Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Pffftttt FM 11,
Yes, I incorrectly made a comment on the depth of a single well, because I looked at the permit depth rather than the completion depth and I acknowledged my mistake.
I also stated that early 2016 was the application date for the latest Sterling County prospect, when it was actually the approval date. To be fair though, I posted a screen shot of the TRRC page, so I assume most people understood my point.
For those who didn’t get my point, it was that while "someone" is willing to scour the TRRC site and make guesses at which wells Breitling may be participating in, they were completely oblivious to fairly recent activity showing an actual well in development stages with progress that can actually be verified for anyone who is interested.
Its hardly the same thing as posting incorrect information and then spending months trying to defend it, or divert attention from it when it is shown to be false, according to all the publically available information.
What?? After spending a thimble full of pennies on reapers word the Brotherhood was pure as driven snow. Dang, just shows you can't believe anything these penny promoters say. Anyway, if true, pacer will have it by 3pm mañana
SEC Action against Breitling?
A guy I know in Dallas says that the SEC has moved against Breitling. He did not have many details...when and how. Anyone heard any details, is it true?
I submitted SEC and Texas Securities Board complaints about a month ago.
Just saying that the public information shows that Chris Faulkner seems to have done everything in his power to protect Breitling Energy shareholders by maintaining the integrity of the share structure.
I am afraid I don't really understand the term integrity of the share structure. I know that at the end of the day, CF et al ended up with at least 90% of the stock in the corporation formerly known as BERX. My memory is that most if not all of the remaining shares went to creditors in order to release debt that would not have otherwise gone away when BERX bought Breitling Oil and Gas with BERX shares. Now, the creditors exchanged worthless debt for a stake in BECC and perhaps sold some of the shares.
I am not going to re-read the agreement because it hardly matters if I get it exactly right, but what shareholders got protected? Since CF got real value for the leftover stock, the release of debt, why would anyone assume his motive was anything other than getting rid of said debt? HE "went public" by giving up about $15,000 worth of equity. That is certainly lower than your estimate of a typical cost of $50,000.
I must say, I have hardly any experience with reverse mergers, so I have a genuine uncertainty. Part of the agreement, I assume negotiated by the creditors, was a no-dilution agreement. The BOD agreed to a dilution that never took place. If I were a creditor, I would have been long gone by the time that clause expired. Because the creditors loaned money to BERX, I have my concerns about their business acumen, so I don't know what they did.
So who got protected? Shareholders who bought in at a market value of $500 million?
Admittedly, CF could have diluted the shares, but the dilution would have affected himself. Back in June you suggested, by implication, that the lack of dilution indicated that CF believed BECC was or could be a viable company. I think you were correct. CF also on two occasions bought around $5000 of stock (number is from memory, anyone who wants the exact number can look on Edgar or on my earlier posts). You suggested that that indicates CF thought BECC had value. I tend to agree with you, except that it is an extremely small amount. At the time and to this day, CF owns millions in market valued stock, so was that a genuine effort to increase his stake? IF so, why the de minimis amount? I truly don't know, so I have no problem stipulating that CF thought BECC had value through March of last year. On the other hand, CF has done such odd and ill-advised things in promoting himself and his company, I have to acknowledge that he may have been generating an SEC filing for promotional purposes. I am not talking about stock promotion so it would be off subject for anyone to go there.
Well, actually, I was talking about the recent time you used the phrase in connection with me not mentioning that Breitling filed a permit in October. You said earlier this year, but it was, in fact, in October. You also misstated well depths. People make mistakes, including you, get over it.
The stock promotion thing is irrelevant to my opinions and statements.
LOL reaper. It would be to your and the Brotherhoods benefit to show an employment contract or invoice for payment to your reserve estimation guru you seem so proud of. Yep, I know-- it doesn't exist
LOL, reaper How novel. Some folk keep bringing up SEC-disclosures. Some folk laugh at them. Integrity? Is that a new generation definition? Kinda like you falling for the old reserve report trick
LOL... FM 11, that is funny.
Yes, I use that phrase all the time. I have also stated why I use it so often.
If someone comes on here and says Breitling Energy gave free shares to BOD appointees, I am simply stating that it is wrong and SEC disclosure statements show it.
If someone comes on here and says that Breitling was dumping shares on the way up or down after they went public, SEC docs show it is not possible because those shares were restricted.
