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.
So, reaper, was it bullshit about naming the well site one name and drilling the same site under another name. A "GOOD" memory should be able to drag an acceptable explanation thru this morass. Yep, just doin this for entertainment. Sure glad not to own shares
By legal definition, the Cottonwood well is the holder of the well site and its legally assigned and hbp acreage. Putting the other well on that site would not be permit qualified. If in Texas, that permit would be issued by TRRC, and only after survey lines and field rules were approved. I believe that there is no doubt a lie or misleading statement is in evidence. Holy Cow, what a screwball PR
LOL, FM 11…
I actually have a pretty good memory.
Arent you the one who is trying to shift the conversation away from publically available information to speculation on the historical and future ROI for direct investors?
I seem to recall several posts where “one” claims that its all just for fun, a hobby, not to be taken seriously and posted for their own entertainment.
In the spirit of that conversation I commented that a single prospect can consist of more than a single well.
Is that not true? How am I wrong?
IMO and FWIW.
If one pays close attention, you can see that BECC goes to great lengths not to lie. Take this statement:
The announcement comes only a few weeks after the company released a press
statement saying that it would begin drilling at its Cottonwood #1H site. Now, nearing
completion, Crude Energy is pleased to report positive results from its drilling campaign.
Crude Energy drilled the Cottonwood #1H at a depth of 12,166 feet.
Reaper, you have a conveniently short memory. I can bring up another 1/2 a dozen if I choose.
From what I have seen in publicly available information regarding direct investment opportunities, a stakeholder is buying into a royalty interest percentage in the overall prospect, rather than a single well.
Please provide backup for that. Everything I have read on their early webpages contradicts that. Even the tax "advantages" they tout would not apply under that deal. Oh, that's right, you don't back things up. You are not interested in doing that. You don't answer questions because that would require you having a basis for what you say. Half-truths and false assumptions are better, aren't they?
I have no problem with the quality of the debate. I just wish the other corner would point to some enamoring aspect of the argymint. If the possibility of turning bullshit into shinola existed, I'm sure readers and SHs would have noticed. Good try tho- like a dry hole or plugger
Wrong again mackfish,
How many times do I have to demonstrate the SEC filings provide better information than somebody’s imagination?
I cant help that notice that if a miscellaneous filing shows something negative like BOD members or an auditor resigning, Those filings are gospel.
When they show anything positive for Breitling like the CEO buying shares on the open market, all of the sudden everyone everyone gets a little fuzzy on how it all works.
You cant hardly cherry pick which filings are reliable and which are not just because you don’t like the company or the CEO.
LOL…This whole debate is just dumb.
IMO and FWIW.
LOL reaper. How many times is it necessary to explain the disclosure statements are akin to the self repudiated filings. SHs know who instigated that fraudulent wrongdoing being involuntarily exposed. LOL, what a bunch of crap. SHs money gone, xtremely poor wells and lawsuits. Why don't you repudiate these FACTS?
I provided the source for my claim. The SEC disclosure statements are the source for my claim.
Some people either choose to ignore them or don't have the ability to navigate them. Not sure what more you would like to me to do about that.
Feel free to refresh my memory about the questions you have. I will do my best to respond.
IMO and FWIW.
LOL...Johnny,
You are wrong.
While the lack of financial statements are a serious problem, the company continues to file miscellaneous filings and disclosure statements.
So when someone comes on here and says that Breitling gave away shares to BOD members, or that the declining share price was due to Faulkner dumping shares, or if some claims that Breitling admitted to being part of a pump and dump scheme, I can say with confidence that they are wrong.
Like I said before, I am not the one that keeps regurgitating this argument.
If people don't want to discuss it, they should probably not bring it up over and over again.
IMO and FWIW.
Mr. Risinger got greedy. There is no need to go to jail. Just collect money from investors, charge a huge management fee along with a 25% carried interest. Drill crappy, close-in wells, all of which can be completed because depletion usually doesn't show up on logs and even if it did, your laymen investors won't recognize it.. Continue to charge management fees. Use fake names for wells so it is hard to check your track record. Buy time on radio stations and Fox news to add legitimacy. Buy yourself some awards.
