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.
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.
Wow, I am a bit surprised. I don't check back here very often. Do you have a link so I can add the info to my collection?
"This initial decision revokes the registration of Respondent’s registered securities due to its failure to timely file required periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2016/id1055jsp.pdf
I know that most people have lost interest in Breitling, and rightly so, but I continue to check in from time-to-time. For some reason, Google came up with this article and I don't think it had in the past. For those interested, this article gives some insight into the evolution of the Breitling tale. The careful reader will notice contradictions with later statements.
http://opportunistmagazine.com/chris-faulkner-ceo-of-breitling-oil-and-gas-corp/
Breitling missed a deadline.
https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders/2016/ap-4052.pdf
Perhaps not so serious for Faulkner. He has a couple of inactive corporations in Wyoming just sitting there to be used in the next venture.
Somehow I feel that the below-referenced website is about to get much more sophisticated. Grand Mesa was created in 2007, so I guess Faulkner has been in the real estate business for nine years. May I introduce Real Estate Master? I am sure CNBC will be interviewing him about the global real estate markets.
Someone should create a Grand Mesa board in anticipation of the IPO.
http://grandmesainvestments.com/
I am not experienced in the underbelly of stock trading. Is there, in fact, a reverse merger that turned into a viable company?
With regard to reaper's steadfast reliance on insider trading filings, isn't the SEC claiming Faulkner covered up his trades?
I have to assume that one could make money off even a grifter's company by timing trades. Anyone ever done that consistently? Did it involve promoting the stock on investorhub.com?
I will say one thing for hindsight, a lot of news organizations should be feeling very stupid right now. Here is an article by Reuters. It is full of nonsense. The 3D seismic could influence recovery factor is just babble. With hindsight, I seriously doubt Breitling ever controlled 200 thousand mineral acres.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-breitling-ipo-idUSBRE9610OM20130702
First email I sent telling a reporter to take a closer look was July 2013. No real hindsight in my case. You even commented on some of my 2014 posts. Unfortunately. no one who had contact with CF bothered to ask a few simple questions.
I think it was 2013, I called Breitling and was handed off to the president of Crude, Hallem, I think. I asked how many wells they operated and he told me I should call Joe Simo for that information. Big red flag when the President of Crude didn't seem to know that they didn't operate any wells.
Unfortunately, like you, a lot of people evaluated BECC by the number of politicians CF had lunch with and how many times he appeared on cable news. (Actually, I don't know that you evaluated BECC, your motivation for denying reality is unknown to me.) In the past year, everything you have said of any substance proved false, including your crowing about BECC successes. Now you want to cover your dumbassery by blaming others and changing the subject. You were warned and you still didn't bother to check. You bothered to post absurdities, though.
You were wrong at every turn and that was with multiple warnings laying out exactly what was wrong, no evidence of experience and exaggeration of experience. Now, I will admit, that the SEC has more resources than me including the possibility of getting someone to roll on CF so they came up with things I didn't know about, but some I suspected. I didn't mention all my suspicions because I go by evidence. Unfortunately, that is one thing you have little interest in.
You were wrong in a big way and you have spent a year saying some of the dumbest things about BECC like, somehow, you knew something about it.
I'm sorry, but you spent the last year begging for an "I told ya so."
A lot of the things the SEC brought up I had no way of proving so I didn't say anything. I did, in a crystal clear way, state that I thought that CF was exaggerating his experience in a big way.
Interestingly, the SEC made a big deal of Crude Energy and Patriot being effectively the same company. I just assumed that was a non-issue because it was so obvious that it was.
...and "integrity of share structure" still has me stumped.
One of the reasons I have stuck around is to counter the silly things you said, hoping that a few people would do their own research and question the validity of BECC. That and you kept saying I was wrong when I was not.
Literally days ago you were trying to convince people that Breitling began in 2004.
TD,
Thank you for posting a picture of my floating rig. ...no wait, I think I have been reading to much Faulkner. (Chris, not Bill)
I would suggest everyone thinking about investing in the oil industry read the complaint. The SEC claims Faulkner et al engaged in every common oil scam I can think of. There was a variation of selling more than 100% of a well that I had not seen before.
After you read it once, go back, read it again and think about what you would have to know in order to detect the fraud. If you are widely experienced in the oil business the suspicious circumstances are obvious. If you are a layman, it might be difficult to spot them.
I never saw any of promotional material or deal descriptions, but what the SEC describes is definitely not standard for the industry, a real big red flag, but only if you know what is standard.