In fact, publically available information shows Faulkner buying shares during the time when multiple posters who didnt bother to read the filings, claimed he was dumping them.
If someone else comes on here and makes the claim of Breitling being around for 8 or 9 years and being public for at least five, I know it is incorrect and have directed people to the appropriate filings to see for themselves.
If someone claims that Breitling admitted to participating in a stock promotion, or that I am an insider, stock promoter or troll, I can LOL at that as well.
All of the sudden though, some people want to claim that these facts are irrelevant.
How convenient, after they have easily been shown to be false.
I am not the one regurgitating these arguments, yet I am constantly criticized publically and privately for simply responding to them.
I have said for months that these are dumb arguments to have and an epic waste of everyones time.
Just saying that the public information shows that Chris Faulkner seems to have done everything in his power to protect Breitling Energy shareholders by maintaining the integrity of the share structure.
IMO and FWIW.
LOL Laraz. Texas oil is multicolored
so close to .01 Then on to sub penny...The BECC scam on its last leg of fraudulism..
Chris Faulkner should be in jail
Where he can really drill for oil
IMO
Like I have said before, whether someone is oblivious to the facts or is knowingly posting incorrect information is irrelevant.
The last time you posted that phrase it was in reference to my not posting some irrelevant information, yet there is a vast amount of irrelevant and relevant information you didn't post. You haven't posted much information lately. Perhaps because there is so little to post.
LOL reaper. You are right to be sorry. Too late now for apologies
Sorry mackfish,
While the lack of financial statements are a legitimate complaint, there are enough material event filings to show that false claims of share dumping, free shares to BOD appointees and stock promotions are nonsense.
All the jokes about picante sauce, yugos and invisible ink have been epic waste of everyone’s time.
Like I have said before, whether someone is oblivious to the facts or is knowingly posting incorrect information is irrelevant.
LOL, IMO and FWIW.
LOL reaper, filings headed later and later. Is there indication of being written in invisible ink or a problem with Yugo Express? Investors and partners want to know
I have no way of knowing how much water the well is making or where the pump is set, but there is a good chance the well is not making operating expenses. The potential test showed a lot of water, but it was close enough to the frac job that most of that water could have been frac water.
The PI scout card showed tubing was set below the top of perforations, suggesting a deep pump, but that could have easily changed.
With the well making less than 10 BOPD, I wonder if anyone would be interested in a workover if the rods part. A few months should tell.
FLUSH? Ain't that the sucking sound of SH or partners going down the drain?
Then that is not even economical with the production numbers the well has. If thats the flush from a well that deep its plugging time IMO
8,600 ft.
IMO and FWIW.
How deep was the well?
Well, to be honest, the filing of a permit is of such little consequence, I couldn't say for sure I didn't see it. Under what circumstances would an October filing have anything to do with what I have been saying? I see no reason to state what I presume everyone knows, that wells have been permitted and drilled and fracked. Heck, they spudded a well in October. Let me repeat that in full disclosure so everybody knows. Breitling has drilled and completed wells. Should I put that in my signature so no one gets confused?
I don't know, sometimes I do make bad assumptions, like if I am discussing a producing well on this forum, I don't need to spend time telling people that the well was in fact permitted and drilled. But in the interest of full disclosure, your post virtually proves that someone came up with $625.00 to pay the assessment---back in October.
Any particular need to state everything that doesn't have anything to do with my point?
Now what would be interesting is if any of the wells turned out to be any good.
The questions are rhetorical, I know you don't answer questions.
Nice try reaper. Did the Brotherhood take the operations away from Steller? What for? Neither co can find production. It's time to do your investors a favor- like giving their money back. BTW, their are no consequences for failure to fulfill the permit. Wake us up on notification of other unimportant news
Heckling a CEO across multiple blogs and boards under multiple aliases, with information that is often incorrect or irrelevant, doesn’t provide anyone the moral high ground that some are trying to pretend to have.
That's funny, the way you twist reality. According to my memory I have posted comments under "Notafrackmaster," "Frackmaster2," and, of course, FMII. Multiple aliases, LOL. I have commented on other peoples's blogs. Two, I believe. Not that this has anything to do with anything. Is reaper247 on your birth certificate? Just wondering.
While I have demonstrated your lack of understanding about a lot of things, including well information, I will let others, at this point, judge what is relevant. They can scan the advertisements for BECC that you put at the top of this board and ponder what that has to do with an oil company's performance.
