Breitling Energy Corp fka BECC

[FM II]

The facts here have never been in dispute. Never, ever. The fact that you keep post clips documenting things is getting weird. I am not going to dig through my notes about something that doesn't matter, but by memory, CF and Joe Simo, formed up an LLC in Oklahoma with much the same name as the Texas Corporation. CF was running CI Hosting at the time.

The whole discussion of the five or six years, which was a guess since it had absolutely nothing to do with my point, surrounded the fact that Breitling had not come up with any innovation while calling itself innovative. I am unaware of CF calling Breitling innovative when it was in its LLC form, so in that context, from memory, I went back to the Bakken News Fiasco. Before that, Breitling did little advertising, CF had a radio show, but it was fairly new, I think.

Breitlingoilandgas.com did not coming into existence until 2009 based on Internet Archive, which seems like a good point to pick as to when Breitling began pretending to be a company large enough to innovate.

Reaper, I know that the fact that you could not come up with an innovation was disconcerting for you and you had a lot of reasons for latching onto that little piece of irrelevancy. I have to tell you, it comes off as you having no understanding of context.

On the other hand, most people were probably completely distracted from the fact that Breitling had never come up with an innovation in 10 years.

Since we are now fully aware how many times you were unable to refute my substantive points and we are well aware you have nothing positive to say about Breitling, I can fully understand why you can't let this go, but really, and I mean this sincerely, you should stop; it is not helping whatever point you have left.

[FM II]

I am not sure you understand what goodwill is.

I certainly don’t understand why you are trying to make it a topic of debate, since Breitling didn’t claim any goodwill in their financial statements. Any explanation on why you brought it up, or why you believe it to be relevant would be helpful.

In this case, I meant the difference between the value of the separate assets and liabilities of a company and what some fool is willing to pay for the company. I wasn't trying to make it a part of any debate, should one arise.

As far as discussing financial statements that have potential accounting errors, you were the one who brought it up by talking about Breitling’s “negative equity.”

I am just responding by using the same documents that you are referring to.

I used the 12/2013 statement to suggest that BECC had little value, not to prove it. The suggestion comes about because I don't think BECC would grossly understate the value of it's assets, but it is certainly possible. You, on the other hand, say the company is or was profitable as if it is undoubtedly true. Vast difference between what you use them for and what I thought they might indicate.

You were the one who said that you had heard of Chris Faulkner CEO of Breitling, but had never heard of Ultra CEO Michael Watford. The point being that Fualkner has a media presence larger than some of his NYSE/NASDAQ counterparts.


First of all, so what. Second, I became aware of Chris Faulkner by reading a somewhat obscure trade newsletter called Petroleum News Bakken. How you took that as an indication of meadia presence, I don't know. If you want to somehow twist that media presence into industry footprint, go ahead. It is the very fact that so many people did twist the media presence that CF bought into industry footprint that I find disturbing.

While I did say Ultra had $2T in assets, it was obviously a typo and I did actually state the correct amount of assets in the same post.

Quote:
"Ultra Petroleum had assets of more than $2,958,000,000 and a share price of $30 in early 2014 before $WTIC collapsed."


You claim extensive of research into Breitling, but still fail to acknowledge that most of Breitling’s royalty and working interests were accumulated as a private company and there is no way for anyone to comment on any of those wells, since Breitling is not the operator of those prospects.

I have never, ever, ever disputed that and in fact have stated that expressly. I think this is another case of you making things up about me. And just to be clear, I don't know how you know those assets were accumulated mostly as a private company. Also, just for clarity, we are aware of the magnitude of the reserves owned by the various Breitling companies by looking at the reserves report, though, like a lot of information, it is stale.

What I have disputed is many of CF's public claims and insinuations. Sure, in the absence of information, this board has been pulled off to some wide topics. So what?

The best that anyone can do, is guess at future production of a handful of wells that can be researched since Breitling became a public company two and half years ago.

Exactly. And if someone wants to call that handful "growth by the bit" they can, but some of us are laughing at that. But just to be accurate, one can find a number of wells of the companies that preceded BECC. I will point out that my guesses have been pretty good.

While Faulkner does have some unpaid travel and advertising expenses that have gone to court, those debts are not toxic to shareholders at this point, as some people continue to falsely claim.

Not sure why you bring that up. The Sheriff was ordered over to BECC to seize BECC assets. I don't know what you mean by toxic to shareholders and it has nothing to do with anything I said.

Many have also falsely claimed that Fualkner was fleecing investors, but there is proof that shows it to be absolutely false for public investors, while there is nothing to show anything of the sort for accredited and institutional investors.


Noted.

IMO and FWIW.

