("NPV") (discount rate 5%) of C$285M , internal rate of return ("IRR") of 35.2% and payback of 1.7 years estimated with gold price of US$1,650 per ounce
Average annual gold production of 101,000 ounces over life of mine ("LOM"), with an average of 122,000 ounces per year in the first 4 years
8.3 year LOM producing 835,000 ounces of gold
Average cash cost of US$778 /oz and all-in sustaining cost ("AISC") of US$889 /oz gold
Initial capital expenditure of C$234M
Mill capacity of 7,500 tonnes per day (2.7 Mt per annum) with average gold recovery of 95.3%
Over 80% of mineable ounces coming from the Box deposit

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQX: FTBYF) ("Fortune Bay" or the "Company") is pleased to announce positive results from the independent Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") for its 100% owned Goldfields Project ("Goldfields" or the "Project") located near Uranium City, Saskatchewan . The PEA provides a base case assessment for developing the Goldfields mineral resource by conventional open pit mining methods, and gold recovery with a standard free milling flowsheet, incorporating gravity and leaching of the gravity tails. The economic model supports an operation with low capital cost and high rate of return over an 8.3 year mine life, with average annual production of 101,000 ounces of gold. The PEA was prepared by Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc. ("Ausenco") in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101"). The PEA NI-43-101 Technical Report will be filed on SEDAR ( www.sedar.com ) within 45 days of this News Release.

Dale Verran , CEO of Fortune Bay, commented, " Goldfields shows potential to become a highly profitable gold mine supported by a PEA produced by Ausenco, one of the most experienced and reputable engineering firms working on gold projects in Canada . Goldfields has now established itself as a leading gold development project in Saskatchewan , which is significant given it is the top-ranked mining jurisdiction in Canada and ranked number two globally. The PEA, based upon 99% of Indicated Mineral Resources, together with the substantial repository of project data, lays a solid foundation for the advancement of the Project."

Mr. Verran, further commented, "The Project has numerous desirable attributes including a low strip ratio, simple mineralogy and free-milling gold. The robust PEA economics are highlighted by low initial capital costs, competitive all-in sustaining costs, a relatively short payback period and a favorable NPV:CAPEX ratio. In addition, the established infrastructure in a historical mining area, including a powerline to site, and a valid development permit is expected to facilitate the timeline towards construction and operations. The Project continues to present numerous opportunities, including exploration potential, and additional mining and processing opportunities to be further investigated during a pre-feasibility stage."

Description of the Goldfields Project and PEA

The 100% owned Goldfields Project ("Goldfields" or the "Project") is located approximately 13 kilometres south of Uranium City in northern Saskatchewan , as shown in Figure 1. The Project comprises 12 mineral dispositions, covering approximately 5,000 hectares, and is host to the Box and Athona gold deposits and numerous other gold prospects and occurrences.

The Project is located within a historical mining area and benefits from established infrastructure, including a road and hydro-powerline to the Box deposit. Nearby facilities and services in Uranium City include bulk fuel, civil contractors, and a commercial airport. The Project has a history of gold production (64,000 oz produced between 1939 to 1942), numerous exploration drilling campaigns (over 1,000 drill holes) and historical mining studies by previous owners of the Project.

The current total gold resource for Box and Athona stands at 979,900 ounces of gold in the Indicated category (23.2 million tonnes at an average grade of 1.31 g/t gold) and 210,800 ounces of gold in the Inferred category (7.1 million tonnes at an average grade of 0.92 g/t gold), as defined in Table 8. The PEA considers conventional open-pit mining at both the Box and Athona gold deposits.

Ausenco was appointed as lead consultant in April 2022 to prepare the PEA in accordance with NI 43-101. The PEA was completed in collaboration with Moose Mountain Technical Services ("MMTS") for the mine design, and SRK Consulting ( Canada ) Inc. ("SRK") for the updated Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE") and Environmental, Permitting and Social aspects of the Project plan. The PEA comprised a Phase 1 Mine to Mill Optimization to determine the best business case for the Project, including social and environmental considerations, followed by a Phase 2 which included the PEA study based on a 7,500 tpd production case.

Financial Analysis

The economic analysis was performed assuming a 5% discount rate and a gold price of US$1,650 per ounce based on long-term consensus pricing. On a pre-tax basis, the NPV _5% is C$401 million , the IRR is 45.5% and the payback period is 1.4 years. On an after-tax basis, the NPV _5% is C$285 million , the IRR is 35.2% and the payback period is 1.7 years. A summary of the Project economics, and the projected annual gold production is provided in Table 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

Table 1: Summary of Project Economics

	Units	LOM Total / Avg .
General
Gold Price	US$/oz	$1,650
Exchange Rate	US$:C$	0.77
Mine Life	years	8.3
Total Waste Tonnes Mined	kt	69,139
Total Mill Feed Tonnes	kt	22,708
Strip Ratio	Waste : Resource	3.0 : 1
Production
Mill Head Grade	g/t	1.20
Mill Recovery Rate	%	95.3 %
Total Mill Ounces Recovered	koz	835
Total Average Annual Production	koz	101
Operating Costs
Mining Cost	C$/t Mined	$3.90
Mining Cost	C$/t Milled	$15.27
Processing Cost	C$/t Milled	$15.02
G&A Cost	C$/t Milled	$5.07
Total Operating Costs	C$/t Milled	$35.36
Refining & Transport Cost	C$/oz	$5.00
Royalty NSR	%	2.0 %
Cash Costs	US$/oz Au	$778
AISC	US$/oz Au	$889
Capital Costs
Initial Capital	C$M	$234
Sustaining Capital	C$M	$129
Closure Costs	C$M	$9
Salvage Costs	C$M	$18
Financials Pre-Tax
NPV (5%)	C$M	$401
IRR	%	45.5 %
Payback	Years	1.4
Financials Post-Tax
NPV (5%)	C$M	$285
IRR	%	35.2 %
Payback	Years	1.7

Notes:
Cash costs consist of mining costs, processing costs, mine-level G&A and refining charges and royalties
AISC includes cash costs plus sustaining capital, closure costs, and salvage value.
Payback is defined as achieving cumulative positive free cashflow after all cash costs and capital costs, including sustaining capital costs and is calculated from the start of production.
Refer to "Non-IFRS Financial Measures" below.

Cautionary Statement: The reader is advised that the PEA summarized in this news release is intended to provide only an initial, high-level review of the Project potential and design options. The PEA mine plan and economic model include numerous assumptions and the use of both indicated and inferred mineral resources. Inferred mineral resources are considered to be too speculative to be used in an economic analysis except as allowed for by NI 43-101 in PEA studies. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The PEA is based upon a subset of the mineral resources which incorporates 98.6% of indicated mineral resources and 1.4% of inferred mineral resources.

Projected gold production is 835,000 ounces over the 8.3 year LOM. Gold production averages 101,000 ounces per year, with an average of 122,000 ounces per year in the first four years. Attributable recovered ounces from Box and Athona over LOM are 81% and 19%, respectively.

Mine Design and Production Schedule

The PEA considers open-pit mining from the Box and Athona gold deposits over a project mine life of 8.3 years. Mine planning is based on conventional open pit methods suited for the Project location and local site requirements. The subset of Mineral Resources contained within the designed open pits are summarized in Table 2, with a 0.30 g/t gold cut-off, and form the basis of the mine plan and production schedule. A total of 98.6% of the Mineral Resources subset used in the PEA are classified as Indicated.

Table 2: PEA Mine Plan Production Summary

PEA Mill Feed	22,708 kt
Mill Feed Gold Grade	1.20 g/t
Waste Overburden and Rock	69,139 kt
Waste : Resource Ratio	3.0 : 1

Notes:
1.	The PEA Mine Plan and Mill Feed estimates are a subset of the September 1, 2022 Mineral Resource estimates and are based on open pit mine engineering and technical information developed at a Scoping level for the Box and Athona deposits.
2.	PEA Mine Plan and Mill Feed estimates are mined tonnes and grade, the reference point is the primary crusher.
3.	Mill Feed tonnages and grades include open pit mining method modifying factors, such as dilution and recovery.
4.	Cut-off grade of 0.30 g/t assumes US$1,650/oz. Au at a currency exchange rate of 0.77 US$ per C$; 99.95% payable gold; C$5/oz offsite costs (refining, transport and insurance); a 2.0% NSR royalty; and a 95% metallurgical recovery for gold.
5.	The cut-off grade covers processing costs of C$12.00/t, administrative (G&A) costs of C$6.20/t, and low grade stockpile Rehandle costs of C$1.00/t.
6.	Estimates have been rounded and may result in summation differences.

Optimized ultimate pit limits for each deposit have been split into phases or pushbacks to target higher economic margin material earlier in the mine life. The Box deposit is split into three phases, and the Athona deposit is split into two phases (Figure 3). Pit designs are configured on five meter bench heights, with eight meter wide berms placed every four benches, or quadruple benching.

The mill will be fed with material from the pits at an average rate of 2.7 Mtpa (7.5 ktpd). Waste rock will be placed in one of three identified waste rock storage facilities ("WRSF"). Waste rock will also be used for construction of the haul roads and the tailings dam located north of the process facilities. Topsoil and overburden encountered at the top of the pits will be placed in a dedicated area and kept salvageable for closure at the end of the mine life. Cut-off grade optimization is employed, stockpiling lower grade material in the initial years and rehandling this material to the mill towards the end of mine life.

Mining cost estimates are built up from first principles based on the selected mining methods, assuming an owner managed operation. Mining operations will be based on 365 operating days per year with two twelve- hour shifts per day. An allowance of twelve days of no mine production per year has been built into the mine schedule to allow for adverse weather conditions.

The mine production schedule is summarized in Figure 4.

Metallurgy and Mineral Processing

Goldfields has been the subject of extensive metallurgical testwork programs and previous studies, dating back to 1939. This work has determined that there are no significant metallurgical or environmental hindrances associated with the mineralization. Based on the latest test work conducted by SGS Canada Inc. ("SGS") in 2015, gold can be effectively recovered from the mineralization at both Box and Athona by gravity and leaching methods.

The Goldfields process flowsheet was designed based on previous testwork and preliminary financial evaluations, with key process design criteria derived from testwork conducted at SGS in 2015. The process plant employs gravity concentration, and standard leaching with carbon-in-pulp ("CIP") technology for gold recovery. The plant includes three stages of crushing followed by ball milling, classification, gravity concentration, leach and CIP. Tailings will be subjected to cyanide detoxification before being pumped to the tailings storage facility.

The process plant will treat 2.7 Mt of material per year at an average throughput of 7.5 ktpd based on mill availability of 92%. The crusher plant circuit design is set at 65% availability and the gold room availability is set at 52 weeks per year. The plant will operate two shifts per day, 365 days per year and will produce doré bars.

