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 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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Pffftttt FM 11,
Yes, I incorrectly made a comment on the depth of a single well, because I looked at the permit depth rather than the completion depth and I acknowledged my mistake.
I also stated that early 2016 was the application date for the latest Sterling County prospect, when it was actually the approval date. To be fair though, I posted a screen shot of the TRRC page, so I assume most people understood my point.
For those who didn’t get my point, it was that while "someone" is willing to scour the TRRC site and make guesses at which wells Breitling may be participating in, they were completely oblivious to fairly recent activity showing an actual well in development stages with progress that can actually be verified for anyone who is interested.
Its hardly the same thing as posting incorrect information and then spending months trying to defend it, or divert attention from it when it is shown to be false, according to all the publically available information.
What?? After spending a thimble full of pennies on reapers word the Brotherhood was pure as driven snow. Dang, just shows you can't believe anything these penny promoters say. Anyway, if true, pacer will have it by 3pm mañana
SEC Action against Breitling?
A guy I know in Dallas says that the SEC has moved against Breitling. He did not have many details...when and how. Anyone heard any details, is it true?
I submitted SEC and Texas Securities Board complaints about a month ago.
Just saying that the public information shows that Chris Faulkner seems to have done everything in his power to protect Breitling Energy shareholders by maintaining the integrity of the share structure.
I am afraid I don't really understand the term integrity of the share structure. I know that at the end of the day, CF et al ended up with at least 90% of the stock in the corporation formerly known as BERX. My memory is that most if not all of the remaining shares went to creditors in order to release debt that would not have otherwise gone away when BERX bought Breitling Oil and Gas with BERX shares. Now, the creditors exchanged worthless debt for a stake in BECC and perhaps sold some of the shares.
I am not going to re-read the agreement because it hardly matters if I get it exactly right, but what shareholders got protected? Since CF got real value for the leftover stock, the release of debt, why would anyone assume his motive was anything other than getting rid of said debt? HE "went public" by giving up about $15,000 worth of equity. That is certainly lower than your estimate of a typical cost of $50,000.
I must say, I have hardly any experience with reverse mergers, so I have a genuine uncertainty. Part of the agreement, I assume negotiated by the creditors, was a no-dilution agreement. The BOD agreed to a dilution that never took place. If I were a creditor, I would have been long gone by the time that clause expired. Because the creditors loaned money to BERX, I have my concerns about their business acumen, so I don't know what they did.
So who got protected? Shareholders who bought in at a market value of $500 million?
Admittedly, CF could have diluted the shares, but the dilution would have affected himself. Back in June you suggested, by implication, that the lack of dilution indicated that CF believed BECC was or could be a viable company. I think you were correct. CF also on two occasions bought around $5000 of stock (number is from memory, anyone who wants the exact number can look on Edgar or on my earlier posts). You suggested that that indicates CF thought BECC had value. I tend to agree with you, except that it is an extremely small amount. At the time and to this day, CF owns millions in market valued stock, so was that a genuine effort to increase his stake? IF so, why the de minimis amount? I truly don't know, so I have no problem stipulating that CF thought BECC had value through March of last year. On the other hand, CF has done such odd and ill-advised things in promoting himself and his company, I have to acknowledge that he may have been generating an SEC filing for promotional purposes. I am not talking about stock promotion so it would be off subject for anyone to go there.
Well, actually, I was talking about the recent time you used the phrase in connection with me not mentioning that Breitling filed a permit in October. You said earlier this year, but it was, in fact, in October. You also misstated well depths. People make mistakes, including you, get over it.
The stock promotion thing is irrelevant to my opinions and statements.
LOL reaper. It would be to your and the Brotherhoods benefit to show an employment contract or invoice for payment to your reserve estimation guru you seem so proud of. Yep, I know-- it doesn't exist
LOL, reaper How novel. Some folk keep bringing up SEC-disclosures. Some folk laugh at them. Integrity? Is that a new generation definition? Kinda like you falling for the old reserve report trick
LOL... FM 11, that is funny.
Yes, I use that phrase all the time. I have also stated why I use it so often.
If someone comes on here and says Breitling Energy gave free shares to BOD appointees, I am simply stating that it is wrong and SEC disclosure statements show it.
If someone comes on here and says that Breitling was dumping shares on the way up or down after they went public, SEC docs show it is not possible because those shares were restricted.
In fact, publically available information shows Faulkner buying shares during the time when multiple posters who didnt bother to read the filings, claimed he was dumping them.
If someone else comes on here and makes the claim of Breitling being around for 8 or 9 years and being public for at least five, I know it is incorrect and have directed people to the appropriate filings to see for themselves.
If someone claims that Breitling admitted to participating in a stock promotion, or that I am an insider, stock promoter or troll, I can LOL at that as well.
All of the sudden though, some people want to claim that these facts are irrelevant.
How convenient, after they have easily been shown to be false.
I am not the one regurgitating these arguments, yet I am constantly criticized publically and privately for simply responding to them.
I have said for months that these are dumb arguments to have and an epic waste of everyones time.
Just saying that the public information shows that Chris Faulkner seems to have done everything in his power to protect Breitling Energy shareholders by maintaining the integrity of the share structure.
IMO and FWIW.
LOL Laraz. Texas oil is multicolored
so close to .01 Then on to sub penny...The BECC scam on its last leg of fraudulism..
Chris Faulkner should be in jail
Where he can really drill for oil
IMO
Like I have said before, whether someone is oblivious to the facts or is knowingly posting incorrect information is irrelevant.
The last time you posted that phrase it was in reference to my not posting some irrelevant information, yet there is a vast amount of irrelevant and relevant information you didn't post. You haven't posted much information lately. Perhaps because there is so little to post.
LOL reaper. You are right to be sorry. Too late now for apologies
Sorry mackfish,
While the lack of financial statements are a legitimate complaint, there are enough material event filings to show that false claims of share dumping, free shares to BOD appointees and stock promotions are nonsense.
All the jokes about picante sauce, yugos and invisible ink have been epic waste of everyone’s time.
Like I have said before, whether someone is oblivious to the facts or is knowingly posting incorrect information is irrelevant.
LOL, IMO and FWIW.
LOL reaper, filings headed later and later. Is there indication of being written in invisible ink or a problem with Yugo Express? Investors and partners want to know
I have no way of knowing how much water the well is making or where the pump is set, but there is a good chance the well is not making operating expenses. The potential test showed a lot of water, but it was close enough to the frac job that most of that water could have been frac water.
The PI scout card showed tubing was set below the top of perforations, suggesting a deep pump, but that could have easily changed.
With the well making less than 10 BOPD, I wonder if anyone would be interested in a workover if the rods part. A few months should tell.
FLUSH? Ain't that the sucking sound of SH or partners going down the drain?
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: |