[reaper247]

LOL, FM 11,

I am not sure you understand what goodwill is.

I certainly don’t understand why you are trying to make it a topic of debate, since Breitling didn’t claim any goodwill in their financial statements. Any explanation on why you brought it up, or why you believe it to be relevant would be helpful.

As far as discussing financial statements that have potential accounting errors, you were the one who brought it up by talking about Breitling’s “negative equity.”

I am just responding by using the same documents that you are referring to.

I am also stating that Breitling existed roughly ten years as a private company without the need or ability to dilute shareholders and has only been public for just over 2 years, rather than the 5 that you continue to incorrectly claim.

I did explain about how the liabilities were carried over and the filings show it in detail for those who care to look.

You were the one who said that you had heard of Chris Faulkner CEO of Breitling, but had never heard of Ultra CEO Michael Watford. The point being that Fualkner has a media presence larger than some of his NYSE/NASDAQ counterparts.

While I did say Ultra had $2T in assets, it was obviously a typo and I did actually state the correct amount of assets in the same post.

"Ultra Petroleum had assets of more than $2,958,000,000 and a share price of $30 in early 2014 before $WTIC collapsed."

You claim extensive of research into Breitling, but still fail to acknowledge that most of Breitling’s royalty and working interests were accumulated as a private company and there is no way for anyone to comment on any of those wells, since Breitling is not the operator of those prospects.

The best that anyone can do, is guess at future production of a handful of wells that can be researched since Breitling became a public company two and half years ago.

While Faulkner does have some unpaid travel and advertising expenses that have gone to court, those debts are not toxic to shareholders at this point, as some people continue to falsely claim.

Many have also falsely claimed that Fualkner was fleecing investors, but there is proof that shows it to be absolutely false for public investors, while there is nothing to show anything of the sort for accredited and institutional investors.

IMO and FWIW.

[FM II]

Breitling's PR firm, the one lining up the TV appearances and the newspaper OP EDs, is suing Breitling, et al for disputing credit card payments in order to not pay their bills. Within the original petition is a list of many of the lawsuits Faulkner has been involved in. The case number is DC-15-07063. The question is, how much smoke is required before people realize there is a fire.

That's my original post. It's a question. If you strip out all the posts trying to discredit the poster rather than the post and all attempts to divert the discussion away from Breitling's performance in finding oil, all the attempts to ignore the disturbing financials and the lack thereof, one will see that the question has been answered. On this board there is one individual who hasn't given up on BECC. Outside this board is a great deal of silence.

I have slowed my checking with the slowing of activity. If someone notices that Breitling is turning to the right before I notice, I would only be mildly surprised that it was occurring, not that I missed it. If someone does notice activity, I will do some checking.

[mackfish]

Gotta agree with the prevalence of fruits evident here. BTW, haven't you noticed the pps going down every time you bring the co origination up? Proof that fruit falling upside down has nasty crack up

[reaper247]

LOL..mackfish,

That is apples and oranges.

XOM has been diluting their stock according to their filings.

Awww, I forgot…you don’t trust SEC filings.

Not much point debating CVX or CWEI with someone who doesn’t bother looking at actual facts and filings.

I have always said that if you feel more comfortable buying a diluting stock on the NYSE, knock yourself out.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

[FM II]

You have to understand a couple of things here. A lot of publically traded companies, including NYSE/NASDAQ companies have total liabilities equal to or greater than, total reported assets. It does not mean that there is no value.

I fully understand what goodwill is.

Also, the yearend financial report for the period 12/31/2013 that you are referring to, showing the stockholder deficit (or “negative equity”…LOL,) is actually a 10-KT, rather than a typical 10-K.

The “T” designation of the filing indicates that it is a transitional filing that can happen for several different reasons.

In the case of BECC, it is because it is the reverse merger that happened and the information in that financial statement contains the combined and consolidated financials of the two companies.

So? Beitling certainly didn't have the assets to pull that piddly little company into positive territory, even after discharging debt.

To understand how this works, one first has to realize that Breitling has only been public for a couple of years. Not over five years as some still claim.


Wrong.

There were a large amount of liabilities that were carried over from Bering Exploration, as I have already explained several times.

No you haven't. Feel free to list them and their amount.

Assumptions about the lack of volume during Breitling’s first year as a public company are also a bit misguided.

No they are not. If the price were high because of a shortage, dumping 10 million shares would move the market.



The volume would have been much higher if people were willing to dump shares as you claim.


Exactly, and the price would be lower.


I was not making any leaps when I claimed that Breitling was fully funded and profitable at the time they went public.

Yes you are. You are relying on financial statements that Breitling told people not to rely upon.