But whatever you do, do not raid investors' funds to pay your salary. If you do, your independent auditors will smell a rat and quit. You will have to stop filing financials and you will sit around wondering why you killed the golden goose by going public. You can avoid all this stress by never ever going public. Sure people will eventually find out you can't find oil and the 10 year party will be over, but so what? Change the name of the company and start over.
I think we are witnessing that now.
Yep, Johnny,
The Sheriff was ordered in December to seize property within 90 days. I don't know how to find out how that went.
reaper,
Do you think that you should set an example for Mackfish by providing sources for what you say. I have asked you several times for some of the things you have said and you have posted nothing.
LOL, that ain't good for a 2 (year old) company to be 5 years in arrears. Not that there aren't older dry holes to pour invisible ink in. Dam, Breitling must really be one big mess
Depends if a Breitling trader is receiving cases of free Picante Sauce made in New York City in renumeration. That may be his best trade yet.
Again, since there are no for the last five years - you can't really tell anyone they are wrong.
Can you?
No one brought up the shares - that conversation is from a YEAR AGO - LET IT GO and move on.
Breilting has yet to file for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. I think that pretty much tells you the state of the company. Plus, their all of their suits for non - payments and all the lawsuits they've lost but have yet to pay on.
That is because they have YET TO FILE 2014, 2015 and 2016.
If one had any interest in providing boring answers to that frivoloius question, I will remind you of Breitling posting or admitting their own filings were not to be relied upon. Neither you or Breitling are aware of this occurrence in Pennyland without strong encouragement from an SEC prompting. Stick around here if you want to learn a few points about the o&g business and a little human psychology
So that would be a “no” from you? You have no source to verify your claims that are easily contradicted by SEC filings?
It's time you learned that many SEC filings are figments of imagination tambien
BTW reaper. Seeing you are on a filings kick 2nite, I seem to remember a post from you March, a year ago, that Breitlings already late filings were due any day now. Care to eLABORATE? LOL.
Invisible ink, Yugos and Picante, while not exactly world leaders in the oil patch, are winning this race
LOL reaper. Its always better to have credibility if that is the real subject you wish to discuss I'm not having a problem with Breitlings accounting or reserve errors, despite your imagination. It's time you learned that many SEC filings are figments of imagination tambien. In reference to stickies, I can hang post without unwanted hep and if any moving on is needed, I'm an excellent provider of that service. Let me know when Breitlings rent become another issue on the list. I'm here for you
Mackfish,
I have always said that the miscellaneous filings are credible.
That has not changed as you seem to imply.
Potential accounting errors from 2012 and 2013, that were carried over after Breitling became a public company in 2014, only affect revenue and reserve statements. They do not negate subsequent disclosure statements for the last two years.
Its pretty simple really. Not sure why so many people seem to struggle with it.
I suppose if I had made false claims that were easily shown to be incorrect by SEC documentation, I would try to make excuses and claim the filings don’t matter as well.
I can point to SEC disclosure statements and easily see that Faulkner never gifted any shares, options or warrants to BOD members just for being appointed.
You have claimed otherwise.
If you can provide the source for your information, that validates your claim, I will sticky that post at the top of the board for the world to see.
If not, it might be in everyone’s best interest to just move on.
LOL, IMO and FWIW.
What happens when risk is reduced to 0?
Easy test. Revenue generated by breitling vs wells filed with the tracking. Based on public information reported revenue/wells gives you the rate. Agreed the Financials are no good, but that means revenue is understated,
Eaglefordtexas.com. Who needs the SEC? Today
Here's something that will make you laugh out loud:
Crude Energy's operations in the Permian Basin are part of the reason the region is making such a dramatic comeback.
