olivLaw · European equity research
Questerre Energy Corporation QGAS.OL
Norway · Euronext Oslo Børs · Vertical: Listed companies from Norway
Questerre Energy Corporation is a Canadian oil and gas company that has refocused on commercially developing oil shale through the acquisition of PX Energy in Brazil and full ownership of Red Leaf in Utah. For a company whose portfolio is shifting toward shale assets, the pace of integrating these acquisitions is the main point of attention, with the PX Energy consideration at about 41.7 million USD.
At the close of 06 Nov 2026, Questerre Energy Corporation (QGAS.OL) stock was 12.60 NOK (−3.52% on the day), with 52-week range 5.90–20.50 NOK.
Data as of · AI analysis dated · Source: ESEF annual reports and closing prices, computed by olivLaw.
Price history
Loading chart…
Technical reading
- RSI (14)
- 40.5
- weak (30–45)
- Bollinger (20, 2)
- 12.37 – 14.43
- in the lower half of the band · %B 0.11 · band width 15.4%
- SMA 50 / 200
- 14.84 / unavailable
- MACD (12, 26, 9)
- -0.50 / -0.45
- MACD below signal
Indicators describe past prices; on their own they do not predict direction. On our history the RSI ≤ 40 filter added no return (see the signals methodology).
Performance
| Company | EURO STOXX 50 | vs EURO STOXX 50 | Vertical median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | −8.4% | −0.6% | −7.7 pp | — |
| 3 months | +88.1% | −4.2% | +92.2 pp | — |
| 6 months | unavailable | +4.3% | unavailable | — |
| Year to date | unavailable | +7.5% | unavailable | — |
| 1 year | unavailable | +9.9% | unavailable | −5.7% |
| 3 years | unavailable | +49.8% | unavailable | +15.0% |
| 5 years | unavailable | +42.8% | unavailable | — |
Price returns, dividends excluded.
Quarterly results
ESEF annual reports carry no quarters: the results are annual (below).
E/P over time
the price (USD) and the reports are in different currencies
E/P = trailing-12-month diluted EPS / price at quarter end. E/P is the inverse of P/E and stays defined when earnings are negative.
Fiscal years
| Fiscal year | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | unavailable | unavailable |
| Revenue YoY | unavailable | unavailable |
| Net income | -7.3 m | -78.9 m |
| Net income YoY | unavailable | unavailable |
| Diluted EPS | -0.02 | -0.18 |
| Diluted EPS YoY | unavailable | unavailable |
| net % | unavailable | unavailable |
| Free cash flow | unavailable | unavailable |
Balance sheet & financial health
Fiscal year 2025 · 31 Dec 2025
- Cash
- 25.4 m CAD
- Financial debt
- 10.2 m CAD
- Net debt
- -15.2 m CAD
- Equity
- 76.7 m CAD
- Total assets
- 395.3 m CAD
- Debt / equity
- 0.13x
- Current ratio
- 0.50x
- ROE
- -73.3%
- ROA
- -27.9%
- FCF margin
- unavailable
Financial statements (source on every figure)
Revenue and net income (CAD)
Income statement · CAD
Balance sheet · CAD
| Line | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | 31.8 m | 25.4 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Inventories | 0 | 8.6 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Current assets | 36.4 m | 51.6 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Goodwill | 0 | 46.0 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Intangibles (excl. goodwill) | 0 | 5.5 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Total assets | 170.7 m | 395.3 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Long-term debt | 0 | 10.2 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Current liabilities | 13.4 m | 103.6 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Total liabilities | 32.1 m | 318.6 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Equity | 138.6 m | 76.7 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Shares outstanding at year end | 366.5 m | 438.5 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026derived |
Cash flow · CAD
Computed indicators
Growth
Profitability
Returns
Balance sheet
Liquidity
Cash
Efficiency
Market and valuation
1 indicators that do not apply to the sector.
Valuation
olivLaw classification
- indicators available: 1 of at least 6
- score weight coverage: 4.2% of at least 60%
- valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1
A scoring methodology on indicators and valuation, not investment advice.
Closing price
06 Nov 2026Source: olivLaw, closing series
Market cap: unavailable
Price and reporting are in different currencies; market indicators are unavailable.
Key indicators
Coverage and freshness
Score by group
4% · Insufficient data
Estimated value range
unavailable — no valuation assumptions for the reporting currency
Valuation assumptions are editorial choices, not measured; beta is not measured.
