While all that is true, the good news is he can't be served while out of the country.
Here is the affidavit of Non-service. Little hard to read, but you can find it on the Dallas County Courthouse website.

State of Texas County of Dallas 162 District Court
Case Number: DC-15-14753-1
Plaintiff:
CBS RADIO TEXAS INC.
vs.
Defendant:
BREITLING ENERGY CORPORATION
For:
Jason Van Dyke
The Van Dyke Law Firm P.L.L.C
200 Chisholm Place
Suite 250
Plano, TX 75075
Received by Gerald W. Meadors Process Server on the 15th day of December, 2015 at 4:30 pm to be served on
Breitling Energy Corporation Chris A. Faulkner Registered Agent, 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 12000, Dallas, TX
75201.
I, Gerald W. Meadors, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 7th day of January, 2016 at 2:57 pm, I:
NON-SERVED the Citation; Plaintiffs Original Petition; Exhibits A & B for the reason that I failed to find
Breitling Energy Corporation Chris A. Faulkner Registered Agent or any information to allow further search.
Read the comments below for further details.
Additional Information pertaining to this Service:
12/17/2015 4:15 pm According to the Receptionist, Mr. Faulkner is not in his Office. She stated she did not know
when he would be back. Left card.
12/21/2015 1:00 pm According to a Female Employee, Mr. Faulkner is out of town until January 4, 2016. She
stated he should be in the Office then.
1/4/2016 3:57 pm According to the Receptionist, Mr. Faulkner is out of town. She stated she did not have any
further information. I asked her to have Mr. Faulkner call me. No response.
1/5/2016 11 :40 am According to the Receptionist, Mr. Faulkner left. She did not know when he would be back in
the Office.
1/5/2016 2:43 pm According to the Receptionist, Mr. Faulkner has not returned.
1n/2016 2:26 pm I called and left phone messages for Mr. Faulkner on his direct line, 214-716-2020 and on his
cell, 817-726-2020. No response. On two of my Attempts, the Receptionist would leave her desk and then come
back and tell me Mr. Faulkner is not in the Office.
I certify that I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am a Certified Process Server, in
good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served.
Subscribed and Sworn~ before me on the if::__ day
of ;::knuamt , D/(0 by the affiant who is
personally kn wn to me.
~/i,wn;;LJ
NOTARY PUBLIC
"Gerald
~/,t)~~ W. Meadors
P. S. SCH8911 EXP 07-31-17
Gerald W. Meadors Process Server
9415 Panther Creek Parkway
#638
Frisco, TX 75035

That's an easy one, johnny. Without CF purchasing radio time, sponsoring conferences and awards banquets, and speaking at conferences, you would have never heard of Breitling. On four different occasions (or maybe more) I was asked to speak at conferences, but since I had no company to promote, there was no need to buy a airline ticket and pay for a hotel room.

Even the more well-known and popular conferences like DUG are packed with CEOs speaking on how much of other people's money they had spent poking holes in the ground and how much more they plan to spend in the future.

At the last conference I went to, Marcus Luttrell was the keynote speaker. He didn't know a thing about finding oil, but he was interesting.

I didn't read reaper's post because I figure there is not anything interesting in it. IMO, everything reaper says is now irrelevant. Everything I have said has been backed up with evidence except for one slip that said there was no evidence they made a profit. Ironically, the evidence was soon disavowed by BECC making my statement true at a later date. reaper's posts are generally evidence free or are about some trivial irrelevance. If he had anything of interest he would have long ago provided an innovation BECC came up with. He would have pointed to the results of Crude's $2 million a year investment in research. Now that would be interesting.

Something that would be interesting would be evidence that:

1. BECC has made a profit.
2. BECC developed in-house any prospects where the well paid out and which wells those might be. (I am aware of one re-entry near Port Allen that was a good well in the sense that it looked like it made money. Breitling doesn't talk about it, perhaps for fear of focusing attention on track record.)
3. Proved producing reserves for YE 2014 were estimated.
4. BECC has found board members.
5. BECC has prepared and filed a 2014 annual report.]
6. Breitling has grown by the bit.

Some of these things go to credibility. One can dance around the question all one wants, but Breitling has consistently tried to convey the idea that they are experienced oil finders. If someone thinks they have not done that, I'm sure they will express that opinion, but I am beyond debating it.

Let me go back to what I originally said. There are a lot of red flags with BECC and I wondered why so many people seemed to be ignoring them. Now there are quite a few red flags and just about no one is ignoring them. If someone wants to go back and find where I said 8 years when they think 12 might be better, I am done with that. All public information suggests to me that BECC is done and so I am pretty much done, but I am curious as to how it will unfold. If someone manages to make money trading it, good for them.

If someone says Breitling has been around for six or eight years, I know its nonsnense.