They existed for ten years as a private company without any need to sell shares. They were also profitable according to the quarterly financial report for the nine months ending Sept 2014.

Breitling said not to rely upon that report and yet you still do.

As far as tickers being passed around like brewskis, it should be noted that most tickers are passed around by developmental stage companies that simply exist to sell shares and offer toxic debt.


So?


We have already established beyond a doubt that Breitling is not a developmental stage company. Breitling was a profitable, fully funded company without any toxic debt, ten years in the making.

No we haven't


It is interesting to me as to how Breitling Energy’s CEO Chris Faulkner, could have a bigger footprint in the oil and gas industry, than the CEO of a NYSE company that had over $2 Trillion in assets.

He didn't have a bigger footprint. He has never had much of an actual footprint and only through considerable research and years of his activity was I able to find some fairly dismal wells related to him.

I am not sure what Ultra has to do with anything, but now that you mention the company I am a little suspicious that a company that really had $2 trillion in assets could soon file bankruptcy over $4 billion. Energy prices didn't drop that much. If you have some point to make about the many companies that have or had phantom assets, it escapes me. But I don't have much knowledge of Ultra.

It does look like Ultra had a peak market value of around $15 billion in 2008. I wonder why it was trading at less than a hundredth of book value. It was a quick look, so maybe I missed something.

[mackfish]

Shoot, reaper, I expected a better retort. Ain't you the guy always bring up Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and Claty? Where are the collection efforts there? This being a hard cash business, Breitling continues making it difficult for the honest professionals capable of discovering product.

[reaper247]

Pffffttt…mackfish,

There are a whole lot of publically traded oil and gas companies that have cash flow problems with low oil prices. Its unfortunate that people who deserve to get paid for services provided, are feeling the pain as well. These circumstances are not exclusive to Breitling.

Not sure how the extreme circumstances of an entire sector, justifies some people knowingly posting false information about the company.

Everyone needs a hobby I suppose.

GLTU, IMO and FWIW.

[mackfish]

Dang, reaper. I wonder if those folk wanting their money give a solitary dam about how you describe it. Legitimate companies pay their obligations, no matter how you spin the story. I think we will discover how fully funded and profitable the co is if filings are ever completed or when the next drilling date arrives. SHs will be lucky if that drilling date never arrives. If, as you say, breitling is not a development stage company, why in hell cant they produce product or complete filings? And YES, Faulkner has left a footprint - of bullshit on the carpet

[reaper247]

Wow…FM 11, I don’t even know where to begin. LOL...

A simple outstanding liability is not the same thing as toxic debt. Ya’ll should probably do some more research on that before making guesses on how it all works.

I think there is a good chance that Breitling Oil and Gas was valueless at the time, since BECC had negative equity as of 12/31/2013.

You have to understand a couple of things here. A lot of publically traded companies, including NYSE/NASDAQ companies have total liabilities equal to or greater than, total reported assets. It does not mean that there is no value.

Also, the yearend financial report for the period 12/31/2013 that you are referring to, showing the stockholder deficit (or “negative equity”…LOL,) is actually a 10-KT, rather than a typical 10-K.

The “T” designation of the filing indicates that it is a transitional filing that can happen for several different reasons.

In the case of BECC, it is because it is the reverse merger that happened and the information in that financial statement contains the combined and consolidated financials of the two companies.

To understand how this works, one first has to realize that Breitling has only been public for a couple of years. Not over five years as some still claim.

There were a large amount of liabilities that were carried over from Bering Exploration, as I have already explained several times.

Assumptions about the lack of volume during Breitling’s first year as a public company are also a bit misguided.

The relatively small volume clearly demonstrates the lack of shares available, indicating that not many people actually wanted to sell. It is pretty typical with a stock that has a small public float.

The volume would have been much higher if people were willing to dump shares as you claim.

Instead, the PPS increased tenfold. That appreciation was more than a couple thousand dollars for a few savvy traders as you also claim.

I was not making any leaps when I claimed that Breitling was fully funded and profitable at the time they went public.

They existed for ten years as a private company without any need to sell shares. They were also profitable according to the quarterly financial report for the nine months ending Sept 2014.

As far as tickers being passed around like brewskis, it should be noted that most tickers are passed around by developmental stage companies that simply exist to sell shares and offer toxic debt.

We have already established beyond a doubt that Breitling is not a developmental stage company. Breitling was a profitable, fully funded company without any toxic debt, ten years in the making.

As you have stated, the only reason you have taken an interest here, is because the CEO of Breitling Energy BECC, Chris Faulkner, has more visibility as an industry advocate than someone like the CEO of Ultra Petroleum, Michael Watford.