I have asked you multiple times to show where I was materially wrong. All I got were assertions, if anything at all.
Even speculation on historical or potential ROI for institutional and accredited investors are admittedly not to be taken seriously and posted for fun.
We have heard the stories of other failed or dishonest companies, in feeble attempts to imply some kind of guilt by association just because Breitling operates in the same sector.
What?
Even speculation on historical or potential ROI for institutional and accredited investors are admittedly not to be taken seriously and posted for fun.
There is that language problem we have. An assumption is not speculation and taking deal terms off the Breitling web page is not an assumption. But, yes, I have speculated, what's your point.
The terms of those agreements are not public information and any arguments regarding that information cant be resolved on a public forum one way or another
So?
In fact, by definition investors who participate in complex investments, like direct investing or advanced stock trading are considered to be more sophisticated and capable than the average observer or blogger.
If that statement had anything to do with anything, I would ask you to document your definition.
Those investors would hardly meet your condescending and false criteria of drunks and dementia patients.
Yawn. I suppose it would be pointless to ask you to back that up. Besides I was talking about a subset of possible investors.
I would go as far to say that these sophisticated investors have skills beyond the understanding of most people.
If you are talking about investors in Breitling, they are very much beyond my understanding.
As far as Breitling goes, I have already stated that it is my belief that they are still moving forward in Sterling County and are in a better position to survive this downturn than some of their peers on the NYSE and NASDAQ.
OK.
You asked me to back up that claim of mine and I will here and now.
Chris Faulkner is still featured from time to time on cable news programs, including an appearance on Fox Business a couple of days ago.
So CF appearing on Fox Business backs up what claim?
And even though the company has been relatively quiet, they still filed the necessary drilling permit earlier this year with the TRRC, to continue the development of the CWEI farmout agreement.
I suspect that you knew that already and failed to mention it because it doesn’t support your claim.
Ooh, BECC filed a drilling permit. Everything must be OK. I didn't mention it, because I didn't know about it.
I guess I should remind you again that Breitling did not “spring up.” Breitling has been around for well over a decade and will likely be around for a long time to come.
I am sorry that you don't like it.
CF stuck his toe in the water while he was CEO of a hosting company in 2004. In 2009, the individual with some WWW sophistication put up a text based website and soon began a publicity campaign. I am pretty comfortable with CF staying in the oil business as long as he is quiet about it, I will be too.
I am sure he will have a stake is some corporation that has some connection to the oil business, but that really doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Just a quick follow up.
This is the screenshot of the Breitling Energy TRRC permit approval earlier in the year for the Sterling County, Clayton Williams CWEI farm out.
I am curious to know if you didn't see it, or intentionally failed to acknowledge it, because it doesn't support your claims.
Doesn't matter really.
I have always said that whether or not someone is oblivious to the facts, or completely fails to acknowledge them is irrelevant.
LOL, IMO and FWIW.
Soapbox, wait…what? LOL FM 11,
Heckling a CEO across multiple blogs and boards under multiple aliases, with information that is often incorrect or irrelevant, doesn’t provide anyone the moral high ground that some are trying to pretend to have.
We have heard the stories of other failed or dishonest companies, in feeble attempts to imply some kind of guilt by association just because Breitling operates in the same sector.
It is all irrelevant to Faulkner and this company.
Even speculation on historical or potential ROI for institutional and accredited investors are admittedly not to be taken seriously and posted for fun.
The terms of those agreements are not public information and any arguments regarding that information cant be resolved on a public forum one way or another.
In fact, by definition investors who participate in complex investments, like direct investing or advanced stock trading are considered to be more sophisticated and capable than the average observer or blogger.
Those investors would hardly meet your condescending and false criteria of drunks and dementia patients.
After going to a number of conferences and listening to the CEOs of many oil companies, some now bankrupt, sometimes I think I am picking on Chris Faulkner. I've said before, there is nothing unique about CF, he's as common as a house cat. His public persona is just so outrageous, he makes an easy target for an example. Sure the PR is bait, but what PR isn't to some degree.
I would never try to talk someone out of spending a little money on a penny stock, it's the direct investors I am concerned about. If you call enough people, you are going to find someone with the early symptoms of dementia, or who is drunk or who is having a careless day or who has little financial skills. ...and if someone who makes $50,000 a month wants to send $15,000 to BECC without checking, I can understand that. Heck, Mark Twain was a great writer, but a terrible investor, no shame in that.