I correctly said in the original post that CF had been in the business for 12 years. 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. It is quite amusing to see you say Breitling has been around for more than 6 to 8 years because CF has been in the industry for since 2004, because that is exactly what I said. Just for reference, here is the first archived webpage of Breitling. It's from 2009. Just screams industry leader doesn't it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20091019111402/www.breitlingoilandgas.com

Here is a statement, vague as it is, that I think was simply not true and remains untrue. But notice the wording, they don't say they developed a high quality prospect, they don't say they have the advantage in developing high quality prospects, they say they are positioned. That's some serious hedging. If someone comes up with a prospect that they developed (in the conventional sense of the word) that was high quality (as in paid out), I will change my opinion. Twelve years is a long time to drill one successful prospect. If someone can't, but wants to say I'm wrong, then they are just flapping their lips trying to distract from the issue.

"...we are uniquely positioned to have the advantage in developing high quality oil and gas prospects."

I certainly understand why you have to jump through hoops to say someone is wrong. There really isn't much else to say. Headed into the second day of not trading.

By the way, "won't be a penny stock long" is a prediction, pointless as it is.

There are few things that I missed and would like to see, the 12/31/2014 reserve report, the reverse split plan announcement, and the 2014 annual report. I do have some semblance of a life, so I seemed to have missed them. Anyone have links?

Right, but you are nit picking, as I pointed out. An LLC was formed in 2004 with the name Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC, a corporation was formed in 2009 called Breitling Oil and Gas Corporation. So What? My point was the company had been around a long time and their innovations would have showed up. The fact that I was overly kind by saying that Breitling had been around for 6 to 8 years is immaterial. OK, I am wrong, they have been around for 12 years (which I was obvious aware of). Crude Energy was around for a couple of years, you could say it was around for 11 because it had predecessors. So what?

Fair enough, with your explanation, I can see I was wrong about that. I missed the public statement about the reverse split. I'd like to read it. Do you have a link?

Here is a quote from me showing I was aware that CF was active in the industry in 2004 and I had no problem with people knowing that. If you want to waste several paragraphs nit picking about what companies were named or where they were chartered, feel free. Breitling Oil and Gas was formed in 2009 and showed up on public radar, so in my mind, there are several dates one can pick for several purposes. Also, in my mind, that CF formed up an LLC in OK to drill a well or two, is not particularly relevant, but if you are back in the "your wrong" mode, I'll let you have this one. People form up LLC's to build a single house, so if there is something relevant about Breitling Oil and Gas, LLC that I don't already know (see below), enlighten me. Oh, there is the fact that all their wells were crappy--that's relevant. By their wells, I mean those that they drilled, not other companies' wells in which they may or may not have bought a tiny interest.

Really, I can. After CF being in the industry for 12 years and Breitling being around for six or eight...

One other comment. I do often agree with you. There is a good chance BECC won't be a penny stock for long. However, BERX held on for quite a while.

Here is the exact quote:

This wont be a penny stock much longer.

I don’t know of any penny stock ever that is working to up list to a major exchange like the NYSE or NASDAQ while hosting a luncheon for the US Speaker of the House.

In this case, BECC CEO Chris Faulkner hosted a luncheon for John Boehner.


This won't be a penny stock much longer means the same as "will run" to me.

I don’t know of any penny stock ever that is working to up list to a major exchange like the NYSE or NASDAQ while hosting a luncheon for the US Speaker of the House.


In my mind this is close enough. I think most people will see your comments as saying the luncheon was evidence that BECC will run. That you think it doesn't just shows how different your thinking is from most people. You like to plant an idea without technically saying it, I guess. I'm sure you will argue that is not true, but I am writing for the other readers who can decide for themselves.

FM11,

You are guessing at the reserves and depletion rates. You cant say for sure. It’s an argument that cant be won either way and does nothing to clarify anything.

Google reserve estimation, performance analysis.

Just the fact that they are drilling in a developed region where other wells seem to be producing that you can even compare to, makes me doubt your guesses.


I'm not clear on what you are saying, but you might want to Google reserve estimation, analogy to similar wells.

Moot point anyways. Breitling has small working/royalty interests in hundreds of wells throughout several states in their portfolio. You cant possibly pretend to know or guess the viability of the company because of a half a dozen wells that you looked up on the TRRC. It was silly then and its silly now.


Never tried. The dismal record goes to credibility and competence. If Breitling is viable because of hundreds of small working interests, then that is nothing like their public persona. He's the Frackmaster, the Best North American Operator, an innovator, an industry leader. I'm sorry, it just doesn't fit. It's not that they are terrible at finding oil, it's that they are terrible at finding oil and constantly saying they are not.

If you look back, you will find I said basically what you said above. They are a small company with tiny interests in hundreds of wells that add up to the reserves of of one quarter of one Bakken well. I have never said that goes to viability. Now here is where you really need to pay attention. Breitling must attract investors to make money, they basically said that. It's their strategy for operating in a low price environment. If their presentations and pitches are about "growing with the bit," and they can't find oil, then, eventually, they will have to change their strategy or they will fail to attract investors. There is nothing wrong with taking small interests hundreds of wells, it's the trying to convince people you are doing something else that is the problem.