The plant has been designed to realize an average recovery of 95.3% of the gold (95.9% Box and 93.5% Athona) over LOM. Of this, 24.5% of the gold will be extracted by gravity and a further 70.8% by the leach/CIP process. The proposed process flowsheet is shown in Figure 5.

Site Infrastructure

Goldfields benefits from an existing gravel road from Uranium City (Highway 962) and high-voltage powerline to the Box site from hydropower stations located approximately 40 kilometres to the northwest. Both the gravel road and powerline will require minor upgrades and refurbishment. Stoney Rapids, the regional business hub, is located approximately 150 kilometres to the east and is accessible along Lake Athabasca by boat or barge during the summer, and by an ice-road during winter, built and maintained by the Provincial Government.

Figure 6 shows the site layout, including pits for Box and Athona, stockpiles, waste rock storage facility ("WRSF"), Tailings Storage Facility ("TSF"), onsite roads, processing plant and mining infrastructure areas such as offices and truck shops. This infrastructure has been kept at least 30 meters from the surveyed edge of Lake Athabasca and located to minimize disturbance to existing waterbodies and watercourses.

The site location selection for the WRSF, TSF, processing plant and other mining infrastructure considered various factors including social, environmental, topographic, accessibility, proximity to existing infrastructure and overall flow of the mining operation. Administration facilities, truck shop, wash bay, tire store, fuel storage, assay laboratory and warehousing are centralized near the process plant. Accommodations are planned for Uranium City in a permanent camp with personnel transport to the mine on a shift basis.

The primary design objectives of the TSF are the secure confinement of tailings and the protection of the regional groundwater and surface water during mine operations and closure. Based on preliminary environmental characterization and the geology of the two deposits, it can be considered that the waste rock, mineralized material and tailings are not acid-generating nor metal leaching. These desirable characteristics for the Project (simplified operation, easier water management and reduced closure risks) were incorporated into the Project design.

Tailings at Goldfields will be pumped from the process plant to the TSF and will be stored behind a tailings dam. The TSF has been designed in accordance with CDA guidelines (2013, 2019) to safely accommodate the life of mine tailings production as described in the PEA.

Topsoil and overburden encountered during site excavations will be placed in a dedicated area and kept salvageable for closure at the end of the mine life to facilitate revegetation of the TSF and WRSF.

Capital Costs

Initial capital costs are estimated at C$234M with allowances for indirect costs, including a contingency of C$34M . Sustaining capital costs are estimated at C$129M which includes cost of mine expansion, payments of mining fleet, expansion of TSF, financing of the permanent camp facilities and associated indirect costs. The down payment and initial financing payments for the mining fleet and camp are included in the initial capital period whereas the balance of payments are included in the sustaining capital period. The capital costs for the Project are built using a combination of vendor quotations for all major equipment and benchmark information in the region. The project uses a contingency of 7.4% for initial mining capital, 25% for all process plant and infrastructure costs, for both initial and sustaining capital. An owner's cost of 5% is applied on the total direct costs excluding mining costs. A summary of capital costs is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of Capital Costs

Description	Initial Capital	Sustaining Capital	Total Capital Cost
	(C$M)	(C$M)	(C$M)
Mine	40.2	69.0	109.2
Process Plant	72.0	-	72.0
On Site Infrastructure	22.1	24.7	46.8
Off Site Infrastructure	5.7	-	5.7
Tailings Storage Facility	20.8	16.0	36.8
Total Direct	160.7	109.7	270.5
Project Indirects	10.3	2.9	13.1
Project Delivery	22.1	6.6	28.8
Owner's Costs	6.3	-	6.3
Contingency	34.0	9.5	43.5
Total Indirect	72.8	19.0	91.8
Totals	233.5	128.7	362.2

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding

Operating Costs

Operating costs were derived using benchmark information in the region and are estimated at C$35.36 /t milled (Table 4). The mine and process operating costs are built up from first principles. Cost inputs are derived from benchmarked prices.

Table 4: Summary of Operating Costs

Cost Centre	LOM	Annual Average Cost	LOM Total / Avg.	Average LOM	OPEX
	(C$M)	(C$M)	(C$/t Milled)	(C$/oz)	( %)
Mining Cost	346.82	41.81	15.27	415.32	43 %
Processing Cost	341.08	41.12	15.02	408.44	43 %
G&A Cost	115.12	13.88	5.07	137.86	14 %
Total Operating Costs	803.02	96.81	35.36	961.62	100 %

Cash Flow Analysis

The projected cash flow for the Project is provided in Figure 7. Cumulative after-tax unlevered free cash flow totals C$435M . Payback for the Project is 1.7 years.

Sensitivities

A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the base case pre-tax and after-tax NPV, IRR and payback of the Project, using the following variables: gold price, initial capex, total operating costs, discount rate, foreign exchange rate, mill recovery and head grade. The after-tax sensitivity analysis results for a range of gold prices are summarized in Table 5. Tables 6 and 7 provide a summary of after-tax NPV and IRR sensitivities for initial capex, total opex and foreign exchange rate ("FX"). The Project is most sensitive to changes in gold prices and less sensitive to initial capex and operating costs.

Table 5: After-Tax Sensitivity Summary

Gold Price (US$/oz)	US$1,300	US$1,450	Base Case US$1,650	US$1,750	US$1,950
NPV _5%	C$81M	C$168M	C$285M	C$343M	C$459M
IRR	14.6 %	23.9 %	35.2 %	40.5 %	50.5 %
NPV _5% /CAPEX	0.35	0.72	1.22	1.47	1.96
Payback (Years)	5.2	2.4	1.7	1.6	1.3

Table 6: After-Tax NPV _5% Sensitivity

Gold Price (US$/oz)	After-Tax NPV _5% Base Case	Initial CAPEX		Total OPEX		FX
		-20 %	+20 %	-20 %	+20 %	-20 %	+20 %
US$1,300	C$81M	C$142M	C$21M	C$168M	(C$7M)	(C$81M)	C$232M
US$1,450	C$168M	C$229M	C$108M	C$255M	C$81M	(C$1M)	C$337M
US$1,650	C$285M	C$345M	C$224M	C$371M	C$198M	C$93M	C$476M
US$1,750	C$343M	C$402M	C$283M	C$429M	C$256M	C$139M	C$545M
US$1,950	C$459M	C$518M	C$399M	C$545M	C$372M	C$232M	C$684M

Table 7: After-Tax IRR Sensitivity

Gold Price (US$/oz)	After-Tax IRR Base Case	Initial CAPEX		Total OPEX		FX
		-20 %	+20 %	-20 %	+20 %	-20 %	+20 %
US$1,300	14.6 %	25.5 %	7.1 %	23.4 %	4.1 %	0.0 %	30.2 %
US$1,450	23.9 %	36.4 %	15.3 %	31.8 %	14.8 %	4.9 %	40.0 %
US$1,650	35.2 %	49.6 %	25.2 %	42.3 %	27.4 %	15.8 %	52.0 %
US$1,750	40.5 %	55.8 %	29.9 %	47.3 %	33.1 %	20.9 %	57.7 %
US$1,950	50.5 %	67.4 %	38.8 %	56.8 %	43.9 %	30.2 %	68.6 %

Key Opportunities for Project Improvement

Detailed metallurgical testing, including variability sampling across the deposits, is recommended during a prefeasibility study which has the potential to improve gold recoveries. Further testing for the gravity circuit could support further refinement of the equipment sizing and costs. Confirmatory testing could lead to capital and operating cost reductions in other areas of the process plant.

A preliminary pre-concentration (ore sorting) analysis was completed in early 2022 by SRK which showed potential to improve Project economics based on a scoping level assessment. Additional upside could be created by a decrease in tailings volume as a result of sorting. SRK recommended that preliminary mineral sensing testwork be conducted such that more accurate predictions of sorting could be derived, which could form part of a future prefeasibility study.

Future investigation and trade-off of alternative onsite material transport options that differ from the planned diesel driven haul truck fleet, with the goals of improving the project economics and minimizing the Project's carbon footprint. These options could include crushing and conveying, hauler trolley systems, and a battery electrical mining fleet. This, combined with the use of hydropower, has the potential to make the Project highly sustainable and climate-friendly.

The Project has exploration potential which could enable longer mine life beyond 8.3 years or increased annual production volumes. The mineralization at Box and Athona remains open and numerous other gold prospects on the Property require more detailed re-evaluation. At Box, initial assessment of underground mining below the extents of the open-pit showed limited potential, however additional drilling to target high-grade zones along structural trends is recommended with the goal of increasing mineral resources for inclusion in future mining studies. This potential is demonstrated by the Phase 1 drilling completed in 2021 which produced intercepts below the current MRE of 8.00 g/t over 4.0 metres (drill hole B21-334), 8.00 g/t over 12.0 metres (drill hole B21-336), 8.74 g/t over 5.0 metres (drill hole B21-339) and 13.22 g/t over 8 metres (drill hole B21-340) (For further details see News Release dated September 14, 2021 and March 7, 2022 ).

Mineral Resource Estimate

An updated MRE was completed as part of the PEA. The mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with the CIM "Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best Practices" guidelines ( November 2019 ) and NI 43-101. The updated MRE was prepared by SRK, an independent consulting firm with significant experience in the estimation of gold deposits, both in Canada and internationally.

This updated MRE replaces the previous MRE with an effective date of March 15, 2021 , also completed by SRK, who used the same resource estimation procedures to update the MRE based on additional drilling completed during 2021. SRK is also responsible for the development of the supporting mineralization models which were based upon structural and petrographic studies conducted by SRK during late 2020.

The updated MRE is provided in Table 8 with an effective date of September 1, 2022 . Mineral resources are constrained within a conceptual open-pit shell. The MRE reconciles to within 1% of historical mine production at Box when the historically reported process plant recovery of 96% is applied, providing additional confidence in the estimate.

Table 8: Goldfields Mineral Resource Statement, effective date September 1, 2022 .

Deposit	Category	Tonnes	Au Grade	Total Au
Deposit	Category	(Mt)	(g/t)	(000's oz)
Box	Indicated	15.8	1.44	729.7
Athona	Indicated	7.4	1.06	250.2
	Total Indicated	23.2	1.31	979.9
Box	Inferred	3.3	1.08	112.8
Athona	Inferred	3.8	0.80	98.0
	Total Inferred	7.1	0.92	210.8

Notes:

1) Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

2) Mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.3 g/t gold, constrained within a conceptual open-pit shell.

3) Mineral resources are reported using a gold price of US$1800/oz.