So as we are coming to the end of the life cycle of CF's venture into the oil business, it is important to understand that these companies are springing up all the time and failing all the time. It is true that more spring up during boom times and more failures occur during busts, but oil price is not the cause of failure. BECC would have had to have found some oil for their "growth by the drill bit" strategy to have been directly affected by price.
OK, climbing down off the soapbox for a while.
Well, at least the Brotherhood is running consistent. Hard to identify and poor production.
How bout the 900 wells making a paltry $70,000/ month. Sounds great to the unaware, until one does a little dividing. I bet months would be wasted digging that info up, and it's not worth the time. Given careful consideration, you would have to consider the PR as Bait only
I think I have identified two more wells that Breitling participated in. The Buffalo Run No.1 is the Devon-Karen Meek No.1 in Wheeler Co., 42-483-33175. It's a nice 16,000 foot horizontal well that could easily make 2 BCF. If gas goes to $6 and oil goes to $100, investors will get 60% of their money back in another 16 years.
I think their Trinity #1 is the Crown Energy-Matthews 1-28. It produced for four months and made 2,556 MCF of dry gas. There were no wells that matched up with the Trinity No. 3. There were no successful wells in Jackson Co., during any possible time period, but it is possible Breitling decided not to drill it. Too many wells in Nueces Co. to run down the Trinity No. 2.
Best case scenario is pitiful. Call the plugger
March Production figures are out for the Hoppe well. My guess is it was shut-in for part of the month. We will have to wait to see if it is put back on. Anyway, this is the part of the life of a well where ultmate recovery is a little tricky. The well could produce quite a bit of oil producing just at the economic limit, siginifcant to ultimate recovery, but not to economics. Or it could stop at any time. The well could have an ultimate recovery of 2879 to 6000 bbls.
Need to sting 5 or 6 up days in a row with volume
Yes, and there are non-misleading ways of saying things and there are misleading ways. If Parker Hallam had said in a press release, "The first well of our Cottonwood prospect has reached TD. The Holcomb #1H was drilled to a depth of 12,166',that would not be misleading, but he didn't. He said, "Cottonwood #1H" in the naming style for a horizontal well, not a prospect. When Crude specifically and consistently uses the industry standard, Operator Name-Lease Name well number, there is little doubt they know what they are doing. Remember, it's the best North American Independent that's been in the business for 12 years. When Parker or Faulkner uses styling like Crude Energy-Cottonwood #1H or Breitling Oil and Gas-Big Tex No. 1, they know exactly what they are doing and I have never seen anyone else do such a thing. I stand ready for reaper to find a case, though.
By the way, using an H in the well number consistently means a horizontal well, consistent enough to filter in only horizontal wells. I have never seen this violated, but if there were a violation on one or two in a million wells, where the "H" means something else, I would not freak out, it's not a law or anything. It's a well, not a prospect, not a field, not a unit, not an AOI, it's a well.
People who are not trying to mislead do not use this style of naming on anything but wells in order to avoid confusion. Breitling has been causing confusion going back to at least the fake names in ND and the subsequent disastrous lawsuit against Petroleum News. Breitling said they used fake names to maintain confidentiality. Confidentiality for who? Not the operators, they are using the real well names and don't care if someone mentions it. In fact they would rather not be dragged into such nonsense.
Again, it Breitling are paranoid they can use the phrase, "the first well in our Big-Tex project." That way, they avoid getting multi-hundred thousand dollar judgements against them. They would not get the multi-million dollar damage to their business reputation because someone asked why there were not Breitling wells in ND. By their own statements they caused millions of dollars of damage by naming their projects in a misleading way.
So why do they continue to do it? In press releases they are still using fake names despite continued risk of millions of dollars of damage to their reputation. It is demonstrably and admittedly misleading; see Petroleum news case. It doesn't maintain confidentiality; I have identified most wells with relative ease based on their describing them to a tee. The reason is simple and discernable by a process of elimination and by logic. They want people to believe they are using advanced technology to pick well locations for hundreds, if not thousands of wells. They want people to think they are majority working interest owners by letting people think they are operator because their name appears in the operator slot.
Now, if someone wants to argue that Breitling and its wholly-owned subsidiaries are staffed by idiots who bring millions in damages upon themselves for no good reason and then completely fail to learn from their mistakes, it would be at least logical, but very far-fetched.