I found this Crude Energy reference in my notes:
Aug 05, 2014 (ACCESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- DALLAS, TX / ACCESSWIRE / August 5,
2014 / Crude Energy, an independent oil exploration and production company based in
Dallas, TX, announced that is nearing completion of a well in Hardeman County, TX.
The announcement comes only a few weeks after the company released a press
statement saying that it would begin drilling at its Cottonwood #1H site. Now, nearing
completion, Crude Energy is pleased to report positive results from its drilling campaign.
Crude Energy drilled the Cottonwood #1H at a depth of 12,166 feet.
Sometimes, I simply take BECC's word:
Unlike the traditional exploration and production operating model, the Company diversifies its risk through a process of selling working interests in its wells. This model recovers the Company’s investment capital, and increases cash flow and reserves through management fees, performance fees and a carried interest. In a climate of price uncertainty, this zero-debt, reduced-risk strategy has enabled the Company to look forward into 2015 without adjusting or reducing its planned development strategy.
Looking over my Breitling information I found a reference to a well spud by Breitling Oil and Gas called the Breitling-Turner No. 1 in Hardeman Co., Texas. The reference was dated March 9, 2011 and it was the webpage was http://www.ugcenter.com/.
There is no longer a reference to Breitling on the site.
As one might expect, there are no Breitling wells in that county, but the only Turner No. 1 well spud later than 2002 is the Enexco well. That well was completed in the Holmes Sand and produced nearly 200 bbls before dropping below the economic limit. In all, Enexco drilled four Turner wells that have recovered 75 mbbl. That's 19 mbbl per well in five years generating perhaps $1.5 million. Enexco chose not to drill the Turner 5 or 6.
It doesn’t mean that you can assume that Faulkner sold $8M in royalty interests
I would suggest that I can make that assumption, but I didn't.
Can you tell me how many royalty interest percentages were sold on any given prospect?
Yes, but it is immaterial to anything I said and, therefore, not worth looking up.
how you can pretend to know the amount of capital raised through private equity funding?
I can pretend to know, but I never did. I simply explored the implications of a statement by a poster. I often do that with your posts.
FM "never claimed to be an oil and gas expert" II
LOL reaper, so now you are saying Breitlings filings are credible? That's hogwash. Just who is or who are the idiot bloggers that would believe that statement? For sure, Yugos, invisible ink and Picante all have more credibility than this effing mess of muddy water you love to play in. Congratulations for your ability to paint a rosy picture of a pile of crap. I suggest a grey color for your following attempt. Poupon?
LOL, FM 11,
Not even in the most liberal interpretation of the word “report,” would a few sentences, posted anonymously on a message board, actually qualify as a report.
There is no way for anyone to verify or contradict one way or another, a single poster’s brief account of the current situation for a direct investor in any given prospect (I certainly believe the word “account” better describes the post than “report.”)
As it happens, I believe his statements to be true.
Institutional and accredited investors pay good money to participate in direct investments like oil and gas. Some wells have yet to be put into production and I can certainly understand that frustration.
It doesn’t mean that you can assume that Faulkner sold $8M in royalty interests in a well that would cost $3.5M to complete (your numbers.) There is no way to know how many royalty interests were sold at what price, or what rights and conditions apply. It is not public information.
It’s the same reason why that I cant provide proof of my statement of potential income from offsets from the initial well.
Investing in an oil and gas prospect under certain agreements, would entitle direct investors to revenue from offsets. There are certainly prospects out there that incorporate several oil and gas wells, rather than just a single well.
That is my problem with the whole debate regarding direct investors.
If some idiot blogger claims that Faulkner was dumping shares, or giving them away to BOD appointees, I can direct people to SEC disclosure statements so they can see for themselves it is not true. I am not asking anyone to take my word for it.
There are not enough “picante sauce” jokes that can change that fact.
If someone claims that Faulkner oversold an oil and gas prospect, there is no way to resolve that debate. None of that information is available.
Lets test my theory.
Can you tell me how many royalty interest percentages were sold on any given prospect?
If not, how you can pretend to know the amount of capital raised through private equity funding?