I think some didn't understand my mild sarcasm. It is really my fault because I assume people have been following this board for awhile and that may not be the case.
It was Reaper247 that used the term "integrity of the share structure."
Yes, but Breitling did file for a drilling permit in October,which obviously proved I was wrong about them going dark.
Yes, but Faulkner "protected the integrity of the share structure."
As soon as BOG began offering investments in oil-and-gas prospects, Faulkner
misrepresented his education, experience, and background. He claimed to have earned master’s
and doctorate degrees from universities, which he had not. He represented that he had extensive
and diverse experience “in all aspects of oil and gas operations,” when he had no such
experience. In fact, his only exposure to the oil-and-gas industry was through website data
hosting work he and his prior company, C I Host, performed for oil-and-gas companies. Yet, he
promoted himself as an expert in the oil-and-gas industry, even branding himself as the “Frack
Master.” He also paid a public relations firm to promote him and to book appearances on
television and radio shows
At this point I suspect that this claim by the SEC is materially correct. I have never stated it so bluntly, because I could not prove it. Perhaps the SEC has more info than I.
I looked up the date of the first emails I sent to newspapers and to Breitling itself inquiring about their experience. It was in mid 2013.
Yes, reaper, I don't know anything about trading penny stocks, but I do know a little about the petroleum business.
Reaper, you are wrong.
There is no doubt that company did exist before the Articles of Incorporation were filed in Texas in 2009, because Breitling Oil and Gas was originally formed in Oklahoma.
I think one has to make some fairly bold assumptions for that to be true, assumptions that I think couldn't be more wrong.
First, you could define any company associated with CF as Breitling Oil and Gas. CF was associated with some 32 corporations and LLCs. If you use that definition, BECC goes back to the 1990s and definitely not formed in OK.
Second, if you think Southwest Energy Exploration is Breitling Oil and Gas, you would have to have a reason. At least I think so. Someone, anyone, can form up an LLC, apparently in a different state from one's residency or main office. There doesn't seem to be any requirement that an LLC do anything but keep current on filing, so there is no public evidence that a member of Southwest Energy Exploration, LLC did anything. CF probably did have some dealings in the oil business, but how would one know whether it had anything to do with Southwest Energy? So you are back to the first problem.
You could define Breitling Oil and Gas as any activity of CF or his partners in the oil business, then it goes back maybe 30 years.
I think, for simplicity, because it doesn't really matter, that we should assume that Breitling Oil and Gas came into existence when a company by that name associated with CF came into existence. That would be 2009.
Reaper, you have never explained why you think Southwest Energy Exploration is Breitling Oil and Gas, so I have to speculate as to why. I do know that CF agrees with you in a sense. He thinks Southwest Energy Exploration is the same as Breitling Energy Corp.
As I mentioned in another post, Southwestern had a primary business address in Bedford, TX. Whitepages.com suggests that that same address was once that of Christopher Faulkner.
In other words, it looks like CF came up with the idea of buying his own company and issuing a press release talking about the deal they negotiated.
Among other things, I do not think this is true:
According to the OK SOS, Southwest Energy Exploration was formed in October 2004 by Liz A Minnaugh, 2711 Centerville Rd, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE, 19808. At least in OK, the person filing articles of organization does not have to be a member of the LLC. The principal business address of Southwest was 1901 Central Drive, Suite 750, Bedford, TX.
I strongly suspect, CF negotiated a great acquisition with himself. A request for reinstatement must by signed by the manager, so the November 2009 Reinstatement should be interesting. I think CF was able to convince himself to stay on for five years, but I will endeavor to document this.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breitling-oil-and-gas-corporation-reaches-agreement-to-acquire-100-of-oklahoma-oil-and-gas-exploration-company-80334472.html
I am looking into who established the LLC in 2004. I will post what I find out.
Time for a summary. Below is the history of CF's company in Oklahoma. That would cover the period of 2004 to 2009. Note the gaps. Below is a screenshot of the BECC November 2014 corporate presentation.
We know that CF has claimed to have global operations and to have fracked thousands of wells over a long period of time (vagueness is his). So, I must ask during this post mortem period, do these claims make sense?