...and obviously there are people who think it is no big deal. BECC was bringing in investors until recently. People who ignore these kinds of red flags get skinned sooner or later.
By the way, besides the recent poster here, I have identified four Breitling direct investors. One asked for and received his money back. Another asked Breitling to contact him, the request was made as a comment to a transcript of a quarterly report conference call. Another said her check bounced but she was made whole. I say this because it's the truth, not that it supports my points. It is interesting that there is a shortage of direct investors who are enamored with Breitling, but that doesn't mean much in terms of company evaluation. Personally, for reasons I have already enumerated would want a recommendation from a trusted source. Something I have yet to find.
Prospects are named frequently differently but not in the style that wells are named. Also, when talking about a well reaching TD, there is no legitimate reason to use a fake name. If you are long on BECC, then you are going to lose money due to your lack of understanding. If you are short, you understand better than you let on. If I had a keyboard I would explain in detail, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. You either get it or you don't by now.
Prospects are named frequently differently but not in the style that wells are named. Also, when talking about a well reaching TD, there is no legitimate reason to use a fake name. If you are long on BECC, then you are going to lose money due to your lack of understanding. If you are short, you understand better than you let on. If I had a keyboard I would explain in detail, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. You either get it or you don't by now.
When spending other folks money, it's a big deal. Not like bummin a smoke
Not what you said. You specifically used the word royalty and you said you inferred your observation from BECC info. Besides I had already been asking you to back up things you made up, I mean observed. I ask you to follow a thread back to my questions. Ok, don't back up what you say. Who cares?
Oh C’mon FM 11,
Is this really the sinister plot that some would have us believe?
Arent these prospects negotiated and planned in advance of actual permits being filed with the TRRC?
I am not gonna spend a lot of time on this because I don’t know for sure and don’t care, but in my effort to “back up” my opinions, I did take a quick look at the Blue Wolf prospect since it’s been a hot topic lately.
I see it was offered as a prospect in late Oct. 2014, but the permit wasn’t submitted with the TRRC until January 2015.
Isnt it possible that these prospects are given innocuous names in the planning and offering phases, before individual well names and numbers are actually assigned?
Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
IMO and FWIW.
LOL, FM 11,
I do ask people to back things up and in most cases I am the one ignored. I largely rely on SEC filings to back up my claims.
In this particular case, I am making a general observation that a single prospect may contain more than a single well.
Since the contract details with direct investors are not public information, there is no way to know what additional rights or privileges apply on any given prospect.
It was in response to your guesses involving potential ROI for direct investors. Without public information available to examine, how can anyone know what the conditions are any given prospect?
IMO and FWIW.
A prudent operator will have the ability to hold run checks in the amount of a partners responsibility towards the plugging and abandonment expense. Operators shudder to think about the actions available to TRRC enforcement, and rightfully so. That being said, there are thousands of non commercial well abandoned every decade. Perhaps the Brotherhood may consider adding "PARKERS PLUGGIN" to his letterhead
I'm not worried about anyone showing any type of seismic invoice paid by Breitling. The doodlebug guys don't suit up for small shoots, which are
cost prohibitive. I'm still expecting one of the Brotherhood to explain about which company shot. Processed and performed drilling site selection. No doubt that will remain " top secret"
So far nothing found has produced enough oil for a New Yugo. There probably isn't much to expect in good news as you go down the list that's visible, but most appreciate the effort. BTW, I doubt SHs will be willing to accept an invoice for plugging, so naturally the good working folk called tax paying Texans will be saddled with the bill. That really pisses me off
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they stumbled upon some bypassed pay in the Lauren that may have paid out, if they controlled their costs. Doesn't really explain why they participated in that Seely well.
I did get a chance to run down two of their Big Tex wells,:
42-165-37390-0000
42-165-37383-0000
No shot at paying out. Both are below commerical rates, 7 and 2 BOPD. One has produced 19 Mbbl in 4 1/2 years. The other has only produced for a few months at commercial rates and has made less than 3 MBbl in 4 1/2 years. Honestly, I think one could do better with a map and a dart and skip spending money on seismic.