All that being said, my point and it was well made, was that they talk a big game about the wells they are going to drill, but rarely mention wells that have been drilled and when they do, the grossly exaggerate performance. If you are unaware of techniques by which someone might know that, that is your deficit, not mine.

BTW, I never said everything was great. I do however believe and have said that the company has several options moving forward, including a path to get back on track with filings.

If Faulkner had chosen a few of the other options that were available to him, that would’ve been negative for shareholders, we would have probably seen those actions by now.


Lack of information doesn't allow me to know why Faulkner made the choices he did, but I have some ideas.

Paying too much for a stock is blogger speak. Its not possible to pay more for a stock than it is worth. Stocks are bought and sold at fair market value at the time of the transaction. The same basic principals apply to contracts and futures BTW.

That is nonsense, there is a whole industry built on valuing stocks. Also, BECC is too thinly traded to establish a FMV, a Market value, yes. But it's a definitional issue and that is why your statement is nonsense. If your goal was to make money, paying $0.95 for is too much. I already clarified that you need to look at my statement in context.

A year and a half ago, the highest yielding dividend on the entire NASDAQ was an oil and gas play trading @ $33 per share.

Since then, after the implosion of oil and gas, it is currently trading in the $1 range. Would you second guess institutional investors like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan for paying too much? I doubt it and so far, you have yet to do so.

I would and have second guessed them. I would compare what I said about energy stocks to what major houses said a year ago before the price drop, but that would be off-topic.

Its easy to second guess trades in hindsight, especially in an extremely volatile market. Unfortunately it doesn’t pay very well.
Fair enough, but even on this board I have said there were problems with BECC.

This keeps getting funnier.

"You specifically said you had never seen a company where the CEO had lunch with a congressman fail to run..."

LOL, I never said that and besides, Breitling had already run 1000% before Faulkner hosted former Speaker of the House John Boehner and US Senator Marco Rubio.

I did say that it was cool and that I had never seen an OTC CEO host Congressman and Senators before. I certainly never said that the stock would run because of it.

You are still making stuff up.

You said something close enough, now you are back peddling. I'll look it up.

You are also wrong about Breitling being around for six or eight years which is why anit-fracking bloggers are a joke.

OK, I am wrong. I was confused by their corporate presentation that showed that in 2009 they, "[Begin] execution of
“buying in front of the bit” strategy to target large publicly-traded
operators."

Breitling Energy was formed in 2004 with the Oklahoma Secretary of State, not Texas. She was wrong, you are also wrong for taking her word for it and repeating it here.

Wasn't that Breitling Oil and gas. Besides, I was giving Breitling the benefit of the doubt by shortening their active history. OK, a predecessor is older.

I won't let you pull TexasSharon into this. She is not a source of mine and never has been. I knew that CF had some activity in 2004 when he was running CI. So what?

Pfffttt reaper,

Of course it is my opinion.

You also posted TRRC production on a few wells and claim to be able to guess the economics of those wells, while also being able make judgments of the entire company’s viability.


I am demonstrably able to make educated guesses about economics on wells. Have you looked at the sorry wells surrounding the Hoppe--I have. The viability of the company is inferred from a lack of good working interest wells, from financial statements and their subsequent retraction. If you want to say everything is great at a corporation that doesn't file annual reports and there is no way to infer anything about risk to the company's viability, go ahead, but I feel I must tell you it makes you look silly.

Its just more nonsense.

I thought you were just trading BECC and felt intuitively that it would run, which it did. I am starting to believe you bought CF's pitch.

Now, I can see that CF is a self-promoter, remember when he dubbed himself the Frackmaster?, but he never talks about his accomplishments. Self-promoters don't keep their accomplishments secret. I can look at their corporate presentation and tell that they have not fracked thousands of wells. That you can't is your deficit, not mine.

You also cant claim that anyone paid 100 times what the stock is worth.

Why can't I. They paid 30 times what it is worth now and it is my opinion that the bottom has not been reached. If you want to say paying fifty cents for a share and selling it for 95 is not overpaying, fine. Most readers will know from context that is not what I was talking about.

or that I claimed Breitling would run because of a luncheon they hosted. You are just making stuff up at this point.

You specifically said you had never seen a company where the CEO had lunch with a congressman fail to run. (I am paraphrasing.Look it up yourself, I am confident you are the only one interested) You posted pictures and were quite excited about it. Now, if you want to pick nits and say you didn't expressly say Breitling would run, fine, but I didn't make it up,it is a real post by you.

Most of the fundamental errors on this board are based on misguided assumptions from the blogs out there, rather than looking at the facts.