Does anyone really believe that the OK LLC that kept coming and going was actively involved in fracking thousands of wells and chose the latest technology to do it as CF would have you believe? Then there was Breitling Oil and Gas, Inc., in the four years of its existence, did it do what CF claims? That would put it ahead of some of the larger independents in the country in terms of drilling. B O&G is covered by the corporate presentation. Does that look like the presentation of a global company that has actively participated in technology selection and the fracking of thousands of wells? The company participated in its first horizontal well in 2009. So were these thousands of wells fracked wells vertical, must have been because there simply no way Breitling participated in thousands of horizontal wells in the 4 or 5 years between 2009 and when he started his claims. Between 1/1/2009 and 1/1/2015 approximately 84,000 horizontal wells were completed. In the same period, slightly less than 300,000 wells were drilled, so in order for CF's insinuations to be true he would have had to influence the design of a noticeable portion of all drilled wells. And yet he is almost unknown in the industry except for his own assertions.
So, other than Reaper, is anyone buying this stuff?
Now someone can post here that I have proved nothing and in some universe that would be true, but you have to suspend a lot of disbelief to buy the Breitling story as CF presented it. Maybe there was another company that CF formed up that he worked on part time and never mentioned.
Does it make any sense at all that this global company with thousands of fracked wells is now ducking process servers and has no right to do business in its home state?
It is certainly possible that everything CF said was technically true and that is why I said I had never caught him in a lie, but I smelled a rat early on because of my experience and I hope some people listened.
Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC:
FILING HISTORY :
Document Number Filing Type Filing Date
2063640002 Articles of Organization October 15, 2004
4720217732 Terminated March 14, 2006
13357880004 Reinstatement November 23, 2009
15091400002 Articles of Amendment July 20, 2010
15929430049 Terminated December 15, 2010
16100120002 Reinstatement January 13, 2011
18211510084 Terminated December 15, 2011
22234390002 Reinstatement July 11, 2013
23330480008 Terminated December 15, 2013
24014350002 Reinstatement March 11, 2014
25482410002 Change of Registered Agent and/or Office and/or Principal OfficeSeptember 24, 2014
25716820002 Annual Certificates October 14, 2014
29092530047 Terminated December 15, 2015
NAMES INFORMATION
Name Name TypeName Status Creation Date
BREITLING OIL AND GAS LLC Legal Inactive December 15, 2015
SOUTHWEST ENERGY EXPLORATION, LLCLegal Inactive December 15, 2015
Reaper, why don't you focus for a moment on facts rather than definitions. I formed a theory, clearly stated that it was not proven. If should be trivially easy for you to disprove all of it and I welcome it, it would further my understanding. Here is the points of substance from my post, if you are interested in substance:
Using your logic, the assumption could be made that Breitling Energy has existed as a corporation for 16 years.
No need to assume and no need to use my logic. There is no logic involved; it is documented fact that the corporation now named Breitling Energy (BECC) existed for 16 years. (No I didn't check, I presume you got the date right.) Every authority I have checked, including the Texas Comptroller knows that BECC is a NV corporation and has existed as a NV corporation since, you know, it was incorporated. The fact that you assert otherwise is of no consequence.
I think it is hilarious that you completely ignored the fact that there was no Breiting Oil and Gas in Texas or Oklahoma before 2009. You like to nit pick what I say, but only that which is convenient for you.
Rather than mental gymnastics and assumptions about the company’s history, maybe you could simply share the date that you believe Breitling became a public company, and how you came to your conclusion.
Already done several times.
I have stated that BECC became a public company in January, 2014 based on filings from the SOS, SEC and FINRA.
Anyone can verify.
Already discussed several times
Please share your source for your claims. I would like to see if I am actually wrong.
Which claims? That BECC is a NV corporation founded more than 5 years ago? That would be the SEC.
BTW, sourcing bloggers pretending to be journalists at the Dallas Observer, or any other liberal leaning, anti-fracking buffoon’s website should be immediately dismissed by any casual observer as nonsense.
...and you, who have nothing left to bring to the table can only insult people and papers, but cannot bring any evidence to dispute the facts from the sources. Yes, I know there are complete idiots that think that liberal papers can't ask a question and publish the answer. I made several statements, never once said they are known to be true, provided sources including the OK SOS and above is your response. Sad.
So why don't you bring something to the discussion. When did Southwest Energy Exploration change its name to Breitling Oil and Gas? Got anything? ...anything at all, oh expert on Breitling history?
Did CF form up Southwest Energy Exploration, use the LLC off and on for five years then form Breitling Oil and Gas, Inc., buy his own company and crow about what a deal he negotiated? Surely that is not true and surely you know the correct story, expert that you are. Easy stuff for a trader like you. Got anything? ...anything at all?
And my other question as per usual still hangs unanswered, by what criteria is Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC the same company as Breitling Oil and Gas, Inc. We will be waiting for a substantive response. I have a feeling we will be waiting a long time.