Valuation methods
Assumptions (illustrative, editorial)
- Risk-free rate
- 6.5%
- Equity risk premium
- 6.0%
- Beta (default)
- 1.00
- Cost of equity
- 12.5%
- Terminal growth
- 3.0%
Factor scorecard
Insufficient data
Minimum-evidence gate: indicators available: 1 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 4.2% of at least 60%; valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1
| Factor | Value | Score | Weight used |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROIC · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net margin · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| FCF conversion · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Revenue CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EPS CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net debt / EBITDA · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Interest coverage · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Current ratio · Balance sheet | 0.5x | 0 (on a fixed band) | 100% |
| P/E (TTM) · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EV/EBITDA · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| FCF yield · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Shareholder yield (distributions) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Payout ratio (FCF) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
Factors without a value were dropped; the remaining weights were renormalised.
Score groups
- Balance sheet· partial0/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
- Growth· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Quality· partialunavailable · 0/3 factors with a value
- Returns· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Valuation· partialunavailable · 0/3 factors with a value
A «partial» group is computed from under half of its weight or from one factor: it is not a full assessment of the group.
Memo
QUESTERRE ENERGY CORPORATION (QGAS.OL). Latest full fiscal year: 2025; data up to 2025-12-31.
Figures computed from the financial statements: ROE -73.3%.
Valuation cannot be computed from the available data.
Insufficient data for a verdict (indicators available: 1 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 4.2% of at least 60%; valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1).
Text generated deterministically from the figures shown; no language model. Not investment advice.
What supports the thesis
No signal among the computed factors. That is not an absence of risk: factors without data were not assessed, and business risks (margins, inventory, demand) are in the source-based analysis.
What contradicts it
- Current ratio: 0.5x
Not assessed (insufficient data or a ratio without meaning): ROIC, Net margin, FCF conversion, Revenue CAGR 3Y, EPS CAGR 3Y, Net debt / EBITDA, Interest coverage, P/E (TTM), EV/EBITDA, FCF yield, Shareholder yield (distributions), Payout ratio (FCF).
Versus the vertical median
Listed companies from Norway · same country · compared with 40 companies
Multiples and returns vs the median
Companies in the vertical
| Market cap | P/E | ROE | Net margin | Revenue YoY | 1A / 3A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKER.OLAker Asa | 79.8 bn | 20.3 | 7.9% | 21.4% | +42.5% | +36% / +59% |
| AFG.OLAf Gruppen Asa | 21.5 bn | 19.8 | 39.7% | 3.4% | +4.4% | +8% / +69% |
| ELK.OLElkem Asa | 19.2 bn | 39.3 | 1.9% | 2.7% | −15.7% | +10% / +73% |
| ATEA.OLAtea Asa | 18.5 bn | 21.4 | 19.7% | 2.3% | +8.1% | +11% / +36% |
| AKSO.OLAker Solutions Asa | 17.4 bn | 6.8 | 22.5% | 4.1% | +19.2% | +18% / −12% |
| AUSS.OLAustevoll Seafood Asa | 16.6 bn | 37.1 | 1.6% | 1.1% | +11.1% | −7% / +10% |
| BRG.OLBorregaard Asa | 15.6 bn | 25.1 | 11.4% | 8.0% | +1.3% | −18% / −9% |
| BONHR.OLBonheur ASA | 11.2 bn | 7.8 | 17.1% | 11.4% | −10.8% | +17% / +44% |
| AFK.OLArendals Fossekompani Asa | 10.3 bn | — | -2.3% | -3.1% | −14.9% | +39% / +31% |
| B2I.OLB2 Impact Asa | 8.8 bn | 14.3 | 11.0% | 16.4% | +2.6% | +40% / +238% |
| AKVA.OLAkva Group Asa | 5.7 bn | 31.2 | 13.7% | 4.2% | +24.4% | +74% / +152% |
| ELMRA.OLElmera Group Asa | 5.1 bn | 32.0 | 10.5% | 1.3% | −0.9% | +32% / +98% |
| BOUV.OLBouvet Asa | 5.0 bn | 14.2 | 80.7% | 9.2% | −0.2% | −19% / −16% |