Hey reaper don't you personally know the folk or company responsible for shooting processing and analyzing all those 3D lines the Brotherhood so proudly announced in their famous PR? I bet SHs want to tell them "you are fired"
SHs should hope the 1% paid out belonged to them. I'm sure the Breitling Brotherhood footed the bill for the remaining 99%. I see from the write up Breitling was using 3D to point towards profitable drilling locations. I'm confused if using a psychotherapist or a geophysicist is the most qualified for recommending these shallow locations. With 38 years experience claimed, it would seem the Breitling Brotherhood could at least come up with a plausible explanation for the lack of Crude sales. BTW, the onshore Port Author-Beaumont area has been considered "drilled out" since the early eighties
Next up in the Archive is the Trinity 3 well project that went up in May 2010. Six months later it is shown as fully funded (http://web.archive.org/web/20101120075046/http://breitlingoilandgas.com/index-3.html)
I only checked the Okfuskee County well. There are no Breitling wells in the county, but there is the Crowne-Matthew 1-28, 35107234170, which is the only well that matches up with the description on the Breitling website. This well produced 2,566 MCF of gas in four months before going offline. It could well have paid off as much as 1% of the cost of the well.
That's all I am going to do for today, but there are more to look at another day. Of course, reaper, with his skills at online research, could cover a few to show BECC's skill at finding oil.
Here's another one.
Using the Internet Archive, I think this is the first project to show up on the BreitlingOilandGas.com website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100427011841/http://www.breitlingoilandgas.com/index-3.html
Of course there is no such well, but at the location described, there is a well named the Elliot Oil & Gas Operating Co.-Lauren No. 1, 4224532310. This well was put back on production, probably recompleted or re-entered, after not producing for 5 1/2 years. It made 302 MMCF of gas and 15,117 bbls of oil from June 2013 and May 2015. As a re-entry, this project may actually have paid out to the 100% working interest. The well stopped producing at profitable rates in 12/2014 and ceased producing altogether in May 2015.
PIONEERING my butt. That space age fracing technology has been around since retrievable plugs and packers were first introduced, and before Piscatoral Parker was born. I have never seen any company have even remote interest in the Hardeman, and would prefer drilling in my mother in laws backyard. Perhaps one of Breitlings minions can show some numbers resulting from this Guilded PR that makes me LMAO. Without looking, I already know the results were a return pit full of invisible ink
Sometimes, their press releases don't make enough sense to me to extract any useful information. Here is Parker Hallam explaining that Crude Energy is leading the way in a little known Texas formation by participating in a non-existent well. The article then goes into great detail how Crude is going to use standard multistage fracturing technology, even though the well does not exist and the only well similar to what they describe was drilled and completed by someone else.
The article then explains that Crude Energy specializes in the Bakken and the Permian Basin and then, after discussing the size and activities of other companies in strange detail, explains why Crude is not drilling there.
Mr. Hallam is quite pleased with the results from the non-existent well, which is strangely similar to another company's well, the Holcomb No. 1H. If he is confused for some reason and is talking about the Holcomb No. 1H, it is hard to imagine that he would be pleased with it since the Holcomb is a crappy well.
MYSTERY SOLVED. That originally PRed well was described using that danged Invisible Ink.
From dim memory of the permitting process, an operator submitted a registered surveyors plat , name of well, and total depth. The approved permit was returned with an assigned number identifying the well bore. Responsibility for this identifying number and its legal survey was given to the operator and he was required to erect a sigh with that info on the well bore location. Breitling, possibly a paid up non operating party, had no obligation to furnish any of those requirements. The act of omission by Crude in a PR would stink of misleading investors with the possibility of fraud.or unjust expectations of a massive drilling program beginning. I have seen no reason to expect anything out of this interrelated group of Dallasite playing oilmen but amateurish mistakes camouflaged by defective verbiage. If the Breitling minion could talk a well into performance, they would be a Fortune 500 Company overnight
mackfish,
In other words, there is no Cottonwood No. 1H. One might argue that BECC has the right to call someone else's well anything they want, but a well that has TD'd has a legal, recorded name.
I have the right to name my Ford pickup after a famous 19th century researcher, but if I say I drove my Tesla to work, it would be a lie. There is no getting around it.
The question, however, is whether BECC is referring to a well by saying "Cottonwood." It is clear that they want people to think so.
LOL repear,
Let me pull you back on subject. It is simple. You ask other people to back up what they say, but when you are asked, you simply ignore the question. I gave you but one example. How specific do you want me to be. Can you not figure some things out for yourself?
Followers
|
42
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
4188
|
Created
|
10/27/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |