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.
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.
Because the Hardeman Basin has great potential, Crude Energy is quietly pioneering the way in this lesser known area.
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?
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.
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?
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: |