| CLOUD.OLCloudberry Clean Energy Asa | 4.0 bn | 61.9 | 1.3% | 13.1% | +34.0% | −5% / +29% |
| ABG.OLAbg Sundal Collier Holding Asa | 3.6 bn | 10.7 | 34.9% | 16.8% | +12.4% | −13% / +20% |
| ANDF.OLAndfjord Salmon Group As | 2.2 bn | — | -5.7% | -12,770.4% | +328.9% | −18% / −11% |
| BMA.OLByggma Asa | 1.6 bn | — | -25.3% | -11.9% | −2.5% | +61% / +15% |
| APR.OLAppear Asa | 1.4 bn | 10.5 | 30.1% | 16.1% | +32.3% | −53% / unavailable |
| AZT.OLArcticzymes Technologies Asa | 1.1 bn | 108.9 | 2.9% | 8.6% | +7.9% | −8% / −48% |
| CAPSL.OLCapsol Technologies Asa | 884.6 m | — | -89.4% | -114.8% | −25.0% | −33% / −66% |
| BOR.OLBorgestad Asa | 553.2 m | 36.1 | 2.1% | 1.4% | −3.0% | −7% / +41% |
| ARR.OLArribatec Group Asa | 234.6 m | 4.8 | 22.1% | 9.3% | +15.7% | −33% / −55% |
| DELIA.OLDellia Group Asa | 73.5 m | 1.5 | 22.6% | 7.7% | +140.0% | −62% / unavailable |
| ABTEC.OLAqua Bio Technology Asa | 11.1 m | 0.1 | — | 7,297.7% | −87.2% | −82% / −97% |
| AGLX.OLAgilyx Asa | — | — | -182.4% | -12,189.3% | +20.3% | −40% / −41% |
1- and 3-year price returns: for QGAS.OL from daily closes (the same as the performance table), for the other companies from month-end closes.
olivLaw engine forecast
The world engine ran after the company's latest material disclosure. Probabilities are of TOUCHING a level within the horizon (not closing there) and sit next to the random walk (p_rw), the no-information benchmark.
The engine has no published run for this company yet.
Valuation scenarios (editable assumptions)
Illustrative scenarios
Scenarios are not available. input data missing
AI analysis
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
In brief
Questerre Energy Corporation is a Canadian oil and gas company that has refocused on commercially developing oil shale through the acquisition of PX Energy in Brazil and full ownership of Red Leaf in Utah. For a company whose portfolio is shifting toward shale assets, the pace of integrating these acquisitions is the main point of attention, with the PX Energy consideration at about 41.7 million USD 1.
SWOT
Strengths
- Diversified oil shale portfolio combining producing operations, development projects and proprietary technology 1.
- PX Energy's over thirty years of operating experience complements the company's upstream expertise 1.
- Full control over the assets acquired in Brazil and Utah, with no minority partners in those structures 1.
Weaknesses
- Decommissioning obligations and provisions assumed are substantial relative to the size of the company 1.
- The PX Energy acquisition was partly financed through convertible promissory notes and secured debt, adding pressure on liquidity 1.
- Dependence on commodity prices, since sales are predominantly made under variable priced contracts 1.
Opportunities
- Commercial development of oil shale could generate new revenue if the Brazil, Jordan and Utah projects reach planned stages 1.
- The carbon capture technology from Red Leaf could open projects with environmental advantages 1.
- Contingent share issuances tied to PX Energy could be triggered by reaching cash flow targets or by equity financings 1.
Risks
- Decommissioning obligationshigh
The large decommissioning obligations assumed with PX Energy could require unplanned spending.
- Financing and convertible debthigh
Convertible notes and secured debt could strain liquidity if cash flows are delayed.
- Commodity price dependencemedium
Variable priced contracts expose revenue to swings in crude oil and gas prices.
- Integration riskmedium
Integrating two major acquisitions within a short period could create costs and operational difficulties.
- Accounting treatment of Red Leaflow
Treating Red Leaf as an asset acquisition rather than a business could change reporting if the interpretation shifts.
Investment thesis
What would need to be true (bull case)
- If the Brazil and Utah shale projects develop as planned, the company could turn the portfolio into a diversified source of revenue.
- PX Energy's operating experience and the HCCO technology could create a technical edge in the shale sector.
- Full control over the acquired assets could simplify strategic decisions and reduce conflicts with partners.