I am not responsible for other people's errors.

Breitling didn’t participate in a promotion. Anyone can go out and verify that. Not only did they not do it, its not possible, because the only promotions that happened with the stock happened before Breitling went public two years ago (not five as you claim.)

This doesn't have anything to do with what I said so I feel no need to respond.

You can have doubts about Chris Faulkner being innovative or an industry leader, but you cant hardly state that it is a fundamental error.

Really, I can. After CF being in the industry for 12 years and Breitling being around for six or eight, I would have run across one of their innovations. Additionally, in order to lead the industry then there would have to be some leading going on. Since you are the only person I can find that holding on to those concepts I won't repeat what I have already said. Now, could Beitling have secret innovations? Yes, and I guess that is why some people believe that tripe. But I really don't think a person can have secret leadership.


I think anyone who has been following Faulkner and Breitling could make the case that by being an industry advocate, who has both written and published a book, produced a documentary, as well as being featured on numerous TV and radio shows along with being quoted in dozens, if not hundreds of news articles, that he could be seen as industry leader.

CF is a self-appointed industry advocate. It is one of the amusing things about him. He spends so much time promoting things he is not involved in. I guess some people seeing him as an industry leader is why he has lasted so long. The industry doesn't see him as a leader. As far as CF's speeches and blogs, he is not leading, he is following. He blogs pro-frack stuff he has read and TexasSharon blogs anti-frack stuff she has read, neither is an industry leader. Sure, CF and his former publicity firm were great at getting him on TV. Industry does not turn TV and radio for leadership. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I have read books about the space program, but that doesn't make the author an astronaut. Again, in order to lead the industry, he has to lead the industry, not appear on radio or CNN.

Oh, in his last blog he advocated a North American oil cartel. Let's see if Exxon, CHK, or Continental follow his lead.

Really, if you want to cling to the fantasy that he is an industry leader, by innovation or otherwise, go ahead. You can define words in such a way that he is. Soon you are going to be the only person who cares.

IMO and FWIW.

I guess we all have our reasons for having an opinion. I always thought CF was promoting CF and all my comments have been about his exaggeration of his experience and his results, BECC's record of drilling successful wells, and it's viability as a company.

reaper, if you have the ability to predict when people will be willing to pay 100 times what a stock is worth, that's great. You also have the right to say BECC will take off because a luncheon, I will respectfully disagree lest someone thinks that has merit.

There were some fundamental errors floating around this board, Breitling's webpage, and other boards. One was that there was anything unique about Breitling. Another is that Breitling was innovative and an industry leader. That was an insult to the innovative industry leaders.

Seriously, I thought it was speculation and rumor that all the independent board members quit. I am probably the last to know among you. I just saw the filing. I don't know, but this seems bad to me. On the other hand, Faulker has won many awards, is president of the best north american independent oil company, and has had lunch with a congressman.

Johnny,

Could you post a link or particulars so I can read the Amex suit?

Oh, and reaper, thanks for the post. It helps me warm up in the morning.

FM 11,

Nope you are still wrong on most of your points. Breitling has only been a public company for two years, not at least five as you claim.

Dead issue, as I said, others can decide.

I never said that well performance, tests and descriptions are worthless. I am saying that posting a few months of production numbers from the TRRC is worthless.


Not what you said, you didn't say posting them was worthless, you said the production numbers were worthless. By the way, production numbers are not all I used. I also used the 20 BOPD test and other things. It is true that there is more risk in estimating reserves early in the life of a well rather than later. It is also true that if the stars lined up just right, my guess will be wrong. Like I said, we will know in a couple of months.

I also said, that in my judgement, if the Hoppe 63 1 were high reserves its decline curve would look different if it were slow pumped. Sure, you can cite an unlikely scenario where that is not true, so can I. That's why it is a guess.

There is not enough information there to make the conclusions or "guesses" that you trying to make.

That's an easy statement to evaluate, look back at my comments on the Teaff and see if my comments were rendered silly by subsequent production. Check my comments on other wells and where I was grossly wrong, cut and paste it here. I'm sure you are too busy, but it would certainly settle the issue.

I also said that I make little distinction between the anti-fracking bloggers and the people who perpetuate their nonsense by commenting on them.


I perpetuated no nonsense. Everything I said was factual. Many of the things that Texas Sharon says are not supportable and some are. If you want to come up with the absurd opinion that I am perpetuated nonsense, go ahead. These ad hominem arguments are about all you have left.

In this case, copy and pasting TRRC numbers on different blogs and then "guessing" at the economics based on incomplete information is silly.

I don't think you have the expertise to make that statement, but like I said, I have a public track record, just like Breitling.

In the context of our debate as I remember it, I stated that Chris Faulkner protected the equity of the old Bering Exploration shareholders by not reverse splitting them out of their shares when he completed the reverse merger 2 years ago, even though he didn't owe them any consideration.