4) All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.

The mineral resource model considers a total of 838 boreholes of which 494 are located within the Box deposit and 344 within the Athona deposit.

Indicated Mineral Resources comprise 82% of the estimate, with the remaining 18% classified at an Inferred level of confidence. Comparison of the March 15, 2021 and September 1, 2022 mineral resource statements show an increase in tonnage and contained gold content within the current Indicated mineral resource statement of approximately 2.7% and 0.5%, respectively, and an increase in the Inferred mineral resource tonnes and contained gold content of approximately 18% and 20%, respectively. The increases observed in the September 2022 mineral resources are related to the additional drilling completed in 2021 which expanded the footprint of the classified mineral resources at both the Box and Athona deposits, as well as the incorporation of a higher gold price which increased the size of the constraining pit shells used for mineral resource reporting.

Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations

The Project completed a federal screening and a provincial Environmental Assessment and received Ministerial Approval to proceed to licensing in 2008. Updates to the environmental baseline will be required and changes to the Project, to that which was assessed, will require some additional assessment. Approvals to these changes would be required through an application submitted in accordance with Section 16 of the Provincial Assessment Act. Doing so should significantly reduce the schedule and cost required to advance the Project into construction and operations.

There is a risk that both the federal and provincial regulators deem the changes to the Project, from that which was approved in 2008, are too great to allow the gaps to be addressed under a Section 16 (Saskatchewan Assessment Act) application. A decision of this nature would require a new federal screening and possibly a federal assessment coupled with a new provincial assessment as well. This would increase the schedule and cost required to advance the Project to construction.

Fortune Bay is committed to working with Indigenous Rights Holders declaring the Project area as part of their traditional territory. Engagement efforts with these Rights Holders, specifically First Nation representatives, to date have established the foundation of a relationship based on trust and honesty.

No environmental and/or social risks have been identified that cannot be reasonably mitigated through the implementation of good engineering and social practices.

Qualified Persons

The PEA has been prepared by the following "Qualified Persons", all of whom are considered to be independent consultants of Fortune Bay for the purposes of section 1.5 of NI 43-101, and all of whom have reviewed the information in this press release that is summarized from the PEA in their areas of expertise:

Kevin Murray , P. Eng., Metallurgy and Mineral Processing (Ausenco)
Scott Elfen, P.E., Tailings Storage Facility (Ausenco)
Davood Hasanloo, P.Eng., Water Management (Ausenco)
Marc Schulte , P. Eng., Mining (MMTS)
Cliff Revering , P. Eng., Mineral Resource Estimation (SRK)
Mark Liskowich , P. Geo., Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations (SRK)

The technical and scientific information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Dale Verran , M.Sc., P.Geo., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, who is a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101. Mr. Verran is an employee of Fortune Bay and is not independent of the Company under NI 43–101.

Non-International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS") Financial Measures
The Company has included certain non-IFRS financial measures in this news release, such as initial capital cost, sustaining capital cost, total capital cost, AISC, and capital intensity, which are not measures recognized under IFRS and do not have a standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS. As a result, these measures may not be comparable to similar measures reported by other corporations. Each of these measures used are intended to provide additional information to the user and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. Non-IFRS financial measures used in this news release and common to the gold mining industry are defined below.

Total Cash Costs and Total Cash Costs per Ounce
Total cash costs are reflective of the cost of production. Total cash costs reported in the PEA include mining costs, processing and water treatment costs, general and administrative costs of the mine, off-site costs, refining costs, transportation costs and royalties. Total cash costs per ounce is calculated as total cash costs divided by payable gold ounces.

AISC and AISC per Ounce
AISC is reflective of all of the expenditures that are required to produce an ounce of gold from operations. AISC reported in the PEA includes total cash costs, sustaining capital, closure costs and salvage, but excludes corporate general and administrative costs. AISC per ounce is calculated as AISC divided by payable gold ounces.

About Ausenco
Ausenco is a global company based across 26 offices in 14 countries, with projects in over 80 locations worldwide. Combining deep technical expertise with a 30-year track record, Ausenco delivers innovative, value- add consulting studies, project delivery, asset operations and maintenance solutions to the mining and metals, oil & gas and industrial sectors.

About Fortune Bay

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV:FOR, FWB: 5QN, OTCQX: FTBYF) is an exploration and development company with 100% ownership in two advanced gold exploration projects in Canada , Saskatchewan (Goldfields Project) and Mexico , Chiapas (Ixhuatán Project), both with exploration and development potential. The Company is also advancing the 100% owned Strike and Murmac uranium exploration projects, located near the Goldfields Project, which have high-grade potential typical of the Athabasca Basin. The Company has a goal of building a mid-tier exploration and development Company through the advancement of its existing projects and the strategic acquisition of new projects to create a pipeline of growth opportunities. The Company's corporate strategy is driven by a Board and Management team with a proven track record of discovery, project development and value creation. Further information on Fortune Bay and its assets can be found on the Company's website at www.fortunebaycorp.com or by contacting us as info@fortunebaycorp.com or by telephone at 902-334-1919.

On behalf of Fortune Bay Corp.

"Dale Verran"
Chief Executive Officer
902-334-1919

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Information set forth in this news release contains forward-looking statements that are based on assumptions as of the date of this news release. These statements reflect management's current estimates, beliefs, intentions, and expectations. They are not guarantees of future performance. Words such as "expects", "aims", "anticipates", "targets", "goals", "projects", "intends", "plans", "believes", "seeks", "estimates", "continues", "may", variations of such words, and similar expressions and references to future periods, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, and include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to: the results of the PEA, including future Project opportunities, future operating and capital costs, closure costs, AISC, the projected NPV, IRR, timelines, permit timelines, and the ability to obtain the requisite permits, economics and associated returns of the Project, the technical viability of the Project, the market and future price of and demand for gold, the environmental impact of the Project, and the ongoing ability to work cooperatively with stakeholders, including the local levels of government. Since forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Although these statements are based on information currently available to the Company, the Company provides no assurance that actual results will meet management's expectations. Risks, uncertainties and other factors involved with forward- looking information could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Forward looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, the Company's objectives, goals or future plans, statements, exploration results, potential mineralization, the estimation of mineral resources, exploration and mine development plans, timing of the commencement of operations and estimates of market conditions. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to failure to identify mineral resources, failure to convert estimated mineral resources to reserves, the inability to complete a feasibility study which recommends a production decision, the preliminary nature of metallurgical test results, delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required governmental, environmental or other project approvals, political risks, inability to fulfill the duty to accommodate First Nations and other indigenous peoples, uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future, changes in equity markets, inflation, changes in exchange rates, fluctuations in commodity prices, delays in the development of projects, capital and operating costs varying significantly from estimates and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration and development industry, and those risks set out in the Company's public documents filed on SEDAR. Although the Company believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking information in this news release are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by law. For more information on Fortune Bay, readers should refer to Fortune Bay's website at www.fortunebaycorp.com .

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

SOURCE Fortune Bay Corp.

View original content to download multimedia: https://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2022/01/c2789.html

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

Fortune Bay TSXV:FOR Energy Investing

FOR:CA

FORTUNE BAY ANNOUNCES ADDITIONAL URANIUM STAKING AND PROVIDES UPDATE FOR MURMAC AND STRIKE URANIUM PROJECTS

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQB: FTBYF) ("Fortune Bay" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the acquisition of two additional uranium projects through staking on the north-central margin of the Athabasca Basin, in proximity to the Company's recently announced Spruce Pine and Aspen Uranium Projects (Figure 1).

Gareth Garlick , Technical Director for Fortune Bay, commented "The acquisition of the Birch and Fir projects adds to our growing uranium portfolio of newly acquired, 100% owned projects on the north-central margin of the Athabasca Basin. This extensive portfolio now totals five new uranium projects covering over 40,000 hectares and provides Fortune Bay with further opportunity to create value through exploration and/or transactional success. The Birch and Fir projects have known uranium endowment with historical occurrences of up to 55.1% U ₃ O ₈ , in addition to Rare Earth Element potential with historical outcrop grades of up to 2.4% Total Rare Earth Elements."

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

Keep reading...Show less

FORTUNE BAY ACQUIRES THE ASPEN URANIUM PROJECT IN NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQB: FTBYF) ("Fortune Bay" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the acquisition of the Aspen Uranium Project ("Aspen" or the "Project"). The Project is located within the north-central margin of the Athabasca Basin, proximal to the Company's recently announced Spruce Uranium Project and Pine Uranium Project .

Aspen Uranium Project Highlights:

Large-scale land package covering 9,869 hectares located in proximity to the northern rim of the Athabasca Basin (Figure 1).
Includes extensive anomalous uranium results from historical surface sampling, including;
- The highest regional lake sediment uranium anomaly in Saskatchewan of 989 ppm U, within the Geological Survey of Canada data compilation.
- Historical exploration samples collected during the late 1970's identified extensive lake sediment anomalies within the Property, with values averaging 302 ppm U from 439 samples collected, including seven samples with values exceeding 1,000 ppm U (maximum 1,870 ppm U).
- Historical muskeg samples within the Property averaged 2,007 ppm U from 24 samples collected, including a maximum value of 10,400 ppm U.
Historical surface prospecting, limited to areas of outcrop, failed to identify a bedrock source of this uranium anomalism and no drilling has been completed on the Project to date despite compelling support for the possible presence of a uranium deposit/s within the Project area.
The application of modern exploration methods, including high-resolution airborne electromagnetic ("EM") survey, presents an opportunity for discovery in an area where overburden and small lakes cover prospective graphitic lithologies (softer) and structural corridors.

" The surface endowment of uranium across the Aspen Project is extraordinary with values in surface sample media equivalent to, or greater than, uranium ore grades elsewhere in the world. We are excited to apply our team's extensive uranium skill set, together with a modern, systematic exploration approach to unravel the nature, extent and cause of this exceptionally high anomalism with the potential to deliver a near-surface uranium discovery." commented Dale Verran , CEO for Fortune Bay.

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

Keep reading...Show less

FORTUNE BAY ANNOUNCES ACQUISITION OF THE PINE URANIUM PROJECT IN NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQB: FTBYF) ("Fortune Bay" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the acquisition of the Pine Uranium Project ("Pine" or the "Project") through staking over the past several months. The Project is located within the north-central margin of the Athabasca Basin, proximal to the Company's recently announced Spruce Uranium Project .

Pine Uranium Project Highlights:

Large-scale land package covering 17,688 hectares located in proximity to the northern rim of the Athabasca Basin ("Basin") (Figure 1).
Potential for high-grade, basement-hosted uranium deposits along approximately thirteen (13) kilometres of the Grease River Shear Zone ("GRSZ"), a major structural corridor that hosts the historical Fond du Lac uranium deposit.
Additional potential for bulk tonnage Rössing-style uranium deposits associated with abundant, historically recognized, uranium-bearing leucogranites and pegmatites. Limited historical prospecting yielded Rössing-style surface uranium showings of 0.17% U ₃ O ₈ (1,442 ppm U) and 0.10% U ₃ O ₈ (848 ppm U), and a trenching result of 509 ppm U over 24.7 metres.
No modern airborne radiometric surveying completed over approximately 60% of the Project, and no modern airborne electromagnetic surveying.
Regionally, the area is characterized by the highest lake sediment uranium anomalies in Saskatchewan , including values up to 435 ppm U within the Project area.
No drilling conducted on the property to date.

Dale Verran , CEO for Fortune Bay, commented, " Combined, our Spruce and Pine Uranium Projects cover approximately 20 kilometres of the Grease River Shear Zone, providing Fortune Bay with a dominant land position of this major structural corridor within 25 kilometres of the Athabasca Basin margin. The corridor is significantly underexplored relative to other major, Basin-margin structural corridors that have yielded significant Athabasca Basin-style, basement-hosted uranium discoveries. Historical exploration has demonstrated the corridor to be prospective for basement-hosted mineralization, evidenced by the Fond du Lac uranium deposit and numerous historical uranium occurrences. The potential for Rössing-style uranium deposits adds an additional dimension to the Pine Uranium Project. Average uranium ore grades for the Rössing and Husab open-pit mines in Namibia are in the order of 350 ppm and 500 ppm, respectively. There is a precedent for these grades, and greater, associated with similar rock types historically identified within the Project area. The promising results from regional reconnaissance-style exploration by historical operators, and the extensive nature of the uranium mineralization in lake sediments, highlight the potential for future discovery."

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

Keep reading...Show less

FORTUNE BAY ANNOUNCES ACQUISITION OF THE SPRUCE URANIUM PROJECT IN NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQX: FTBYF) ("Fortune Bay" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the acquisition of the Spruce Uranium Project ("Spruce" or the "Project") through staking over the past several months. The Project is located within the north-central margin of the Athabasca Basin, near the community of Fond du Lac and comprises four mineral claims covering 6,855 hectares (Figure 1).

Highlights:

Located in proximity to the northern rim of the Athabasca Basin ("Basin") with potential for high-grade, basement-hosted uranium deposits.
Covers over six (6) kilometres of prospective strike length along the Grease River Shear Zone ("GRSZ"), a major structural corridor that hosts the historical Fond du Lac uranium deposit.
The GRSZ is significantly underexplored relative to other major, Basin-margin structural corridors that have yielded significant basement-hosted uranium discoveries (e.g. Arrow, Triple R and Eagle Point).
Historical surface uranium showings of 1.60% U ₃ O ₈ and 0.65% U ₃ O ₈ from limited prospecting.
Additional Rare Earth Element ("REE") potential, including historical surface REE showings of 3.13% total rare earth element ("TREE"), 1.23% TREE, 0.88% TREE and 0.85% TREE.
Adjacent to properties held by IsoEnergy Ltd., and Forum Energy Metals Corp. (under option to Traction Uranium Inc.) that recently highlighted prospective conductive trends on the Project through airborne electromagnetic ("EM") surveying.

Dale Verran , CEO for Fortune Bay, commented, " As the uranium market continues to strengthen, with spot prices recently topping US$90 /lb U ₃ O ₈ , investment in uranium exploration in Saskatchewan's prolific Athabasca Basin is on the rise as explorers search for resources to meet the growing future supply deficit. This timely acquisition provides Fortune Bay with another uranium project to create value for our stakeholders. The Spruce Uranium Project hosts the hallmarks for a high-grade basement-hosted discovery; located on a major structural zone in proximity to the Basin margin with a precedent for mineralization, and limited exploration to date."

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

Keep reading...Show less

FORTUNE BAY ANNOUNCES OPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE MURMAC AND STRIKE URANIUM PROJECTS

Fortune Bay Corp. (TSXV: FOR) (FWB: 5QN) (OTCQX: FTBYF) ("Fortune Bay" or the "Company") is pleased to announce that it has entered into a definitive option agreement (the "Agreement"), dated December 15, 2023, with 1443904 B.C. Ltd. (the "Optionee"), an arms-length private company. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Optionee will be granted the right to acquire up to a 70% interest in the Company's wholly owned Murmac and Strike Uranium Projects (the "Projects") over a three-and-a-half-year period by funding C$6 million in exploration expenditures, making cash payments totalling C$1.35 million, and issuing C$2.15 million in common shares following completion of a going public transaction.

News Provided by Canada Newswire via QuoteMedia

Keep reading...Show less

Baselode Defines the Significance of Massive Clay Alteration System Identified on Hook Uranium Project

Five drill holes outlined an open massive hydrothermal clay alteration system measuring at least 200 m x 100 m, resembling alteration found in Athabasca high-grade uranium deposits
Radioactivity within the clay alteration system increases with depth and remains open
Drill hole HK24-010 intersected 13.4 metres of continuous radioactivity within a 200 m wide alteration system
New defined target areas are within 6 km of near-surface ACKIO uranium prospect

Baselode Energy Corp. (TSXV: FIND) (OTCQB: BSENF) ("Baselode" or the "Company") is pleased to provide results and findings from the exploration and discovery portion of the drill program on Hook project ("Hook") in the Athabasca Basin area of northern Saskatchewan.

"These results represent an important discovery on our Hook project. While we've already made a discovery at Hook with ACKIO, this is only a small part of the broader Hook land package. The potential on the property is substantial as Hook is an extensive project, and our discovery at ACKIO, combined with our neighbour Atha Energy's discovery in their Gemini Mineralized Zone, highlights that the region has all the geological features needed to host significant uranium deposits. More importantly, we can clearly demonstrate that this area is fertile with uranium mineralization. Large-scale alteration systems are key indicators when it comes to uranium, which tends to occur in smaller deposits relative to other minerals. We're pleased to have uncovered such a large system, exhibiting all the hallmark features needed for a new high-grade Athabasca uranium discovery," commented James Sykes, CEO, President, and Director of Baselode.

Watch this video for a detailed analysis of the two follow-up target areas and a comparison of Hook alteration systems to seven Athabasca high-grade uranium deposits that have combined over 700 million pounds of uranium.

The first alteration system the Company highlights is in the HK24-016 area, measuring more than 250 metres wide by 400 metres deep, with a core of massive clay and bleached alteration styles that measure 100 metres wide by at least 200 metres deep. These core alteration styles are important as they are the same style associated with at least three basement-hosted Athabasca high-grade uranium deposits.

The second alteration system identified in the HK24-010 area is significant due to its similarly large scale, intersecting 13 meters of continuous anomalous radioactivity within pegmatite along the margin of the fluid pathway. While assays are pending, the Company is well-funded and eager to proceed with follow-up drill plans for these high-priority exploration targets.

Hook Exploration Drill Hole Highlights

HK24-016 area

Drill holes HK24-016, HK24-017, and HK24-021 to HK24-023 were collared 5.5 kilometres southwest of ACKIO (Figure 2, Figure 3). HK24-016 intersected 140 metres of massive hydrothermal clay and bleaching alteration (the "clay alteration") within a broader 370 m thick alteration corridor (Figure 4). The drill hole intersected anomalous radioactivity associated with fracture-controlled remobilized hematite alteration within the clay alteration (Figure 5).

Both HK24-017 and HK24-021 targeted the clay alteration up-dip and down-dip, with each intersecting 30 and 145 metres of clay alteration, respectively. HK24-022 was collared 100 metres southeast of HK24-016 and intersected 60 metres of clay alteration, and HK24-023 was collared 50 metres northeast and intersected 110 metres of clay alteration. Initial observations suggests follow-up drilling is required beneath HK24-021 and to the north of HK24-023.

The clay alteration encountered within these Hook drill holes (Figure 6) share numerous similarities to massive hydrothermal clay alteration systems observed in Athabasca basement-hosted, high-grade uranium systems, such as Cameco's Millennium and Eagle Point deposits, Uranium Energy Corp's Roughrider deposits, and Denison Mines' Gryphon deposit.

The upper outer halo of the clay alteration is further identified with unique limonite liesegang banding and fracture-controlled alteration, including a distinct quartz stockwork. These are also similar outer halo alteration styles that have been observed within large-scale Athabasca uranium deposits.

HK24-010 area

Drill holes HK24-009 and HK24-010 were collared 6 kilometres northeast of ACKIO (see Figure 2, Figure 7). Details of these drill holes were initially released on July 17, 2024. HK24-010 has returned the best radioactive intersection outside of Baselode's near-surface ACKIO uranium prospect with 13.2 metres of continuous anomalous radioactivity starting at 186 metres beneath the surface hosted within a pegmatite along the western margin of a 200 m-wide, structurally-controlled, hematite and bleached alteration system. The area remains open in all directions.

Drill hole samples have been sent to Saskatchewan Research Council for uranium and multi-element analysis. Results will be released after being received and reviewed by the Company.

NOTES:

cps* = "counts-per-second", as measured with a handheld RS-125 Gamma-Ray Spectrometer/Scintillometer ("RS-125"). The reader is cautioned that Baselode uses scintillometer readings as a preliminary indication for the presence of radioactive materials (uranium, thorium and/or potassium), and that scintillometer results may not be used directly to quantify or qualify uranium concentrations of the rock samples measured.
The Company defines groupings of RS-125 as i) background radioactivity (50 to 200 cps), ii) above-background radioactivity (200 to 300 cps), and iii) anomalous radioactivity (300 to 1,000 cps).
"Radioactivity (>300 cps)" in Table 1 is defined as drill core length with no greater than 2.0 m of consecutive drill hole length measuring less than 300 cps.
All reported drill hole depths and lengths do not represent true thicknesses.

About Baselode Energy Corp.

Baselode controls 100% of approximately 238,930 hectares for exploration in the Athabasca Basin area of northern Saskatchewan, Canada. The land package is free of any option agreements or underlying royalties.

The Company discovered the ACKIO near-surface, uranium prospect in September 2021. ACKIO measures greater than 375 m along strike, greater than 150 m wide, comprised of at least 9 separate uranium Pods, with mineralization starting as shallow as 28 m and 32 m beneath the surface in Pods 1 and 7, respectively, and down to approximately 300 m depth beneath the surface with the bulk of mineralization occurring in the upper 120 m. ACKIO remains open at depth, and to the north, south and east.