Ultra Petroleum had assets of more than $2,958,000,000 and a share price of $30 in early 2014 before $WTIC collapsed.

It is interesting to me as to how Breitling Energy’s CEO Chris Faulkner, could have a bigger footprint in the oil and gas industry, than the CEO of a NYSE company that had over $2 Trillion in assets.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

[mackfish]

Trip Zips or Paint Drips? Coming to you soon

[FM II]

The PPS at that time was $.08. That was roughly $800,000 in stock to settle all outstanding debt and obligations, while picking up oil and gas interests that were valued at roughly $500,000 at the time according to the final BERX 10Q.

I don't know who would buy BERX at $0.08 and I certainly don't know who would buy BECC at $0.02 or any other price. I do know that there is a big difference in moving $8000 dollars worth of stock at $0.08 a share and moving 10 million shares.

BERX shareholders were permitted to maintain an equity stake in Breitling when they went public and enjoy the gains of the PPS appreciation.

Using your information, it looks like there was a 7.5% stake in BERX left undisturbed. That's 30 million shares with a current market value of $600,000. Since the largest daily value traded in BECC is around $500,000, dumping that stock would definitely move the market. But, since dumping 100% OF BERX would have been problematic, I can see how the stockholder's position might be improved. Something for nothing is an improvement regardless of how small. And if they were extraordinarily savvy, they could have unloaded a small portion of their shares at close to a $1. So it seems stockholders could walk away with a few thousand dollars if they played it right.

I will grant you that there are a lot of things CF does that I don't understand. I think there is a good chance that Breitling Oil and Gas was valueless at the time, since BECC had negative equity as of 12/31/2013. What a few dozen traders thought might be the value of the company is irrelevant, because a) the trade volume was so small and b) a tiny group's assessment of goodwill doesn't mean much. So 7.5% of nothing is still pretty small. From CF's standpoint he was giving up nothing at all.


Faulkner took a diluting, stock promoting and reverse splitting, POS going concern, company off the market and replaced with his own company that at the time was fully funded and profitable.

In this context, I am not sure what you mean by fully funded. If you mean no debt, OK. As to profitable, I think that is a bit of a leap.

[FM II]

Strange that I don’t see the same folks that are harassing Breitling Energy CEO Chris Faulkner, over on the Ultra Petroleum board harassing CEO Michael Watford

There are too many of them to harass them all; I picked Breitling. From my perspective there is one big difference between Michael Watford and Chris Faulkner. I have heard of Chris Faulkner. I have already explained why I harass CF as opposed to the thousands like him.

[FM II]

I misread reverse split as reverse merger. I really have no idea how many times the corporation has been passed around like a cold beer. Maybe never, until Breitling came along. I suppose I could look it up.

Does the size of an obligation that will never get paid matter? Does it matter whether it is called toxic debt or accounts receivable?

[mackfish]

Is it alcohol , poor vision or delusion on the deniers part? FM never posted about RS or toxic debt. I have inquired of the RS but not toxic debt, without receiving any answers. It should be perfectly accurate to portray judgements and other legal problems toxic, in light of the fact Faulkner has a long history of NEVER paying. Most recognize the real problem with the Brotherhood is in the BS PRs and a long history of exploration failures. Did I forget the never to be filings? Giggly reserve report? Laughable 2 mil research? Disappearing auditors and ghost BOD? Yugos, picante and disappearing ink? Last and most important for investors benefit, just how long has Breitling been public? ( Only important if you think Breitling can learn to discover commercial oil or gas sometimes in the future).

[FM II]

By making incorrect observations, you seem to be implying that Faulkner was responsible for Bering Exploration’s poor performance that was largely funded by toxic debt and CDs that were dilutive in nature and destructive to shareholders back then. You also falsely imply that Faulkner was responsible for executing two reverse splits (1 in 2010 and one in 2012.) That is also not the case.

I implied no such things. I didn't even insinuate them. In fact, I expressly said he wasn't involved and also implied he wasn't involved. If you are going to make up stuff about me, I am going to question your motives and your sincerity.

It is interesting how may times that corporation has been passed from failed management team to failed management team.

Was that $0.016 a new closing low? I don't remember.

[reaper247]

LOL, FM 11…

Yes, you were wrong and to not understand why it is a relevant detail, goes a long way in demonstrating why we continue to talk in circles about it.

Your assumptions seem to have gone awry again.

Making the observation that because there is a SEC filing history that goes back over five years, doesn’t mean that Breitling was public for that whole time. In fact, it is a silly assumption to make.