It was a simple statement that I would've thought any reasonable person would have understood.

Not all you said. You specifically said I was wrong in saying there was no stockholder equity. That required a definition not used by most people. Even the annual report said there was none. When someone falsely says I am wrong, I correct them. Sorry about beating you over the head, but it seemed like the only effective thing. On the other hand, you thought stockholders owned something of value, and I suppose they did, it's called market cap in an inactive corporation. (really share value (market price x number of shares) might be better) With a company that thinly traded it is unknown what value they could have realized, but even now they could realize something.

I pointed out why CF would "protect" the stockholders to the tune of a few thousand dollars to avoid an IPO. Wonder if they feel protected.

Nope FM11, you are still wrong.

It was falsely stated that Breitling has been public for three years. I corrected it by making the simple observation that Breitling has only been public for two.

You then mistakenly tried to claim I was wrong by stating they have been public for five.

Anyone can take a few minutes of their time to see who is posting the correct info.

This has been refuted by me. Asserting something and then repeating it is not support. You prove my point. But you are correct that anyone can find who is correct.

As far as the anti-fracking blogs, I thought we had already established that you have left comments on a few of the them.


Yes and you think commenting on an anti-fracker's blog is the same as being one. I'll let other readers decide if that is correct.

If you are not frackmaster II, who copied and pasted worthless TRRC information on different boards over the last year then I would owe you an apology.

So far only you think well performance, tests, and descriptions are worthless. But, truly, I understand a Breitling fan would need to think so. Nonetheless that doesn't make me an antifrac blogger. Go ahead, say "Are too."

If you make up definitions, for example the definition of stockholder equity, then everything that anyone says could be wrong. I could redefine the meaning of "share" or "corporation" or whatever and show you wrong. Wouldn't communicate much to others and certainly would not persuade.

I want others to do their own research and decide if I am right. If they want to form an opinion without knowledge or thought, that is OK with me.

I have seen people post worthless TRRC production numbers and pretend to be able to form an opinion on the proven reserves and/or depletion rates based on those numbers.


OK, let’s step into reaper’s world for a moment.

Let’s look at those worthless production numbers:

The Buresh 17-1HM went off line in December 2014 after making 16,087 bbls. I guess they are waiting on a pipeline or something and the lease is being held by something unknown.

They mentioned the Breitling-Woodring No. 1. It has made 83 MMCF in three years and is currently (May 2015) making 67 MCFPD and declining. Maybe they are choking it back, but they must go out and reduce the size of the choke each month so that it declines at 21%. In three years, when the price of gas is $6.00 an MMBTU, they can open it up to 100 MCF a day and the well will payout in its 13th year.

The much praised Teaff is making 8 BOPD and declining. This is a well capable, according to CF, of making 160 BOPD. It makes a running ton of water, so it is understandable that they would slow the pump in these low prices. It is perfectly understandable that they would slow the pump incrementally each month so the well looks like it is declining. Breitling, being a modest company would want its wells to look worse than they are. It perfectly OK to lose money on a well by producing below the economic limit until prices go up in the next few years. A gold mine waiting for its moment.

The Hoppe 63 1 is also on a clocked pump. As soon as prices improve in 5 or 10 years Breitling can open it up. I know they said they could make money in this environment, but no need to make money now when you can make more in a few years. In the mean time they can drill more multi-million dollar wells and produce them at a loss to hold onto acreage. Because the Permian is so good.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Just-About-Every-Part-of-the-Permian-Basin-is-Unprofitable-at-30-Per-Barrel.html

The Parramore, another well in the Permian, is great. It is understandable that they would slow the pump to 25 BOPD in November 2014. Why would one want to sell oil at $76 a bbl? It is coincidence that Breitling kept consistently slowing the pump so the well looks like it is declining at a steady rate. There is no doubt this well is capable of making a 100 BOPD, but with these low prices it only makes sense to produce it at 8 BOPD, because just because Breitling can make money in this environment does mean they should.

The Wilson 1H, a great horizontal well, only looks like it was declining at 50% a year in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Why sell oil at $100 a bbl? They will be opening the well up as soon as oil hits $120 so the well can pay out.

The Crown Petroleum Thomas Meek 76-3H only looks like it will barely payout with a 3 BCF EUR, again Crown Petroleum is bound to be on board with choking the well back, much better to wait for higher prices than a measly $4 per MCF and $100 for condensate.

The Black Stone No. 1 is a good well that will pay out in a few additional years after they speed up the pump in a few years when the price goes up.

Of course production and well performance are worthless, otherwise it would look like every well Breitling has mentioned is either non-commercial or marginal, heavy on the non-commercial.

In other matters:

I also see the inability for some to distinguish the difference between a "developmental stage company" that has diluted its public float to a maximum O/S of say 500M for this example, vs. a company that has historically been self sufficient, that only has a 40M float, even though the market capitalization would be the same.