You have consistently claimed Breitling was formed in 2004, which CF himself disputes so you are wrong. You have tried to what? discredit me? BECC no longer has the right to do business in Texas, in the things that matter, I don't see how I could have been more correct.
TIA, LOL, IMO and FWIW.
Here is a quote about "Southwest Energy Exploration" that appeared in the Texas Observer:
I looked up the history of Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC in Oklahoma. There seem to be gaps in its existence. I would think this is no big deal if one is not conducting business in OK. Here is the thing, though, when trying to document the existence of Breitling, I can't find any corporation called Breitling Oil and Gas to fill in the gaps. With CF's love of corporations and LLC's, I find that odd. He could have been working as a single proprietorship, in which case I would have missed it. In any case, with Breitling Oil and Gas researching and innovating and drilling thousands of fracked wells, there should be a corporation associated with it. I probably missed it so if anyone can help...
I did find a Breitling Oil and Gas that did not appear to be a corporation. Here is its office, best I can tell
https://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Dallas/4044-Pringle-Dr-Dallas-TX-75212-a46941578.aspx
Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC:
FILING HISTORY :
Document Number Filing Type Filing Date
2063640002 Articles of Organization October 15, 2004
4720217732 Terminated March 14, 2006
13357880004 Reinstatement November 23, 2009
15091400002 Articles of Amendment July 20, 2010
15929430049 Terminated December 15, 2010
16100120002 Reinstatement January 13, 2011
18211510084 Terminated December 15, 2011
22234390002 Reinstatement July 11, 2013
23330480008 Terminated December 15, 2013
24014350002 Reinstatement March 11, 2014
25482410002 Change of Registered Agent and/or Office and/or Principal OfficeSeptember 24, 2014
25716820002 Annual Certificates October 14, 2014
29092530047 Terminated December 15, 2015
NAMES INFORMATION
Name Name TypeName Status Creation Date
BREITLING OIL AND GAS LLC Legal Inactive December 15, 2015
SOUTHWEST ENERGY EXPLORATION, LLCLegal Inactive December 15, 2015
I don't understand. It has exactly the same name as Patriot Energy, why do you think it is a different company. The only evidence you presented that the Oklahoma LLC was the same as the Texas Corporation is a listing of there names.
Is there more to the story? Specifically, how do you know Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC is the same company as Breitling Oil and Gas, Inc. Is is that the ownership is the same? Is it that the management is the same? Or is it arbitrary judgment on your part.
I have always known CF was in the oil business in 2004 and I said so before you started this strange tirade, but since I was talking about lack of innovation rather than some bizarre argument about when Breitling started, I really didn't describe his history.
So let me get as technical and nit-picky as you. Tell us why Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC and Breitling Oil and Gas, Inc. are the same company? Clearly you think we can't go by name.
Whether we are referring to Breitling as a company or a corporation is irrelevant
It is relevant as to whether I was right on wrong. The corporation was incorporated in Navada and had been public for more than five years.
Patriot Energy has branched out.
http://www.patriotenergyllc.com/
Breitling Energy was spun off and officially became a public company on January 25 2014.
I don't think you know what the term "spun off" means, but if BECC had been spun off, it would be one of those markers I might refer to, such as "in the two and a half years since it spun off."
Breitling Oil and Gas did become a Texas corporation on September 28 2009, but that doesn’t mean that it didnt exist before then.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. The company, perhaps with the same management, and employees, could exist before then, but not the corporation, an obvious point I have been making for what?, a year?
It just means that it grew and evolved into the company that quite a few people have taken an interest in and are apparently trying to learn about.
That is a way of stating what I have been making for about a year. It was inappropriate to hold Breitling..., LLC or Chris Faulkner accountable for not innovating because the LLC was probably small, definitely obscure, and it would be reasonable that Chris Faulkner's innovation claims only covered the period where Breitling was promoting itself.
If you really enjoy saying I am wrong you might want to work on something of substance. You jumped on this before and claimed it was wrong. Care to actually prove it wrong? Surely in the months that have passed there is some evidence that it is incorrect.
It was obvious that Breitling Oil and Gas had been around for over ten years, rather than the six or eight that you spent months insisting on. Glad we can also agree that Breitling has only been a public company for about two years, rather than the five that you also falsely assumed.
I question your ability to understand English as well as context. I vary carefully explained a long time ago that I was referring to the corporation that bought Breitling oil and gas.
I also claimed that the corporation that is now called Breitling Energy existed for at least 5 years, which is absolutely true and documented by the SEC and presumably by the Secretary of State of Utah.