By making incorrect observations, you seem to be implying that Faulkner was responsible for Bering Exploration’s poor performance that was largely funded by toxic debt and CDs that were dilutive in nature and destructive to shareholders back then. You also falsely imply that Faulkner was responsible for executing two reverse splits (1 in 2010 and one in 2012.) That is also not the case.

If people don’t care, they should.

The benefit of doing a reverse merger should also be obvious to everyone.

While Breitling did issue shares to settle toxic debt and salary obligations of former officers and note holders, they did so by granting around 10,000,000 shares (I think it was less than that, but I am not bothering to look it up.)

The PPS at that time was $.08. That was roughly $800,000 in stock to settle all outstanding debt and obligations, while picking up oil and gas interests that were valued at roughly $500,000 at the time according to the final BERX 10Q.

While BERX did have total liabilities exceeding their total assets, its not really relevant and stock traders would simply refer to that as a shareholder “deficit,” rather than the “negative equity” term that you used.

There is no real reason to use big words, when small ones will work just as well.

BERX shareholders were permitted to maintain an equity stake in Breitling when they went public and enjoy the gains of the PPS appreciation.

Faulkner took a diluting, stock promoting and reverse splitting, POS going concern, company off the market and replaced with his own company that at the time was fully funded and profitable.

BTW, that is what I mean by protecting the integrity of share structures. Avoiding toxic debt, CDs, dilution, etc.

Breitling has never engaged in funding activities that would be destructive to shareholders, contrary to all the nonsense that gets posted on the blogs and boards.

While several people have claimed that the erosion in the Breitling PPS was due to dilution, all available information shows that to be wrong.

The underlying commodity tanked, causing hardships for almost every public company in the sector.

UPLMQ is a great example of one of the many NYSE/NASDAQ energy stocks that suffered similar or greater losses than BECC.

FKA UPL was trading @ $30 a share in early 2014 before hitting a low of $.16 a few weeks ago.

Strange that I don’t see the same folks that are harassing Breitling Energy CEO Chris Faulkner, over on the Ultra Petroleum board harassing CEO Michael Watford, even though that percentage loss to shareholders was about the same as Breitling’s.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

[FM II]

Breitling has not been a public company for five years as you have falsely claimed and it existed for about ten years before going public, not the six or eight that you incorrectly stated.

Just the fact that you stated "six or eight" years demonstrates that you didn’t know and were just guessing.


I have already answered those assumptions. The fact that you don't believe me is of no consequence whatsoever to me and....no one else cares.

[laraz5]

Oh Snap!! Pennies! hahahaha The day promoters said would never come, slapping right in the face..

most knew dirt ball Chris Faulkner would dilute his scam into sub pennies just a matter of time

Funny how one could try and sell an idea that a man who sold porn dvds became and oil and gas pro

but once a con always a con

IMO

[FM II]

Often times, people confuse paperwork with action. A permit can be seen as a sign of development. Someone might think registering an LLC establishes a functioning exploration company. It is much the same as thinking purchased radio time or awards or photographs or appearances on television establish a track record of finding commercial oil.

At the same time other people get confused about testing for performance and start acting as if inability to prove something false means it is true and inability to prove something true means it is false. All this dependent on a pre-conceived wish.

Let's say you are looking for an oil company that is going to fail because you have a need to lose some money. If you randomly pick an oil company, but limit the choice to only corporations who don't file required reports and where it is extremely difficult to verify their track record, you have very little chance of picking a successful company. But make sure they have no independent board members and no independent auditors. Check to make sure they have a bunch of default judgements against them because their lawyers quit. Also, check to make sure their exploration strategy is to drill in depleted areas.

[mackfish]

WHATS UP reaper? Aren't you aware the whole world (minus a few billion) is curious of your mother hen attitude towards the Brotherhood? LOL, that is most entertaining, considering the evidence. I mean come on now, everyone knows Breitling was over when the filing system was stolen by the help and eaten by the dog.
Woof Woof, that dog don't hunt

[FM II]

A completely different company, with different officers and employees that had no prior connection to Breitling.

I know that and implied that in the very post about BERX.

There is no getting around that Bering had negative shareholder equity. I mean that in the way everyone but you uses it, assets-liabilities.

Specifically, what assets did Bering have?

As I said before, Bering Exploration was a struggling company with a decent share structure and public float, with assets and liabilities that may have been advantageous to Breitling as they went public.

That's a lot of speculation. Bering was not a struggling company; it was a corpse.

He didn’t do that. He was conservative and tried to do the right thing for everyone involved, including the shareholders of BERX.

I suppose there is some substantive difference between taking 90% of a company and taking 100%. What stockholders were protected? After the creditors and CF et al took their share, what was left?

[reaper247]

You have stated several times what you think happened and I have shown you to be wrong.

Breitling has not been a public company for five years as you have falsely claimed and it existed for about ten years before going public, not the six or eight that you incorrectly stated.

Just the fact that you stated "six or eight" years demonstrates that you didn’t know and were just guessing.

Let me help you out.

Breitling Oil and Gas was originally formed in the State of Oklahoma on Oct. 15th 2004.



Breitling Oil and Gas officially became a public company as Breitling Energy in January 2014. These are undisputable facts that I thought we all agreed upon until your post saying the corporation ironically failed to find oil as BERX.

Breitling Energy didn’t trade under the ticker symbol BERX, Bering Exploration did.

A completely different company, with different officers and employees that had no prior connection to Breitling.

As for your claim that Faulkner looked for a burned out corporation to merge with, I believe we are talking in circles again.

As I said before, Bering Exploration was a struggling company with a decent share structure and public float, with assets and liabilities that may have been advantageous to Breitling as they went public.

Some of those assets may have had development potential, while some of those losses and liabilities may have provided some tax advantages to offset Breitling’s revenue going forward.

The equity that Faulkner was willing to give up in the newly trading public BECC, could’ve have been largely offset in what he gained from Bering.

In hindsight, it actually looks like a strategic move that would have beneficial to everyone. Nothing about the process Faulkner used to go public looks malicious to me as many continue to claim.

It would have actually been easier for Faulkner to find a burned out, abandoned shell corporation with a maxed out A/S, O/S and public float, done a massive R/S split wiping out everyone and starting fresh.

He didn’t do that. He was conservative and tried to do the right thing for everyone involved, including the shareholders of BERX.

Hope that helps.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

[mackfish]

Well reaper, there are still a couple of folks awaiting your dissertation on how an RM benefits SHs. It may be that info comes in handy if this stock bottoms up

[mackfish]

Well dang, FM, imagine my surprise. While D&D ing your post I've come to the irreversible conclusion that all these characters associated with the Brotherhood are nothing more than typical penny scammers. I sincerely hope one of them forgot enough cash in the getaway box to plug these worthless wells. I'm tired of bailing these POS scammers out of their plugging liabilities. When considering the blind hog finds an acorn on occasion parable the remote possibility of this scam legitimately looking out for investors benefit becomes even more evident. GIVE THE DAM MONEY BACK

[mackfish]

Well dang, FM, imagine my surprise. While D&D ing your post I've come to the irreversible conclusion that all these characters associated with the Brotherhood are nothing more than typical penny scammers. I sincerely hope one of them forgot enough cash in the getaway box to plug these worthless wells. I'm tired of bailing these POS scammers out of their plugging liabilities. When considering the blind hog finds an acorn on occasion parable the remote possibility of this scam legitimately looking out for investors benefit becomes even more evident. GIVE THE DAM MONEY BACK

[FM II]

Parker Hallam has something lined up. He is COO. He doesn't mention Breitling.

[FM II]

I can answer some of that. I don't know if there were any general public shareholders left, but if there were, they benefited by jettisoning worthless stock, thus cleaning up their portfolios. The insider shareholders, the officers, walked away from millions of dollars in debt (best I remember) and a corporation with less than zero value. They then were in a position to move on to their next "venture" and perhaps missed not a day of salary, but maybe they missed a few months while they lined up "investors" by touting their years of experience experience in the pharmaceutical business or the oil business or the gold mining business. They probably had some things lined up before the deal with Breitling. Heck, CF had been running Breitling for years before CI collapsed. He walked away from CI, ducked a $700,000 judgement and the rest is history. I really doubt he missed a day of salary.

Maybe the insiders had some plaques showing they were the best North American Gold company. Maybe they had some pictures of themselves standing next to a Senator. In any case, the messy business of BERX was in their past, never to be spoken of again.

Based on Breitling oil and Gas's reported value, CF et al gave up about $15,000 in equity to appease the creditors. They gave up less than zero value to gain something with the possibility of value. They cleaned up their loan portfolio and wrote off the loans, cleaning up their balance sheet. We know now that the reported value of Breitling probably was incorrect. BECC is working on figuring the number out and will get back to us as soon as practicable. I have a feeling that the number will go down.

It is possible that BECC went public without giving up a dollar in value.

One could go crazy trying to track ownership of the various people and corporations, so if anyone has some enlightening information, I would be interested. If someone knows I got some unimportant detail wrong, I am not interested, but it's a free country.

[FM II]

BTW Reaper,

You failed to mention that BECC made a new intra-day low. Did you fail to mention that because it doesn't support your claims or was it because you don't mention things that don't relate to your point at the time? Or is it that you simply don't track that because it is unimportant? Just wondering, it seems like someone discussing stock trading would mention that.