As far as I am concerned, I do see the difference, but what they have in common is that each share represents one 500 millionth of the company. Maybe Breitling’s assets will grow from a few million to $500 million. How would we know without financials? I think it is a sure bet it will only happen if they stop drilling wells.

I know its a false statement and I am not in the least bit worried about the anti-fracking bloggers and other internet Buffoons who make empty threats against me just for supporting my investment in Breitling.

I have never threatened anyone, so this doesn’t concern me.

I am also not worried about the comments made on the stock blogs out there by people who don't know how to trade stocks or have failed in their attempts.

This doesn’t describe me, so it doesn’t concern me.

LOL, Best of luck and may each Breitling investor find a way to make money.

You are wrong and that's revisionist nonsense. (short version in the usual style of reaper)

Johnny46,
What you say makes sense to me. The lack of financials brings up a host of questions. Can BECC attract investors? No new investors, no growth. No growth, no BECC. It has been suggested that a BECC well is choked back due to low prices. That is possible, but that means BECC’s cash flow is choked back if they have an override or carried interest, so they would be hammered by low prices and low production. So can they attract new investors? If they are choking back their wells, which, in fact, may be prudent, it would only make sense for them to slow drilling, reducing the need for investors. If they shifted their activity to acquiring properties, they would need investors, so that would be one way to need investors that cannot be detected from public records.
These questions could be at least partially answered by financial reports and company presentations. It will be interesting to see what happens in February if the company is still functioning and I think it will be. I started out my comments about BECC by saying a $500 million market cap could not be justified. It might have been interesting to a day trader who might then make some money. Some gamblers make money in Los Vegas, even though every bet placed is a bad one and as a whole gamblers are guaranteed to lose money. Apparently, I was right about the market cap because the current market cap is $18 million. Now, admittedly, just the drop in oil price is enough to kill a startup oil company. Some would say that that was not known earlier. It wasn’t, but I was aware of the possibility and stock investors should also have been aware.
So if someone does not think a purchased luncheon with a congressman or purchased radio time or speaking at conferences is evidence, there is no reason to think BECC will survive. However, if you want to play the long odds this might be the time. A 1-in-30 chance might bring a nice risk-weighted return. I don’t think the odds are that high, but on these long shots how would one know. Besides, BECC doesn’t have to succeed, people just have to believe it will and all it takes is a good speech and lunch with a congressman for people to think that. On the other hand, if I had a significant number of shares of BECC, such as a million, I would be nervous about finding a market.

Sooo,

You believe that an almost 9000 ft. vertical, with four laterals fully completed in June has produced those numbers at full production?

Absolutely not, I believe the public records because that's all I have. According to public records the wells is a 8600 ft vertical with a single stage frac. Why do you think there are any laterals in this well?



Do you think it is possible that in the wake of a volatile market, that well may have been largely choked off and only allowed to produce enough to that hold acreage by production until prices recover?


It's possible that the pump is run intermittently. Pumping wells are sometimes choked, but not to limit production. Better to cycle the pump. However, experience and judgement tells me that this well is producing near capacity. I said it was a guess, whats yours?


There are variables in your equation that neither one of us are in a position to speculate about.

I think you meant to say equations

You are not in a position to speculate. Decades of proven experience in estimating future production says I am.

You don't bring enough information to the table to even have this debate.

That's your opinion, not an informed one, but an opinion.

Again, "Your wrong," but nothing of substance.

Considering the terms of the drill-to-earn, Mr. Williams was unimpressed with the acreage. Interestingly, so far, he is the only one who has made money on the deal. I remember an override, but I am to interested enough to confirm that.

Breitling is the best North American Independent and known for its innovation. Maybe they don't need no stinking seismic.

The optimism is intentional. Do you think that the strategy of close-in, "low-risk" wells is leading to finding depleted wells? Texas doesn't report water and I didn't spend time looking at offsets.

Everyone here probably remembers this from a June 4, 2015 press release:

"We are confident in the macro trend for oil and are bringing this well on-line now because the economics work at today's prices. We continue to optimize efficiency so we can produce and sell oil and gas in the full spectrum of price environments," says Chris Faulkner, Breitling Energy's CEO and Chairman. "It's not so much about price for us as it is optimization. Our lease in the Permian Basin allows us to be efficient, and we will continue developing the field without debt, which gives us the added confidence to move forward with the Company plan we outlined in our first year," Faulkner added.

This was with regard to the Hoppe 63 1. According to public records, the Hoppe 63 1 has made the following:
Date gas, MCF Oil, bbls
07/2015 0 189
08/2015 2000 647
09/2015 3765 403
10/2015 3094 336

OK, now everyone who is willing, predict the ultimate recovery and profit for the well as seen by the investors. Here's my guess:

The well will become uneconomic in mid-2016 after making 3000 barrels of oil with a profit to 100% of $80,000. The well will have paid off less than one-tenth of it's drilling and completion cost.