Baselode's Athabasca 2.0 exploration thesis focuses on discovering near-surface, basement-hosted, high-grade uranium orebodies outside the Athabasca Basin. The exploration thesis is further complemented by the Company's preferred use of innovative and well-understood geophysical methods to map deep structural controls to identify shallow targets for diamond drilling.

QP Statement

The technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Cameron MacKay, P.Geo., Vice-President, Exploration & Development for Baselode Energy Corp., who is considered to be a Qualified Person as defined in "National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects."

For further information, please contact:

James Sykes, CEO, President and Director
Baselode Energy Corp.
jsykes@oregroup.ca
306-221-8717
www.baselode.com

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

Certain information in this press release may contain forward-looking statements. This information is based on current expectations that are subject to significant risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking statements. Baselode Energy Corp. assumes no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those reflected in the forward looking-statements unless and until required by securities laws applicable to Baselode Energy Corp. Additional information identifying risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company's filings with Canadian securities regulators, which filings are available under Baselode Energy Corp. profile at www.sedarplus.ca.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any of the securities in the United States. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "U.S. Securities Act") or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. Persons unless registered under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws, unless an exemption from such registration is available.

FIGURE 1 - Baselode projects location map. ACKIO uranium prospect identified with yellow circle.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6412/224182_480ec88df46cda96_001full.jpg

FIGURE 2 - Drill holes (HK24-009 to HK24-023) location map

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6412/224182_480ec88df46cda96_002full.jpg

FIGURE 3 - HK24-016 target area drill holes (HK24-016, HK24-017, and HK24-021 to HK24-023) location map

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6412/224182_480ec88df46cda96_005full.jpg

FIGURE 4 - Cross-section interpretation of large hydrothermal fluid system with core massive clay and bleaching alteration (blue)

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6412/224182_480ec88df46cda96_006full.jpg

FIGURE 5 - Fracture-controlled, hydrothermal remobilized anomalous radioactivity, HK24-016

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6412/224182_480ec88df46cda96_007full.jpg

FIGURE 6 - Massive clay and bleaching alteration system, HK24-021. NOTE: clay has been gouged with carbon scribe to demonstrate drill core softness

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6412/224182_480ec88df46cda96_008full.jpg

FIGURE 7 - HK24-010 target area drill holes (HK24-009 and HK24-010) location map

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6412/224182_480ec88df46cda96_020full.jpg

MOVIE 1 - Clay alteration and bleaching identified within drill hole HK24-021

Keep reading...Show less

2024 Energy Outlook Report

Ready to ignite your portfolio?

The Investing News Network spoke with analysts, market watchers and insiders to get the scoop on the trends and stocks that you need to watch in order to stay ahead of the energy sector in 2024.

A Sneak Peek At What The Insiders Are Saying

“Right now you have to focus on real companies doing real things. Companies like NexGen Energy and Fission Uranium that will be taken over. Companies like Boss Energy that are in production and will enjoy much higher prices than their feasibility studies suggested they would enjoy."

— Rick Rule, Rule Investment Media

"We don't need any more catalysts. We've got a 30 million to 50 million pound supply deficit in the market probably for the next five years. That's what we're looking at. And that's what's going to move the price."

— Justin Huhn, Uranium Insider

"In general, the (oil) sector is fairly valued at US$70 and is really exciting at US$80 — that's in general. If you can pick the right stocks, we are finding what we think are phenomenal opportunities."

— Eric Nuttall, Ninepoint Partners

Who We Are

The Investing News Network is a growing network of authoritative publications delivering independent, unbiased news and education for investors. We deliver knowledgeable, carefully curated coverage of a variety of markets including gold, cannabis, biotech and many others. This means you read nothing but the best from the entire world of investing advice, and never have to waste your valuable time doing hours, days or weeks of research yourself.

At the same time, not a single word of the content we choose for you is paid for by any company or investment advisor: We choose our content based solely on its informational and educational value to you, the investor.

So if you are looking for a way to diversify your portfolio amidst political and financial instability, this is the place to start. Right now.

Energy Investing Outlook 2024 and Energy Stocks to Watch

Uranium Price Update: Q1 2024 in Review

Uranium Price Update: Q2 2024 in Review

Oil and Gas Price Update: Q1 2024 in Review

Oil and Gas Price Update: Q2 2024 in Review

Uranium Price Update: Q1 2024 in Review

The uranium spot price displayed volatility in Q1, rising to a high unseen since 2007 before ending the quarter below US$90 per pound. U3O8 values shed 3.96 percent over the three month period, but experts believe fundamentals remain strong and expect the sector to benefit from various tailwinds in the months ahead.

Supply remains a key factor in the uranium landscape, with a deficit projected to grow amid production challenges. With annual output well below the current demand levels, the supply crunch is expected to be a long-term price driver.

“Supply-side fragility continued to be one of the key themes in Q1, especially the news out of Kazakhstan that production would be significantly lower than expected in 2024 than previously thought,” Ben Finegold, associate at London-based investment firm Ocean Wall, told the Investing News Network in an interview.

These favorable fundamentals are expected to support uranium prices for the remainder of the year.

Finegold also noted that spot market activity highlights how sensitive the sector is to supply challenges.

“Spot market prices have also been a key talking point as volatility in pricing has increased dramatically in Q1 to both the upside and downside,” he explained. “It has brought to light just how thinly traded the spot market is, but interestingly term prices have only continued to rise, which is indicative that the long-term fundamentals remain intact.”

Sulfuric acid shortage impeding supply growth

The U3O8 spot price opened the year at US$91.71 and edged higher through January 22, when values hit a 17 year high of US$106.87. However, the near two decade record was short lived, and by month’s end uranium was around US$100.

Uranium price, Q1 2024.

Uranium price, Q1 2024.

Chart via Cameco.

Some of the price positivity early in the quarter came as Kazatomprom (LSE:KAP,OTC Pink:NATKY) warned that it was expecting to adjust its 2024 production guidance due to “challenges related to the availability of sulfuric acid.”

The state producer and major uranium player confirmed the reduction on February 1, underscoring the importance of sulfuric acid in its in-situ recovery method and describing its efforts to secure supply.

“Presently, the company is actively pursuing alternative sources for sulfuric acid procurement,” a press release states.

“Looking ahead in the medium term, the deficit is expected to alleviate as a result of the potential increase in sulphuric acid supply from local non-ferrous metals mining and smelting operations. The company also intends to enhance its in-house sulfuric acid production capacity by constructing a new plant.”

In 2023, Kazatomprom initiated the establishment of Taiqonyr Qyshqyl Zauyty to oversee the construction of a new sulfuric acid plant capable of producing 800,000 metric tons annually.

In the years ahead, the company is aiming to bolster its sulfuric acid production capacities through existing partnerships to achieve a consolidated production volume of approximately 1.5 million metric tons.

In the meantime, disruptions to Kazakh output will only grow the market deficit.

According to the World Nuclear Association, total global uranium production in 2022 only satiated 74 percent of global demand, a number that is likely to shrink as nuclear reactors in Asian countries begin coming online.

“Kazakhstan is the largest producer of uranium in the world — 44 percent. We like to think of Kazakhstan as the OPEC of uranium,” John Ciampaglia, CEO of Sprott Asset Management, said during a recent webinar.

Kazatomprom forecasts its adjusted uranium production for 2024 will range between 21,000 and 22,500 metric tons on a 100 percent basis, and 10,900 to 11,900 metric tons on an attributable basis. While in line with the company’s 2023 output, the major had to forgo a production ramp up due to the sulfuric acid shortage and development issues.

Analysts and market watchers foresee the sulfuric acid shortage being a long-term price driver.

“The sulfuric acid issue in Kazakhstan is a systemic problem that we do not believe will go away any time soon,” said Finegold. “While the company is doing what they can to alleviate pressures on sulfuric acid supplies, we believe their ability to ramp up production will be hindered for several years before their third domestic plant comes online. As such, we do not see Kazakh uranium production increasing significantly over the next three to four years.”

COP28 nuclear commitment supporting demand

The U3O8 spot price spiked again in early February, reaching US$105 before another correction set in.

As Finegold explained, some of the retraction was the result of profit taking from short-term holders.

“Financial speculators looking to lock in profits towards March year ends played a role, but as we know these moves are achieved on very little volume, so the point remains that the long-term thesis remains unchanged,” he said.

Finegold went on to highlight the different investment perspectives within the market.

“Spot market participants trade on very different parameters and time horizons to one another,” he said. “A trader and a hedge fund, for example, act in a totally different manner to a utility who are long-term thinkers.”

Despite February's slight contraction, uranium prices have remained elevated above US$80.

Some of this long-term support is the result of a COP28 nuclear capacity declaration. At the organization's December meeting in Dubai, more than 20 countries signed a proclamation to triple nuclear capacity by 2050.

There are currently 440 operational nuclear reactors with an additional 13 slated to come online this year and another 47 expected to start electricity generation by 2030. For Finegold, this commitment to building and fortifying nuclear capacity has been uranium's most prevalent demand trend. “The demand side of the equation remains robust and growing at a time when the supply side has never been more fragile,” he commented.

Others also believe the COP28 commitment was a tipping point for the uranium market that spawned several announcements about mine restarts and project extensions.

“Governments around the world have acknowledged that they need to be more supportive, not just financially, but in terms of expediting new projects, expediting the environmental permitting processes for new uranium mines,” said Sprott’s Ciampaglia during the webinar. “And it's not just happening in one country — with the exception of one or two outliers in Europe, this is happening around the globe.”

Geopolitical risk and resource nationalism are price catalysts

Uranium prices continued to consolidate from mid-February through mid-March, but remained above US$84.

This positivity saw several uranium companies in the US, Canada and Australia announce plans to bring existing mines out of care and maintenance. In late November, uranium major Cameco( TSX:CCO,NYSE:CCJ) announced it was restarting operations at its McArthur River/Key Lake project in Saskatchewan after four years.

In January, the McClean Lake joint venture which is co-owned by Denison Mines (TSX:DML,NYSEAMERICAN:DNN) and Orano Canada, reported plans to restart its McClean Lake project, also located in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan.

South of the border, exploration company IsoEnergy (TSXV:ISO,OTCQX:ISENF) is gearing up to restart mining at its Tony M underground mine in Utah. “With the uranium spot price now trading around US$100 per pound, we are in the very fortunate position of owning multiple, past-producing, fully permitted uranium mines in the U.S. that we believe can be restarted quickly with relatively low capital costs," IsoEnergy CEO and Director Phil Williams said in a February release.

Building North American capacity is especially important ahead of the global nuclear energy ramp up and the ongoing geopolitical tensions between Russia and the west. While nuclear power is used to provide nearly 20 percent of America's electricity, the nation produces a very small amount of the uranium it needs.