[FM II]

I didn’t mention that permits can be transferred, because its common knowledge and not the case in this situation.

Is that kinda like saying you didn't mention something because it was not particularly relevant or important to your point? You failed to mention offset permits, are you trying to hide something or just not reporting every possible irrelevancy? Did you not even check offset permits? I mean just because they are unimportant to your point doesn't mean you should stop scouring.

By the way, I use commercial data gatherers so I don't scour the RRC site much at all. I use it to document things, since it is first source and sometimes I will check a specific well. You can't ask the RRC site a question like, "Show me every well in X county deeper than Y." Being able to search that way really speeds things up. You should give it a try if you ever decide to invest any serious money in the oil business.

[FM II]

I am not confused, I know exactly what happened and I stated it several times. CF looked around for a burned out corporation; he paid off the creditors with a stake in the corporation, thus avoiding the expense, rules, and scrutiny of an IPO. It is that simple. I still don't know what integrity of share structure means.

BTW, the SEC is not confused either:

[FM II]

You are correct. In April, you used an October permit filing as evidence that Breitling was continuing its drilling program. Now that I understand that, my only response is "OK." You can't hear the laughter, LOL as you like to write.

[mackfish]

BTW reaper, could you post the advantages of a RM in a company with a poor pps and low production numbers to include Breitling share structure and how SHs could benefit? Aren't there some requirements to be met beforehand?

[mackfish]

I'm happy to learn your awareness of a possible permit transfer. Of course, this is a face saver if the well performs as poorly as its neighbors. Then again, Steller or any other amateur operator can take responsibility for not drilling or fracing a 3 legged horizontal. If I may suggest, the transfer should be immediate in that if it is never drilled, one could shift the blame to Steller

[reaper247]

LOL mackfish,

That is hilarious.

I didn’t mention that permits can be transferred, because its common knowledge and not the case in this situation.

Lease rights and operating permits get transferred all the time.

In fact, in this case, my previous screenshot clearly shows a conflict being resolved with the TRRC before a permit was issued, because the original lease rights were granted to Clayton Williams NYSE: CWEI, and later granted to Breilting in the farmout agreement.

I can understand how some people are confused on actual facts, since the TRRC needed some clarification as well.

I will post it again for those who don’t understand.



Please take note of the code 30 description and permit conflict resolution posted by TRRC staff dated 1/25/2016.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

[mackfish]

Wrong again, reaper. No one said the permit wasn't posted several times, or that the Brotherhood didn't have a trrc assigned p5. You missed the point again in that not mentioning the fact the permit can be transferred and that some other entity can take over operations. SHs may be concerned in that Breitling has failed to show expected results with their super secret fracing formula. Could that be because of expense or obvious lack of expertise? That's OK, you don't have to explain the well bore lacks the standard characteristics necessary for that extra expense. Better luck next time

[reaper247]

LOL mackfish,

I didn’t make an assumption. In fact, I posted a sreenshot of the TRRC permit approval showing Breitling as the Operator.


I will elaborate for those who don’t understand. This is the screenshot of the permit details.


If anyone else cares to claim that I am making assumptions, maybe they should actually research API number 43133495 or Breitling Energy’s operator number 090727 before wasting peoples time.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

[reaper247]

You still seem confused on how reverse mergers work. This corporation (Breitling Energy) never existed as Bering Exploration.

Two separate, unrelated companies until Breitling Energy went public and Bering Exploration ceased to exist. Breitling Energy only traded under the BERX ticker for a brief time while internal ticker and name changes were made and then posted by FINRA after the SEC and DTCC approvals.

People get this wrong when they fail to realize that Breitling Energy has only been a public company for a couple of years, not the five that you falsely claimed.

Hope that gives you a starting point to begin researching on how this all works.

As you know, I am here to help.

IMO and FWIW.

[mackfish]

I think you made another wrong assumption here. There are 3 entities known here with all 3 having legal ability to operate in Texas. Are you saying the name of the entity on the permit is the same as the operating entity?
Is Steller abandoning ship? Certainly Claty wants nothing in the deal that has cost outlay involved. Considering
all the above, it seems you are only making muddy water darker by leaving the Brotherhood as the operating entity. Then again, the well could be made into a public showcasing of the Fracmasters world class completion talent. What a tangled web we weave when we attempt --well you know the rest of the story

[reaper247]

That's what I thought. There's nothing to really even attempt to refute.

What I am saying is that the latest drilling permit approval in January coincides with the time frame of CWEI farmout drilling obligations.

The fact that you weren't aware of it doesn't matter much.

Glad we worked it all out and can finally move on.