TIA, IMO and FWIW.
half truths and false assumptions
I have seen that phrase on several boards on different subjects. Usually comes out when the poster is desperate. Proof is virtually never offered.
That hardly qualifies as a “report.”
One of the problems I have is that you use words differently than most everyone else. It was by definition a report.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/report
I am sure I labeled a lot of things as assumptions and I intentionally pointed out it was one report so people would know it was unsubstantiated. Sure it is speculative. Not much else to talk about since BECC went silent.
From what I have seen in publicly available information regarding direct investment opportunities, a stakeholder is buying into a royalty interest percentage in the overall prospect, rather than a single well.
Please provide backup for that. Everything I have read on their early webpages contradicts that. Even the tax "advantages" they tout would not apply under that deal. Oh, that's right, you don't back things up. You are not interested in doing that. You don't answer questions because that would require you having a basis for what you say. Half-truths and false assumptions are better, aren't they?
It is that whole “growth through the drill bit” that Faulkner keeps talking about.
Please alert me if that ever happens, even a small amount.
LOL, what a bunch of nonsense.
Although, I have gotten used to the hodgepodge of half truths and false assumptions about Breitling across several blogs and boards over the last two years, since they became a public company.
While you have one message board poster claiming that he paid $80,000 for a 1% interest in a single well. That hardly qualifies as a “report.”
While we will never have any way to verify if it is true or not, since its not public information, I will assume that he is speaking from experience.
From what I have seen in publically available information regarding direct investment opportunities, a stakeholder is buying into a royalty interest percentage in the overall prospect, rather than a single well.
If the initial well is successful, the direct investor also receives income on any additional offsets that are added to that prospect over time, without any additional cost, commitments, obligations or liabilities.
If a prospect ends up with an initial producing well, along with two or three offsets that contribute to overall production over the next 10 or 20 years, it could end up being a very lucrative deal for JI stakeholders.
Using your math as the self proclaimed oil and gas pro, you claim Breitling is selling $8M worth of 1% interests in individual wells, to multiple investors and institutions @ cost basis of $3.5M per well.
That doesn’t seem to be the case. The investment seems to be per prospect, not per well.
If those stakeholders end up enjoying the revenue benefits of two additional offsets @ a cost of $3.5M per well, without any additional cost, they would be money ahead because they are enjoying direct participation in a prospect with offsets that may have an overall cost of $10.5M while their initial invest was only $8M.
It is that whole “growth through the drill bit” that Faulkner keeps talking about.
I have never claimed to be an oil and gas guy. In fact I have proudly claimed that I am not, but I do see problems with many of the assumptions being made here and on other boards.
IMO and FWIW.
Looking back at 3907, there was a lot of dinero sliding around. Then again, Breitling may have drilled and completed with only 50% of working interest sold. Perplexing or suspicious?
Not being familiar with any of the operating agreements or sales pitches, one may never know if Breitling was carried thru or to the tanks. I'm curious to how SHs would benefit if Crude or Patriot were involved with the 25% override. The other question is if the lease was paid up or another farmout. I'm sure the answers are to be found in the filings, somewhere---assuming reliability
I would assume the 25% override would immediately generate cash flow for one of the Breitling entities, again assuming the well is producing
Basically, but I would assume BECC is carried to the tanks, then in for operating costs. In other words, they are getting 25% of the well without paying for any drilling and completion. Otherwise, they would have said 25% override, but they don't always use terms in the normal way.
Also, I am not sure which shareholders you mean. Direct investors pay Breitling's way. The carried interest would generate income for BECC if the well ever established a positive cashflow. That would benefit BECC shareholders if BECC ever made a profit.