Now, remember, I said it was a guess, so no one place any bets on it. It's just for fun. It should be evident in a couple of months if I am wrong.

Well, I guess that proves it. You ran rings around me logically.

KPMG did not sign off on Breitlings financials. Are you inferring that Breitling had no idea they were wrongfully reporting for the three years they have been public the "recording of oil and gas assets, revenue interests and drilling activities?" Matter of fact - KPMG decided to DROP Breitling when they acquired Rothstein.

To be traded on the OTC QB they have to "provide a strong baseline of transparency." Given that they haven't filed anything for 2015 and haven't bothered to amend their previous years. It's highly doubtful. There is nothing transparent about them.

IMO.


I don't see anything in that post talking about Pump and Dump. The above is a response to one of my posts and I know I didn't say anything about pump and dump. You challenged the above statement on the basis of the three years period when BECC expressly said the financials were bad for three. Not that it matters whether it's three or two or five or six, but you had to say he was wrong. I guess that is all you have left.

This would be exactly the kind of thing Chris Faulkner uses. No one will really fault him for saying Breitling went public two years ago, but he knows that in certain people, saying "going public" conjures up images of IPO and corporate savvy that is simply not involved in a reverse merger with a penny shell so that everyone else can move to another penny shell. Those certain people are exactly the investors he is looking for.

CF also knows that he was not materially involved in the fracking of 1000's of wells, but I am sure he has some justification for saying it, like maybe his companies have had a royalty interest in a lot of fracked wells.

Admittedly, there is no way for me to know what goes on in CF's mind so the above speculation is not fact but opinion. I do find it difficult to justify another opinion.

On another subject, do you believe BECC has drilled a producing well every two weeks in the Permian?

OK, I'll waste a bit of time backing it up. I didn't know I had to document the obvious.

"...advisers and management, concluded that the financial statements for the annual periods ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 and the interim quarterly periods ended September 30, 2014, June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014 should not be relied upon due to errors in the recording of oil and gas assets, revenue interests and drilling activities that were discovered during our preparation for our audit of the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2014. The Company is still in the process of determining the extent of the errors."

This references financial statements covering periods back to January 1, 2012. This is why it is somewhat important and why some people may think Breitling was public three years ago--you know, because it was. Now, if you want to believe the corporation calling itself Breitling Energy went public two years ago, feel free. If you want to insist it is November instead of December, that OK, too. To everyone else, the corporation is responsible for its actions even if it changes its name, note the the reference to the 2012 financials.

I said at least five years because I didn't want to look up the date BECC was chartered, I just know it was at least five years from memory. If I am wrong and it was say 4.5 years, feel free to say I am wrong. My interest in documenting everything people should already know is waning. That is quite different from automatically saying everyone is wrong without a shred of support. Anyone who has read my posts knows I don't do that.

Again, no substance, but you use a different definition from everyone else, I guess like you do with "stockholder equity." Breitling traded its properties for most of the shares of a burned-out shell of a company. It then changed the company's name. All liabilities and assets (heh) of BERX remained, but part of the deal is that creditors agreed to trade their worthless loans for something of value, however little it was.

The distinction is material. Breitling avoided the scrutiny of an IPO. Breitling Oil and Gas never went public. Anyone who doubts that can call a lawyer, just about any lawyer, and they will explain it. Whether you understand it is of no consequence. I have a memory that Breitling Oil and Gas was dissolved. I would verify that if it made any difference.

Instead of substance you attack the one who posted. There is a name for that logical fallacy, ad hominem. That's OK, I would post more if it were about you.

At this point, with all the discussions on various boards, if someone chooses to invest in BECC or send money to them for a direct investment, they deserve what they get, good or bad. On this board there is a complete absence of anyone wanting to invest in BECC. So I will go back to the sidelines.

In the absence of anything substantive, I am struggling to understand what you are talking about. If I bought Exxon and changed its name to Esso, does that mean Esso just went public? Is this another time you are using terms differently from the rest of the world?

Just curious.

Now you are just calling people wrong and not even bothering to make stuff up to support it. Now who's not reading filings. Or perhaps I missed Breitling Energy's IPO. Could you direct me to it. Quite a few things have to be filed for an IPO.

I do not know what anti-fracking blogger you are talking about. I have never posted anything against fracking, so you must be talking about someone else. Or you also just fantasizing again.

Breitling Energy has been public for at least 5 years. A corporation changing it's name means nothing. Breitling Oil and Gas never went public.

If anyone is confused look under the name Bering Exploration (BERX).

Case No. DC-15-14753
CBS RADIO TEXAS INC. VS. BREITLING ENERGY CORPORATION

New Lawsuit

If you are referring to me, I am not inferring or implying BECC did not know of the errors. I am saying there is no public evidence proving fraud or the lack there of. We all can all decide for our selves if it is reasonable to think they didn't know, but I don't know how someone could be certain either way.