IMO and FWIW.

[mackfish]

Yes, it is interesting to watch. Lack of success on the Brotherhoods part has caused a major downturn in comic book sales as futile attempt after attempt at painting a rosy picture of this company's past activities and future are posted on a daily basis in hopes of calming nerves of past investors and others considering investing with these amateurs. I'm giving odds the Brotherhood neither drills or operates the very mature permit under discussion

[FM II]

Ironically, the corporation didn't find any oil when it was BERX. I have this vision of these guys getting together and passing corporations one management team to the left, shedding debt with each cycle, but maintaining their salary. CF hasn't done that in the oil business and I doubt he will, but it will be interesting to watch.

[FM II]

Well, whatever, not worth refuting. I'll simply repeat my earlier responses by reference, because, oddly, there is nothing new to say and it doesn't have anything to do with BECC's performance.

So what you are saying is that you used a permit filing in October to back up the claim in April that BECC is moving ahead? OK, now it is clear. I honestly thought you were trying to refute something I said.

[mackfish]

LOL reaper, If the Brotherhood was guilty of owning all the sterling qualities you so generously attribute to them, the question begging an answer is Why Cant Breitling Find Oil? Even late filings can be given a break if you can produce commercial product. At this time, partners and SHs have discovered the Brotherhood is just "playing oilmen" and are completely incapable of running either admin duties or discovery oil.
Clary won't be waiting on any more checks, because he knows the Brotherhood has learned their lesson in economics after the last gigantic gaff. I'm giving odds, if the Yugo is smokin

[reaper247]

I thought it made perfect sense. I am sorry the point eludes you.

About a month ago, I said that it looked like Breitling was moving ahead with the next well in the CWEI farmout. Some got upset because I didnt “back up” my claim.

Comments were made that I was wrong because of a lack of activity on company websites.

I didnt get my info from company websites, I got it from the TRRC site.

Its the same site that some claim to monitor for Breitling activity. I am just pointing out the fact that some people didnt see it and yet, were willing to make snarky comments.

I understand that a permit approval does not guarantee a well will actually be drilled, but I also understand that the CWEI farmout agreement is based on a 180 day drilling clause, rather than the typical 90 day that some people falsely assumed.

The drilling permit falls into the timeframe that would suggest Breitling continues to move forward.

As far as “busting in” goes, no worries I guess. I am happy to correct misinformation when I see it even if it involves older, incorrect posts.

Your words.

I gave Breitling Oil and Gas the benefit of the doubt by correctly saying the company had been around for six to eight years. If you want to embarrass yourself by begging the question go ahead.

I have posted the screen shot that shows Breitling originally being formed in 2004 from the Oklahoma SOS site. There cant possibly be any further debate on this one.

I also understand how so many critics and anti-fracking bloggers got it wrong. The Texas SOS Articles of Incorporation were filed in 2009, which roughly coincides with the time that Faulkner sold his remaining interest in the web hosting company.

Alot of people assumed that he immediately went from one sector to another at that time.

Nobody bothered to look outside of Texas for earlier registrations in other states.

That kinda seems to be the foundation for people being critical of Breitling and Faulkner though.

Faulkner stated that Breitling has over a decade of experience in the oil and gas industry and people claimed he wasnt being honest.

The simple fact is that his statements are true and all the publically available information proves it.

IMO and FWIW.

[FM II]

If you hear anything, let us know. I have a Pacer account set up, but in the few times I used it, I never felt I was seeing everything.

[FM II]

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.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Since a permit application is not an actual well and is nothing in development, it is useless as to predicting future performance of wells. A permit is Breitling betting $625 that they might drill a well in a particular location in the near future, which in October, I had virtually no doubt was true. If you want to talk about someone "scouring" useless information it would be "someone" looking at permits to predict well performance or, in this case, to predict future drilling activity. In order to give yourself some minimal understanding you should look at a database that contains expired permits.

Your point does still elude me.

By the way, I do, from time to time, look at the drilling wire to see if Steller, Breitling, or Atoka has spudded a well. One of the reasons I can't be sure I didn't see the permit, it being inconsequential and all.

My apologies reaper for bursting in. I thought you were commenting on that old irrelevant discussion we were having about the origins of Breitling. You know, the one where we both possessed the same knowledge and understanding, but you couldn't move past?

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.

[reaper247]

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.

The stock promotion thing is irrelevant to my opinions and statements.

The obvious lack of any BECC stock promotion was the topic of the thread that I was commenting on before you chimed in.

Maybe we would all be better off and better informed, if posters would just start a new thread or topic, rather than just spouting off and interrupting the current topic of discussion.

IMO and FWIW.

[mackfish]

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