So in Yugos and Buster Brown terms, that means SHs are paying several million for Breitlings 25% carried( (no monthly expense, elec. water haulin or work over rig and parts expense) and are paying Breitling getaway money for administration? Oops, forgot several hundred monthly for the pumper. DAM! Willie Sutton missed the boat
According to one report, BECC is selling 1% interests in a $3.5 million well for $80,000. You might think direct investors are paying $8 million a well, but BECC is carried for 25%. That means investors are paying $10.7 million per well. BECC gets $3.6 million a year in administrative fees to administer who knows what, but Patriot has only pushed a handful of wells and they have been basically the same ones for a year or so. A barn-burner will hardly make any money for the direct investors at any reasonable price under those terms.
My theory is that sort of promote on wells is not sustainable. It works for a short time during the excessive exuberance of a price spike, but fails when prices are dropping or low. While not a Ponzi scheme, it requires the same sort of expanding number of virgin investors and those are only available during the feeding frenzy of a boom.
While there is no evidence of what BECC's finances might be like, except, of course, the mounting judgments against the company, I strongly suspect Patriot is not able to make its obligation to BECC. In a word, it's over.
Yep. While not illegal, it really confuses the average investor. I could mention the advantages of subterfuge and camouflage inherent and would have to assume that those possibilities combined with lack of current filings are sufficient to ground this stock. As an investor, one should have expected wells drilled and cased to be completed in a timely manner. While never seeing a Breitling prospectus or any type of operating agreement between the parties, it's still more than safe to say that SHs have been damaged and folk funding this scenario are likely seeking legal solutions. Can anyone(reaper) post those agreements?
All those divisions really muddy the water. I think I remember Texaco issuing a press release saying, "Holy Smokes, this is complicated, we will get back to you real soon." A company like BECC with three divisions and ones of employees is certain to have trouble.
The Seely Oil-Hankamer No. 1, 4235130907, was completed in January 2015. A fairly respectable 4 point test was filed. No production has ever been reported in the intervening year+. Last comment on the PI card is that they are waiting on stock tanks. That was in April 2015. It is possible that they were unable to find a gas purchaser. There is gas production in the area, but there may not be a gathering line close enough to warrant hooking up the well. Who knows? However, CF would have known the situation with the Hankamer at the time he wrote his now famous letter to loyal investors.
LOL. I will provide a BIG CHIEF TABLET if you will fund a No 2 lead pencil. Electronics no longer necessary, as Breitling has discovered the diff in one gallon and one barrel. I realize this is a giant step for this non reporting company and hope the lessening of forest decimation can be realized by the lack of filing by these 3 operating divisions of this Wall Street Giant. Yep, kudos to Breitling for doing their part in preventing global warming
I actually hoped you would "man up" and speak the truth about the viability of the lower zones and that the poor showing of the completed zones were completed only for the reason of being the excuse of depleting shareholder funding for the project-if you get my drift. I suppose moving the well bore across a short distance past the next county line would have resulted into a gusher. Verdad?
I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but I am starting to lose confidence in what CF says:
"Because of the extent of the 2013 re-audit combined with the complexity of our three operating divisions, the initial audit timeframe (sic) exceeded expectations thus delaying our 2014 financial statements. Management, our auditors and our financial statement consulting firm are working diligently to complete both audits and the Form 10-K as soon as practical."
"The Sellers '66' #1 well was spud in March, reaching a depth of approximately 8,600 feet and is on target for fracturing operations in the next 30 days, again on a no debt basis which is critically important in this environment."
"The Company participated in the Cole #1 well, which reached total depth in May hitting all targeted Permian zones. Fracking and completion proceedings are expected in the next 60 days."
"The Hankamer #1, in which the Company owns a non-operated working interest, was completed in Newton County, Texas in an established area known to management. The vertical well encountered two expected pay zones in the Norian Yegua field."
Elaborate on what exactly?
Are you asking about the overall CWEI farmout agreement that you claimed for months and months didn't exist, or are you asking about individual wells that you then claimed were bad, before you even realized which county they were in?
LOL, IMO and FWIW.
Reading your last post brings me to an extraordinary conclusion- drilling investors is more profitable than drilling poor wells. The last filing Breitling remembers occurred in his manicurist salon. I wonder if they served Boones Farm?
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: |