What would break the thesis
- If financing pressures persist, development of the shale assets could be delayed or scaled back.
- Large decommissioning obligations could absorb cash flow that would otherwise fund growth.
- Commodity price volatility could reduce revenue from variable priced contracts in unfavourable periods.
What to watch
- Revenue and earnings from PX Energy in the first full year of consolidation2026
- Progress of the Utah project and integration of the HCCO technology2026
- Triggering of contingent share issuances tied to cash flow targetsby September 30, 2027
- Adoption of IFRS 18 and its effect on presentation of results2027
Products, market & competition
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
The business
Questerre operates in the oil and gas sector and generates revenue from the sale of crude oil, natural gas, condensate and NGLs, as well as royalties on production from leases where it holds a working interest 1. According to the annual report for fiscal 2025, the strategy aims to commercially develop oil shale resources globally, a goal behind the two acquisitions closed late in the year 1. The company thus combines upstream experience with the downstream production and refining operations of PX Energy in Brazil 1.
Segments
Oil shale operations (PX Energy, Brazil)
PX Energy, acquired in full on September 26, 2025, is a privately held company with over thirty years of oil shale operations covering mining, processing and refining 1. Between September 26 and December 31, 2025 it contributed revenue of about 32 million USD and operating income of 5 million USD 1.
Technology and shale assets (Red Leaf, Utah)
Red Leaf is a Utah company with proprietary HCCO oil-recovery technology, oil shale leases and assets in the Uinta Basin 1. The company acquired the remaining equity on December 30, 2025 for total consideration of 8.6 million USD, treated as an asset acquisition rather than a business combination 1.
Conventional production and royalties
Sales of crude oil, gas and NGLs, plus royalties on leases where the company holds a working interest, form the historical core of the business 1. Sales are largely made under variable priced contracts linked to the commodity price and adjusted for quality or location 1.
Market context
The commercial oil shale market is still at an early stage, and Questerre approaches it through a portfolio comprising a producing operation in Brazil, a project in Jordan and technology rights in Utah 1. The roughly 32 million USD of revenue from the Brazilian unit over four months could become a benchmark for commercial potential if that level is sustained 1.
The capital structure was extended through shares issued for PX Energy and convertible promissory notes, so shale pricing and financing conditions could influence the pace of development 1. Broader energy market conditions remain an external factor that the sources do not detail.
Trends
- Consolidation of shale assetstailwind
The 2025 acquisitions expanded the company's oil shale portfolio, and integrating the carbon capture technology from Red Leaf could open new projects if technically confirmed 1.
- Higher decommissioning obligationsheadwind
Decommissioning and restoration obligations assumed with PX Energy are significant and could weigh on long-term cash flows 1.
- New accounting standardsmixed
IFRS 18 becomes effective on January 1, 2027 and will change the structure of the statement of comprehensive income, with comparability effects the company is still evaluating 1.
- Variable priced sales contractsmixed
Sales priced on a variable basis tie revenue to commodity price movements, bringing both upside and volatility 1.
Competitive position
The analysed sources do not identify direct competitors. The company mentions only its own shale assets and investments, without describing other companies in the sector 1.
Competitive position could be assessed through the HCCO technology and the over thirty years of PX Energy operating experience, though comparisons with other players would require additional sources 1.
- Red Leaf Resources (now integrated)
Privately held Utah company, fully acquired by Questerre on December 30, 2025; held the HCCO oil-recovery technology.
- Parana Xisto (PX Energy), failed JV partner
Privately held Brazilian shale company; the term sheet for a 50/50 joint venture with a fuel distributor expired in December 2025.
- Nice Capital Holdings (Nimofast)
Private Brazilian fuel distributor that negotiated a partnership in PX Energy that did not materialise.
- Local partners in the Jordan shale project
The company's project in the Kingdom of Jordan is mentioned in the sources, but local partners are not identified.
News & filings
In the press
No news in our archive over the last 180 days.
Annual reports (ESEF)
- Annual report 202521 Oct 2026
- Annual report 202521 Oct 2026
Sources
- [1] Annual report, fiscal year ended 2025-12-31 (ESEF) · SEC / Questerre Energy Corporation · 31 Dec 2025
Figures computed by olivLaw from ESEF annual reports and closing prices; the qualitative analysis is AI-generated from cited sources. Not investment advice.