That’s not really what you claimed, but I think we can agree to overlook it.
My memory is that that is exactly what I said. Are you now claiming that Breitling Energy is different from the corporation that is now called Breitling Energy.
Also not sure why you continue to make presumptions though. Why do you presume the Utah SOS would show any information for Breitling?
I am not sure why you think I made such an assumption. The assumption I made was that the corporation that is now called Breitling Energy is chartered in Utah. I actually made a mistake, it is incorporated in Nevada.
From the SEC:
Breitling Energy Corp CIK#: 0001229089 (see all company filings)
SIC: 1311 - CRUDE PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS
State location: TX | State of Inc.: NV | Fiscal Year End: 1231
As I said before, I work from memory because this doesn't justify checking.
Here is a list of corporations, in OK, whose name starts with Beitling. Not a Breitling Energy among them. I suppose I could latch onto the fact that you don't know where BECC was incorporated and make a big deal out of it, but that would be stupid.
Filing Number Name Entity Type Registered Agent Name Type & Status
3512414322 BREITLING ATM, LLC Domestic Limited Liability Company CECIL TUCK
ROLAND OK Legal
Former
3512410998 BREITLING AVIATION LLC Domestic Limited Liability Company NIKIA DENNY
TULSA OK Legal
In use
3512051153 BREITLING OIL AND GAS LLC Domestic Limited Liability Company INCORP SERVICES, INC
OKLAHOMA CITY OK Legal
Inactive
2312469197 BREITLING HOLDINGS CORPORATION Foreign For Profit Business Corporation INCORP SERVICES, INC.
OKLAHOMA CITY OK Legal
Inactive
3512326191 BREITLING INVESTMENTS, LLC Domestic Limited Liability Company JORDAN BOEHS
EDMOND OK Legal
Inactive
1900533132 BREITLING ENTERPRISES, INC. Domestic For Profit Business Corporation DERREL S WHITE
YUKON OK Legal
Inactive
3512414322 BREITLING BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC Domestic Limited Liability Company CECIL TUCK
ROLAND OK Legal
Inactive
2312425877 BREITLING ENERGY COMPANIES, INC. Foreign For Profit Business Corporation THE CORPORATION COMPANY
OKLAHOMA CITY OK Legal
In use
2312469196 BREITLING OPERATING CORPORATION Foreign For Profit Business Corporation INCORP SERVICES, INC.
OKLAHOMA CITY OK Legal
Inactive
2112466559 BREITLING VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. Domestic Not For Profit Corporation RODNEY HUSS
OWASSO OK Legal
In use
You claimed Breitling had only been around for six to eight years. You were wrong. You claimed they have been public for at least five. Also wrong.
I claimed that Breitling Oil and Gas had been around for six to eight years with no known innovation and I claimed that CF had been in the industry for 10 years. I said six or eight years because I was not sure CF was including the Oklahoma LLC in the "innovative" company. I also claimed that the corporation that is now called Breitling Energy existed for at least 5 years, which is absolutely true and documented by the SEC and presumably by the Secretary of State of Utah.
When you completely freaked out and said I didn't understand how a reverse merger worked, I qualified what I said similar to above. I then pointed out that a reverse merger, virtually by definition, involved a pre-existing public corporation, you again said I was wrong, which I wasn't. Do you think reverse mergers involve pre-existing public corporations? Yes or no will do.
When you continued on with this non-sense and said I owed BECC an apology, I apologized for stating that they had been around for six or eight years without coming up with an innovation when in fact they had been around for 10 without coming up with an innovation. What in the world do you want, to just come out and lie?
I have already said that it is silly to assume Breitling’s age based on an archived website
Had I done that, you might have a point.
It is ironic that while you claim Breitling lacks any claim to innovation, it was Faulkner’s computer hosting and programming experience that lead to his own 3D seismic imaging software that seemed to be successful for Faulkner early in the company’s history.
There is no evidence that CF has any programming experience. There is no evidence that he developed any 3D interpretation software. Even in early interviews he was careful to avoid stating that he did, while insinuating that he did. Nonetheless, you just made up the above statement, which is, I suppose,exactly the kind of statements CF has hoped for, people making up positive things about him.
Your claims of lack of innovations came later and I ignored them because I didn't feel it was relevant to the topic of the thread.
I think your memory fails you. Nonetheless, I asked for anyone to come up with any innovation do back up the claim of innovation. No one did.
As long as you pin this nonsense to the top of the board, I will point out how mindless it is. Get used to it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.