If you are just maintaining the thread, that's cool.

FM11,

First off, I didn’t accuse you, of accusing anyone, of anything.
I'm well aware of that.
Thanks for the snarky, condescending English lesson all the same.

I see you're point, throwing around "preposterous" and "rediculous" got me cranked up, but, in fact, you only occasionally use that language with me. I rarely respond to mackfish, mainly because I have a hard time following what he is saying. My apologies, I'll tone it down.

I will tell you, I often say things that are directed at other readers. I didn't want anyone to infer what was not implied.

My statement about KPMG isn’t any more preposterous than the initial claim that financials were fraudulent. Rothstein audited Breitling’s financial statements and signed off on them. KPMG later acquired Rothstein.

I stand by what I said. KPMG acquiring Rothstein does not mean that everything Rothstein did is correct with certitude. Why would it? Besides, it's not an auditors job to detect fraud, though sometimes that is included in what they do. However, claiming fraud is at least as baseless as the KPMG claim.

If people want to entertain the theory that Breitling was fraudulent in its financial statements, then you have to consider the auditing firm that signed off on them.


Perhaps, but it is a proven fact that auditors miss fraud. Auditing can lend credibilty, but certitude? That Rothstein signing off on an incorrect report proves there is no fraud is, well, not believable. If you mean you are certain the reports are not completely fabricated and devoid of any reality, then I would say I am also.

We know with virtual certainty that they signed off in incorrect financials, incorrect in a material way. How would they know that the incorrectness is not fraudulent if they didn't know it existed. It's possible, but not a certainty.

My point being, is that while having a reputable auditor doesn’t guarantee anything, it does seem to indicate that Breitling made an effort to retain a larger unbiased firm that would be above any influence or input from Faulkner and provide an honest assessment.

I agree with all of that and if that is your point I have wasted your time and mine. I would say that "doesn't guarantee anything" and "seems to indicate" connote more risk that "certain." I could speculate that management of BECC was so arrogant that they thought they could fool the auditors, but that would be groundless and pointless since it would require inside information to prove or disprove, which is pretty much what I said in my original post.

The short story here is that Breitling could be OTCQB tier by the end of next week if they wanted to. That alone would bump the share price and put an end to the nonsense being posted.

The fact that they aren’t going that route, gives me a small hint at what to expect.

Whatever. That's beyond the scope of anything I have ever posted. Back in June, I talked about red flags and things have gotten nothing but worse. We have differing opinions as to why.

Happy Trading! (oh wait, I forgot….never mind.)

You are correct, I invest on a long term and never would consider BECC. This is investorshub not tradershub. Quite frankly, if BECC involved only traders who were trying to predict where the price would go, I would have no interest at all.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

Right Johnny,

Here's a short version for those who like things simple:

Audited financials are wrong.
High-powered accounting firm signed off.

Infer what one will about auditor's ability to detect errors or fraud.

Reaper,

If you are accusing Breitling Energy or Chris Faulkner of intentionally posting fraudulent financial statements, you would also have to implicate one of the largest and most credible accounting and auditing firms in the world, KPMG as an accomplice.


First of all, I accused no one of anything, but if you change the "you" to "one," it would make it more clear it's a hypothetical.

Second, the statement is preposterous. KPMG didn't audit BECC and couldn't be an accomplice, except after the fact, which is highly unlikely. What you said simply makes no sense.

If one has no understanding of what auditors rely upon and one has never has heard of Arthur Anderson, one might think high-powered auditors guarantee a lack of fraud. Same goes for reserve reports.


Keep in mind that Breitling was not obligated to post audited financials. Faulkner went through added expense and time to ensure they were.

Why?

Why not provide unaudited financials that would be sufficient to retain his OTCQB status and allow him to dilute shares at a premium instead of a discount?

Faulkner is going to give away his company for pennies on the dollar?

I doubt it.


I do not know why Breitling does a lot of things. I do know I have never worked for an unaudited company or for a publicly traded company.

This is exactly why I consider bloggers to be absolutely worthless.

I would think so. Otherwise the stress of cognitive dissonance would be overwhelming.

In closing, just to make sure no one thinks I said something I didn't. I very clearly stated there was no evidence of financial statement fraud. To state otherwise, I would have to have inside information, which I do not.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.

It certainly wasn’t fraudulent at the time it was filed and neither were financial statements.


That's a bold statement. While there is no evidence that the ancient reserve report was fraudulent or even misguided and there is no evidence the financials were fraudulent, there is no way to be certain of your statement without inside information, and yet you are certain.

It is a safe bet the financials are wrong, since BECC said they were, but in what SEC filing is the intent of the CFO or others reported? Yet you do not just suspect no one in the company was aware of the errors at the time of filing, you are certain.