Instead, the country imports as much as 40.5 million pounds annually.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, 27 percent of imports come from ally nation Canada, while 25 percent of imports come from Kazakhstan and 11 percent originate in Uzbekistan — both considered allies of Russia.

Commenting on that topic, Finegold noted, “The ongoing talk around US sanctions remains the most significant geopolitical catalyst for the sector." He added, "While we do not believe sanctions could be enforced immediately, it will send a signal to the market that Russia will no longer be involved in the largest uranium market in the world and would inevitably have an impact on fuel cycle component prices.”

If sanctions do limit imports from Russian allies, Finegold expects these countries to form stronger ties to China.

“Outside of this, the relationship between Kazakhstan and China remains one to watch as the Chinese continue their nuclear rollout strategy and look to procure millions of Kazakh-produced pounds,” he added.

Uranium price outlook remains positive

After hitting a Q1 low of US$84.84 on March 18, uranium began to move positively, ending the three month session in the US$88 range. Commitments to nuclear capacity, the energy transition and stifled supply will continue to be the most prevalent market drivers heading into the second quarter and the rest of the year.

“We believe uranium prices will significantly outrun the recent US$107 highs from February in 2024, driven by a fundamental supply/demand imbalance,” said Finegold. “Producers will continue to cover production shortfalls, while utilities struggle to replenish inventory shortages.”

The Ocean Wall associate went on to note, “The inherent appetite of traders and financial speculators will continue to drive prices higher. These demand drivers are converging at a time when supply has never looked more fragile.”

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!

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

Editorial Disclosure: The Investing News Network does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported in the interviews it conducts. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not reflect the opinions of the Investing News Network and do not constitute investment advice. All readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence.

Additional information on Energy stock investing — FREE

Uranium Price Update: Q2 2024 in Review

After reaching a 17 year high in January, uranium prices consolidated in Q2, holding above US$82 per pound.

Despite the cooldown, geopolitical tensions, supply concerns and resource nationalism added support to the uranium sector over the 90 day period, preventing the energy fuel from dipping below the US$80 level.

Some analysts believe the correction is part of the uranium market's ongoing bull run.

“Although the price of uranium has appreciated significantly, we’re still well shy of the record US$135 per pound realized in 2007, or US$200 per pound when adjusted for inflation," Steven Schoffstall, director of ETF product management at Sprott, wrote in an April 25 note on uranium's resurgence. "Rising global commitments to nuclear energy and other supporting factors are helping to make uranium a more compelling investment than ever."

Starting the quarter at US$87.26, uranium values had contracted slightly by the end of June to hit US$85.76. While prices moved slightly lower, market fundamentals still favor a higher uranium price in the months and years to come.

$\u200bUranium price, Q2 2024.$

Uranium price, Q2 2024.

Chart via Trading Economics.

Schoffstall states that a positive trend working in uranium’s favor is the COP28 commitment to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Globally, 152 nuclear reactors are currently either under construction or planned.

Additionally, in early January, the UK government announced plans to expedite investment decisions for new nuclear projects, aiming to quadruple its nuclear capacity by 2050. Schoffstall notes that with this expansion, nuclear energy would account for 25 percent of Britain's electricity demand, up from 15 percent previously.

US ban on Russian uranium boosts prices

After holding in the US$86 to US$89 range through April, uranium prices were pushed higher in May by the news that the Biden administration will be banning Russian uranium imports.

“This new law reestablishes America’s leadership in the nuclear sector. It will help secure our energy sector for generations to come," said National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on May 13.

"And — building off the unprecedented US$2.72 billion in federal funding that Congress recently appropriated at the President’s request — it will jumpstart new enrichment capacity in the United States and send a clear message to industry that we are committed to long-term growth in our nuclear sector."

The decision aligns with goals set last December by the US and its allies, including Canada, France, Japan and the UK, which collectively pledged US$4.2 billion to expand uranium enrichment and conversion capacity.

The US has relied on Russian uranium since the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts program, which involved converting 500 metric tons (MT) of uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into reactor fuel.

According to the US Energy Information Agency, Russian imports accounted for 12 percent of the nation’s uranium supply in 2022. The new legislation aims to shift this dependenct toward local uranium sourcing.

The announcement raised questions about the US’ ability to source uranium domestically and through allies, which proved beneficial for US-focused producers like Energy Fuels (TSX:EFR,NYSEAMERICAN:UUUU).

Uranium miners bringing supply back online

As countries look to bolster their nuclear energy capacity, issues around future supply are intensifying. In 2022, total global production satiated just 74 percent of global demand, pointing to a sizable shortfall.

If the world intends to meet the COP28 obligation of tripling nuclear capacity, increased uranium production is needed. Some of that supply will come from projects that were curtailed due to weak prices in the 2010s.

Restarting uranium production at these projects will likely prove easier than bringing new projects online due to the decades-long process of getting mines approved. Indeed, several uranium companies in the US, Canada and Australia have already announced plans to restart existing mines due to recent market optimism.

In late November, Cameco (TSX:CCO,NYSE:CCJ) announced it would resume operations at its McArthur River/Key Lake project in Saskatchewan. In January of this year, Denison Mines (TSX:DML,NYSEAMERICAN:DNN) and Orano Canada revealed plans to restart the McClean Lake project, also in Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin.

On the other side of the border, IsoEnergy (TSXV:ISO,OTCQX:ISENF) is preparing to restart its Tony M underground uranium mine in Utah, with first production slated for 2025.

In Australia, Paladin Energy (ASX:PDN,OTCQX:PALAF) resumed commercial production at its Langer Henrich mine in late March, with the first customer shipment expected in July. The company subsequently released guidance for its 2025 fiscal year, outlining 4 million to 4.5 million pounds of production. Paladin's goal is for Langer Heinrich to reach nameplate production of 6 million pounds annually by the end of the 2026 calendar year.

“Now that uranium prices have returned to more profitable levels, many previously closed mines are taking steps to start producing again,” said Schoffstall in his note. “However, adding to the supply of uranium isn’t as simple as flipping a switch, and increasing uranium production is proving difficult.”

Case in point — the sector’s largest producers have had to reduce their 2024 production guidance.

In 2023, Cameco, the largest pure-play uranium miner by market cap, had to lower the production forecast for its Cigar Lake mine and its McArthur River/Key Lake operations, expecting a nearly 3 million pound shortfall.

Similarly, Kazatomprom, which produces about 44 percent of the world’s uranium, announced in February that it will fall short of its production targets in 2024, and likely in 2025 as well.

These positive long-term fundamentals pushed uranium to a Q2 high of US$93.72 on May 8.

Paladin's Fission offer hints at more M&A

Amid that environment, some producers started looking for uranium deals in June.

Most notable was Paladin's C$1.4 billion offer for Saskatchewan-focused Fission Uranium (TSX:FCU,OTCQX:FCUUF).

“The acquisition of Fission, along with the successful restart of our Langer Heinrich Mine, is another step in our strategy to diversify and grow into a global uranium leader across the top uranium mining jurisdictions of Canada, Namibia and Australia,” said Paladin CEO Ian Purdy in a June 24 press release.

“Fission is a natural fit for our portfolio with the shallow high-grade PLS project located in Canada’s Athabasca Basin. The addition of PLS creates a leading Canadian development hub alongside Paladin’s Michelin project, with exploration upside across all Canadian properties," he continued.

While some market watchers think the deal could open the floodgates for more M&A activity in the sector, others have warned of potential pitfalls like those witnessed during uranium’s last bull market.

During that period, only one major acquisition led to the development of a new uranium mine: China General Nuclear's 2012 purchase of Extract Resources, which resulted in Namibia's Husab mine. Other deals failed to produce viable assets as they were often based on promising geological surveys rather than proven reserves.

This time, industry players are expected to focus on acquiring high-quality, low-cost assets that can withstand market downturns. The Fission deal emphasizes the importance of prioritizing "large single asset scale" properties, Arthur Hyde, partner and portfolio manager at Segra Capital, told Energy Intelligence.

“This is perfectly predictable and probably exactly what the market should be seeing,” he continued during the interview. “I would say that we're kind of in a unique commodity cycle here, where I don't think smaller bolt-on acquisitions will be enough to satiate the supply-demand gap. What I think we're seeing in the Fission deal is a premium for scale and I think that's something that you'll continue to see through the cycle."

Tailwinds seen pushing prices higher

Uranium's May rally was short-lived, with prices returning to rangebound status through June. Values registered a Q2 low of US$82.07 on June 11, but remained in multi-decade high territory.

“Besides being a pause in a longer-term bull market, the uranium spot market has been susceptible to broader factors like broader commodities weakness, seasonal softness and a lack of expected buying activity with the passage of the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act,” wrote Jacob White, ETF product manager at Sprott Asset Management.

“On the other hand, fundamentals continue to strengthen with nuclear power plant restarts, new builds and a deepening supply deficit. Notably, the spot market may have paused, but the increasingly positive fundamental picture has played out differently for both the term market and uranium miners,” he further explained.

This sentiment was shared by panelists polled by FocusEconomics. They noted that June saw prices fall for the third time in four months, although they remain near the highest levels since the pre-financial crisis bubble in 2007.

This decline likely indicates a market correction, as the spot price has eased this year, while the long-term contract price, which better reflects market fundamentals, has increased.

Against that backdrop, the panelists expect to see prices remain around their highest level in more than a decade for the rest of the year, with a Q4 price forecast of US$91.72. “Over 2024 as a whole, they see prices averaging the highest level since 2007, with the pledge at the December UN COP 28 summit to triple nuclear energy output driving a worldwide push for uranium supply — which is relatively inelastic,” the firm's report reads.

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!

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

Editorial Disclosure: Energy Fuels is a client of the Investing News Network. This article is not paid-for content.

Additional information on Energy stock investing — FREE

Oil and Gas Price Update: Q1 2024 in Review

Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices both fluctuated widely in 2023, but ended the year about where they began. To start off 2024, they trended higher, picking up steam during Q1.

Ongoing tensions stemming from the Russia-Ukraine war led to concerns about potential disruptions in global oil supply, helping to support prices. Global economic conditions, such as inflation concerns, monetary policy decisions and geopolitical tensions in oil-producing regions, played a significant role in shaping oil price movements during the quarter, with Brent and WTI registering 14 percent and 18 percent increases, respectively, over the 90 day session.

Prices were also supported when several OPEC+ countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Algeria, extended voluntary production cuts to support oil market stability. Russia also committed to a voluntary production cut of 471,000 barrels per day for the second quarter, alongside reductions in exports.

Eric Nuttall, partner and senior portfolio manager at Ninepoint Partners, said these output cuts in the name of stability impacted oil prices in the first quarter of the year. “Oil volatility has actually fallen,” he said during an April 5 interview.

“You wouldn't know it necessarily when looking at the oil price, but volatility is low. I think you can attribute that to the OPEC cut — one of the biggest goals of OPEC’s intervention into the market was to reduce volatility.”

The actions from OPEC+ were successful, and kept oil prices at between US$70 and US$87 per barrel in Q1.

How did oil prices perform in Q1?

Brent crude reached a 2023 high of US$93.10 on September 11, but prices spent the remainder of the year sliding until bottoming at US$75.80 on December 4. WTI followed a similar trajectory, although it displayed more volatility, reaching a yearly high of US$91.43 in late September 2023 and then slipping to US$68.71 in early December.

$\u200bBrent crude price, January 2023 to April 2024.$

Brent crude price, January 2023 to April 2024.

Chart via TradingEconomics.

The upswing in prices in Q1 of this year can be attributed to several factors, according to Nuttall.

First, values were rebounding from a period of low activity, driven by unfounded concerns about weak oil demand and exaggerated fears about increased US shale production.

Second were the OPEC+ production cuts, which played a significant role in reducing oil inventories.

Nuttall explained that typically, demand is weakest at the beginning of the year; this year, however, inventories have only seen a minimal increase compared to the substantial buildup last year. This underscores the effectiveness of OPEC+'s cuts in counteracting the impact of strategic petroleum reserve releases and stabilizing oil prices.

$\u200bWTI price, January 2023 to April 2024.$

WTI price, January 2023 to April 2024.

Chart via TradingEconomics.

“Lastly, we do have a geopolitical risk premium on the oil price now, I'm guessing US$5 a barrel,” he said.

“We haven't had a risk premium in quite a while. But what we're seeing in the Middle East, what we're seeing (with) Russia, Ukraine, it just fast forwarded where I thought we were going to be — I thought we'd be at US$90 in the summertime, (but) we’re there a few months earlier than I thought," Nuttall added.

US stalls on refilling Strategic Petroleum Reserve

In 2022, the Biden administration sold 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), responding to global turmoil caused by the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Since then it has reversed its strategy and is looking to refill the SPR.

On February 26, the US Department of Energy said it wanted to purchase up to 3 million barrels of crude oil for the SPR, aiming to enhance the nation's energy security. However, less than a week later, the administration scrapped two purchases that would have fulfilled that plan, citing high prices.

While Ninepoint’s Nuttall doesn’t think SPR restocking will impact broader oil prices, he was surprised by the government’s decision to refill. “The biggest threat to (US President Joe Biden's) re-election is inflation. And the biggest input to inflation is energy pricing, specifically oil and gasoline,” the expert explained.

“So it was counterintuitive to me, and I think it was purely for political theater that he started to refill it.”

Experts bullish on oil prices long term

A report from FocusEconomics shows that analysts polled by the firm are forecasting a 10 percent decline in Brent and WTI prices over the next decade compared to 2023 levels.

However, prices are anticipated to remain historically high in the near term due to increased demand from China and India. The panelists see Brent crude averaging around US$85 for the remainder of the year.

Nuttall has a more bullish stance, supported by an increase in demand while global inventories are already at multi-year lows. Using the "days of supply" metric, which estimates how many days current inventory levels will last based on the current consumption rate, he expects inventories to reach the “lowest level in history later this year.”

“That's very supportive of a high price,” he said. He sees oil prices remaining in the US$90 range.

Nuttall noted that geopolitical events have accelerated the approach to this price target. In his view, the subsequent trajectory of prices will depend on when Saudi Arabia decides to return barrels and the pace of that return; he is also watching geopolitical developments in the Middle East and Russia.

While there are uncertainties, such as how potential infrastructure damage could impact oil flows, factors like stronger US demand, solid Indian demand and better-than-expected European performance contribute to his bullish outlook.

“But we're not calling for US$150 oil, we just don't think that's reasonable right now," he clarified.

How did natural gas prices perform in Q1?

While oil prices remained relatively stable throughout the first quarter of this year, natural gas prices sank to multi-decade lows, hitting US$1.55 per metric million British thermal units.

The decline has been attributed to a warmer-than-expected winter in the northern hemisphere and ample supply.

Natural gas price, January 2024 to April 2024.

Natural gas price, January 2024 to April 2024.

Chart via TradingEconomics.

“Higher LNG production (up by 3 percent y-o-y), together with stronger piped gas deliveries to Europe and China, further eased supply fundamentals and supported demand growth,” states the International Energy Agency.

The market overview from the organization also notes that global natural gas demand was up 2 percent for the quarter, but was more than offset by the production uptick.

Natural gas prices subdued after previous highs

Natural gas prices are expected to remain well below the highs set in 2022, when values neared US$10, propelled by market uncertainty brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and fears around supply security.

After a steep decline in late 2022, prices remained below US$5 throughout 2023.

Although concerns about Panama Canal and Red Sea disruptions led to speculation about a geopolitical premium, an uptick of this kind has yet to materialize in the natural gas market.

For the remainder of the year, FocusEconomics panelists expect natural gas prices to decrease in Asia and Europe compared to 2023 averages, while remaining steady in the US, staying below the pre-pandemic 10 year average.

Prices could see declines brought on by an abundance in natural gas inventories in all regions, attributed to mild weather conditions from the El Niño pattern and subdued industrial activity.

Europe will continue to be an important region to watch as ongoing sanctions on Russian gas, the continued conflict in Ukraine and supply security trends could add tailwinds to prices.

“The structural deficit in European natural gas has yet to be fully resolved with increased (liquefied natural gas) supply not yet fully making up for lost Russian imports. Thus, European gas prices remain vulnerable to supply interruptions or increases in demand,” analysts at Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) told FocusEconomics.

“This is especially the case during winter, when weather-dependent heating comprises the bulk of demand and bouts of cold weather can lead to rapidly falling stocks and higher prices," they added.

Increased US LNG export capacity could facilitate a price convergence among regions by the end of 2025.

“In 2025, US natural gas prices are expected to surpass the pre-pandemic average, with Europe seeing a slight increase and Asia maintaining stability,” FocusEconomics' natural gas market outlook reads. "The absence of El Niño is predicted to boost heating demand, while industrial output growth will drive up consumption.”

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!

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

Editorial Disclosure: The Investing News Network does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported in the interviews it conducts. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not reflect the opinions of the Investing News Network and do not constitute investment advice. All readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence.

Additional information on Energy stock investing — FREE

Oil and Gas Price Update: Q2 2024 in Review

Prices for Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude sank slightly during the second quarter of 2024, shedding 2.68 percent and 2.45 percent, respectively, between April 1 and the end of June.

As prices for oil contracted, natural gas registered a small 0.78 percent gain over the three month period, rising from US$1.81 per metric million British thermal units on April 1 to US$2.59 by June's close.

Keep reading to find out about what moved prices for oil and natural gas in Q2.

Oil prices hit quarterly high before May decline

Brent and WTI prices hit a quarterly high in April, when values touched US$91.13 and US$86.94 per barrel (bbl), respectively. However, those levels proved unsustainable, with prices falling significantly by May 1.

According to a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil price gains in March and early April were were driven by heightened geopolitical tensions and expectations of a tighter supply/demand balance for the rest of the year.

“Brent crude futures breached the symbolic $90/bbl threshold on 5 April, up nearly $8/bbl from early March, reaching the highest level since October 2023, amid heightened tensions between Israel and Iran,” it states.

“Russian refinery outages added to product market unease, while OPEC+ put pressure on some countries to increase compliance with agreed voluntary production cuts through 2Q24," the IEA continues.

Even though global oil demand grew by 1.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in the first quarter and the economic outlook has improved, the IEA has revised its annual growth forecast down to 1.2 mb/d due to weak deliveries to countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Market volatility causes oil price selloff

As other factors began to come into focus, oil prices started to retreat from their year-to-date highs.

By the beginning of May, prices for Brent crude had shrunk by 8.48 percent from their H1 high of US$91.13. Similarly, WTI crude prices had contracted by 8.98 percent from their H1 top of US$86.94.

Calling it a "spring selloff," the IEA said oil prices fell despite a tightening in supply. The drop was most pronounced in the middle distillate markets, with diesel and jet fuel prices declining sharply, a May IEA report explains.

Although there are concerns that production from OPEC+ countries will fall, world oil supply is forecast to rise by 580,000 barrels per day in 2024, reaching a record 102.7 mb/d. This increase will be driven by a 1.4 mb/d rise in non-OPEC+ output, while OPEC+ production is expected to decrease by 840,000 barrels per day due to voluntary cuts.

Some of that increased output may be carried by Canada’s US$25 billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which entered commercial service in May after 12 years of delays.

The 1,150 kilometer pipeline, managed by the federal Trans Mountain, connects the provinces of Alberta and BC, and is expected to transport 890,000 barrels of oil daily to the west coast.

The project has encountered numerous legal challenges, environmental impact assessments and natural disasters that have prolonged its opening for over a decade.

Oil and gas investment on the rise

Canada isn’t the only country investing heavily in the oil sector.

An International Energy Forum (IEF) report shows oil and gas upstream spending rose by US$63 billion year-on-year in 2023, and is seen rising another US$26 billion in 2024, passing US$600 billion for the first time in a decade.

“Upstream investment in 2024 is expected to be more than double 2020’s low of US$300 billion and be well above 2015-2019 levels of US$425 billion,” the organization's June report states.

“More than a third of the spending will come from North America this year. However, Latin America is expected to be the largest source of incremental capex growth in 2024, surpassing North America for the first time since at least 2004.”

Although investment is expected to reach decade-high levels in 2024, the IEF says more money will be needed over the next six years to support rising demand. Its calculations show as much as US$4.3 trillion in investments will be needed between 2025 and 2030. This substantial need for capital expenditure will be driven by projected increases in oil demand, which is expected to rise from 103 mb/d in 2023 to nearly 110 mb/d by 2030.

"More investment in new oil and gas supply is needed to meet growing demand and maintain energy market stability, which is the foundation of global economic and social wellbeing," said Joseph McMonigle, secretary general of the IEF. "Well-supplied and stable energy markets are critical to making progress on climate, because the alternative is high prices and volatility, which undermines public support for the transition as we have seen in the past two years."

The majority of that new investment will go to non-OPEC+ countries, the US and Canada. However, Latin American nations like Brazil and Guyana will also play an integral role in increasingly non-OPEC supply growth.

While increased investment and production in the oil and gas sector may seem at odds with the clean energy transition, the IEF believes the heightened spending supports energy security, ultimately aiding the transition.

"A just, orderly and equitable transition requires a foundation of energy security," it says.

"The past two years have demonstrated the consequences of 'disorderly' transitions: price shocks, shortages, disruptions, political backlash, bitter divisions and conflict."

Experts expect more oil price volatility long term

Oil prices trended lower through to June 4, when Brent hit a Q2 low of US$77.45 and WTI fell to US$73.13.

A subsequent price rise correlated with mounting geopolitical strife between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah saw prices end Q2 at US$85.06 for Brent and US$81.58 for WTI, slightly down from their starting position.

Looking at the near term, FocusEconomics is forecasting a slight price rise by Q4 compared to June levels.

“The oil market is set to move into a slight deficit, but, with OPEC+ due to begin winding back output curbs from October, it will do so gradually,” the firm's July consensus forecast report states.

“Key factors to watch include major central banks’ monetary policy, the health of China’s economy, future OPEC+ decisions and geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East," it continues.

Longer term, the IEA is projecting that oil demand will peak in 2030, near 106 mb/d.

After that, the electric vehicle sector's market share is expected to grow and boast more than 1,000 models, while internal combustion engine vehicle sales are expected to decline at a rate of 2 percent or more annually.

This reduction in the key end-use segment for the oil sector is likely to lead to a supply glut.

“As the pandemic rebound loses steam, clean energy transitions advance, and the structure of China’s economy shifts, growth in global oil demand is slowing down and set to reach its peak by 2030. This year, we expect demand to rise by around 1 million barrels per day,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

“This report’s projections, based on the latest data, show a major supply surplus emerging this decade, suggesting that oil companies may want to make sure their business strategies and plans are prepared for the changes taking place.”

FocusEconomics panelists are forecasting that Brent crude will sit at US$83.53 in Q4 2024, and around US$78 in Q4 2025. For WTI, they expects prices to hold at US$79.35 in Q4 2024 and hover in the US$74 range in Q4 2025.

“By Q4, prices should remain roughly stable compared to June levels,” the firm's report reads. “Over 2024 as a whole, prices should increase from 2023, as global supply is set to hit a slight deficit on robust non-OECD demand and continuing OPEC+ restrictions on output. The health of the Chinese economy, major central banks’ monetary policy, future OPEC+ decisions and the wars in Gaza and Ukraine are key factors to monitor.”

Natural gas prices see steady increase in Q2

On the natural gas side, prices steadily trended higher during the second quarter.

This positive price trend was influenced by several key factors. Most prevalent was the unseasonably mild winter, which, along with improving supply fundamentals, kept the market relatively stable.

By mid-May, prices had added US$1.10, holding in the US$2.90 range.

Despite the overall mild conditions, several severe cold snaps caused significant demand spikes across the northern hemisphere, which added tailwinds to the market.

Over the second quarter, natural gas consumption increased modestly, driven primarily by higher usage in the power and industrial sectors, though residential and commercial demand in the US and Europe fell due to the mild winter.

Geopolitical worries push natural gas prices up

By June 11, support from geopolitical concerns helped natural gas prices rise to a 2024 high of US$3.11, marking the first time since November 2023 that values had surpassed US$3.

“Concerns about supply disruptions rose in June as a European court ordered the Russian firm Gazprom to pay billions in damages to a German utility company. Gazprom is unlikely to pay up, potentially leading to the rerouting of the firm’s remaining European clients, a move which could lead Gazprom to halt gas flows to Europe,” said FocusEconomics.

By the end of the month, some of the positivity had waned and prices had retreated to the US$2.59 level.

For Q4 of this year, “prices are seen averaging higher than in June due to seasonal heating demand. However, for 2024 overall, prices should decrease from 2023 levels,” the FocusEconomics report notes.

“The EU should achieve at least 90 percent full inventories by winter, thanks to high existing stocks, muted industrial output, and stronger renewables demand. A key upside risk is potential supply disruptions.”

Panelists are forecasting that natural gas prices will average US$2.99 in Q4 2024 and US$3.56 in Q4 2025.

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!

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

Additional information on Energy stock investing — FREE

Keep reading...Show less

	Lake Sediment Samples	Muskeg Samples	Rock Chip Samples
Number of Samples	439	24	291
Average (U ppm)	302	2,007	7
Max (U ppm)	1,870	10,400	140
Min (U ppm)	1	345	0
Standard Deviation (U ppm)	238	2,225	10

Notes:
(1)	Hunt Falls Uranium Occurrence SDMI# 1598, Fosago Explorations Limited (1974) SMAD 74O09-0001
(2)	Uranerz Lake Sediment Sampling (1977), SMAD (74O09-0019)
(3)	CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. (2011) SMAD 74O08-0076
(4)	CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. (2008) SMAD 74O09-0024
(5)	Acroll Oil Zone A Uranium Showing, Acroll Oil Zone B Uranium Showing, Zone C Uranium Showing or the Brenda Uranium Showing SDMI#1591
(6)	Uranerz Lake Sediment Sampling (1977), SMAD (74O09-0019)
(7)	Fulcrum Metals PLC news release September, 7 2023
(8)	Sample TP012 SDMI# 5376, CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. (2008) SMAD 74O09-0024

Project	SMDI#	Name	Grab Sample Uranium	Description
Spruce	1577	CBS 4422 Trench	0.65% U ₃ O ₈	Cross-cutting pitchblende vein hosted in gneiss, proximal to major mylonitic fault.
	1589	Magma Mines Uranium Showing No. 1	1.60% U ₃ O ₈	Fault-hosted uranium mineralization in a quartzitic biotite gneiss. Three foot channel samples.
	5410	Sample AM076	1,790 ppm U	Rock sample of a white pegmatite outcrop.
	5389	Sample AM086	340 ppm U	Rock sample of an outcrop (unspecified rock type).
	5411	Sample JR355	545 ppm U	Rock sample of a granite outcrop.
	3324	Samples TP150 & TP151	764 ppm U	Rock samples from a white granite outcrop. Sample TP150 also contained 1,849 ppm TREE.
Adjacent Property	1579	CBS 4427 Uranium Occurrence	0.11% U ₃ O ₈	Geochemical sample from lake sediment.
	1590	BURNS Claims Trenches	0.17% U ₃ O ₈	Trench samples from pegmatite with yellow staining, samples from all the trenches averaged 0.12% U ₃ O ₈ .
	3329	Samples CH129, CH130, CH132, JF011, JF027, RD305, RD306	>10,000 ppm U	Samples from white and pink pegmatite outcrops.
	5637	Sample AM122	8,382 ppm U	Sample from a white granite boulder.
Fond du Lac	1572	The Fond Du Lac Uranium Deposit is located approximately 30 kilometres southwest of the Project, along the Grease River Shear Zone, and was discovered by Famok Ltd in the early 1970's. The deposit comprises coffinite, pitchblende, and uraniferous goethite hosted within steeply dipping fractures within Athabasca Group basal sandstone and extending into the underlying basement rocks. A historical mineral resource of one million pounds uranium at an average grade of 0.25% U ₃ O ₈ was estimated but was not prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101").

	Cash (C$)	Consideration Shares (C$)	Exploration Expenditures (C$)	Interest Earned
Signing of the Agreement (the " Execution Date ")	$200,000 ⁽¹⁾	$200,000 ⁽²⁾	Nil
12 month anniversary of Execution Date	$200,000	$200,000 ⁽³⁾	$1,000,000
24 month anniversary of Execution Date	$250,000	$250,000 ⁽³⁾	$2,000,000
*Total (First Option)*	$650,000	$650,000	$3,000,000	51 %
36 month anniversary of Execution Date	$300,000	$300,000 ⁽³⁾	$3,000,000
*Total (Second Option)*	$300,000	$300,000	$3,000,000	60 %
42 month anniversary of Execution Date	$400,000	$1,200,000 ⁽³⁾	Nil
*Total (Third Option)*	$400,000	$1,200,000	*Nil*	70 %
Grand Total	$1,350,000	$2,150,000	$6,000,000

Notes:
(1)	Payable to the Company immediately upon the entering into the Agreement.
(2)	Issuable to the Company upon completion of a going public transaction, at the transaction price for the going public transaction. The price at which the Consideration Shares are issued being referred to as the "Transaction Price".
(3)	Issuable at the Transaction Price.

Drill Hole ID	Drill Hole Depth (Feet)	From (Feet)	To (Feet)	Grade (% eU ₃ O ₈ )	Thickness (Feet)	Grade Thickness
SPUR ZONE
SR24_031	350	295.0	303.0	0.079	8.0	0.632
SR24_035	350	264.5	269.0	0.120	4.5	0.540
SR24_038	330	292.0	298.5	0.091	6.5	0.592
SR24_039	350	271.0	278.0	0.048	7.0	0.336
SR24_040	340	257.5	262.5	0.117	5.0	0.585
SR24_045	350	240.5	245.0	0.079	4.5	0.356

SADDLE ZONE
SD24_088	310	218.0	224.0	0.109	6.0	0.654
SD24_090	370	289.0	294.0	0.190	5.0	0.950
SD24_093	310	224.5	229.0	0.266	4.5	1.197
SD24_094	330	253.0	256.5	0.127	3.5	0.445
SD24_095	400	337.0	344.0	0.233	7.0	1.631
SD24_100	350	287.5	300.5	0.089	13.0	1.157

FORTUNE BAY ANNOUNCES POSITIVE PEA FOR GOLDFIELDS PROJECT, SASKATCHEWAN

2024 Energy Outlook Report

Table of Contents:

A Sneak Peek At What The Insiders Are Saying

Who We Are

Energy Investing Outlook 2024 and Energy Stocks to Watch

Table of Contents

Uranium Price Update: Q1 2024 in Review

Sulfuric acid shortage impeding supply growth

COP28 nuclear commitment supporting demand

Geopolitical risk and resource nationalism are price catalysts

Uranium price outlook remains positive

Uranium Price Update: Q2 2024 in Review

US ban on Russian uranium boosts prices

Uranium miners bringing supply back online

Paladin's Fission offer hints at more M&A

Tailwinds seen pushing prices higher

Oil and Gas Price Update: Q1 2024 in Review

How did oil prices perform in Q1?

US stalls on refilling Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Experts bullish on oil prices long term

How did natural gas prices perform in Q1?

Natural gas prices subdued after previous highs

Oil and Gas Price Update: Q2 2024 in Review

Oil prices hit quarterly high before May decline

Market volatility causes oil price selloff

Oil and gas investment on the rise

Experts expect more oil price volatility long term

Natural gas prices see steady increase in Q2

Geopolitical worries push natural gas prices up

Latest News

Latest Press Releases

Related News

TOP STOCKS