I usually don't follow exactly what you are getting at, but your post reminded me of something. I ran across an AFE where Breitling O&G literally whited-out the operator name and typed in Breitling. I found that odd.

Well,really, all you need to know about Mr. Faulkner is right here:

http://www.wkforum.org/WKF/2015/eng/speakerintroduce/popup.php?spuid=1620

Books are in shambles. On Breitling scale, a major drilling program is afoot. A couple of lawsuits are going on. Lawyers quit. Probably a good time to go to Korea. Probably going to be helpful discussions about drilling shallow west Texas wells.

Since the beginning of August, Three wells have had info reported publicly. The Baker Trust No. 1 is was spud in early August and is reported at TD. It should be producing by now and may well be. Another well is reported at TD. Sadly, the Dillashaw was drilled and and abandoned.

BECC is a platinum "partner" of the Oil and Gas Awards.

Oilprice.com has filed suit against Chris Faulkner, et al for non-payment.

http://courts.dallascounty.org/ViewDocumentFragment.aspx?DocumentFragmentID=12944705

Breitling's attorneys have filed a motion to withdraw.

2. Pursuant to Rule 1 o. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct, good cause exists for the withdrawal of Movants as counsel for
the Defendants. In particular. Movants would show the Court as follows:
a. Defendants has substantially failed to fulfill its obligations to Movants
regarding the Movants• services as their counsel of record in this case,
including Defendants' obligation to pay the lawyer's fees to Movants as
agreed upon in writing between these parties;
b. That Defendants currently owes Movants as attorneys fees for all matters
handled on behalf of Defendants an amount in excess of $340,000.00, of
which, approximately $250,000.00 is overdue in excess of 60 days;

"should not be relied upon"

We now know, by reading filings, the company has never reported a profit in a report that can be relied upon. But BECC and its accountants say you shouldn't rely on the reports; that doesn't mean they are right.

http://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Filings/Form+8-K+Breitling+Energy+Corp+For%3A+Sep+01/10870414.html

Even with the late filings, as long as Breitling continues to protect the share structure and keeps putting holes in the ground I am comfortable adding more shares.


Fair enough. As far as I can tell, it's all out on the table, which is satisfactory to me.

What I am saying is that I have very little respect for the stock bloggers and the anti-fracking bloggers who have been posting falsehoods and/or misleading statements about Breitling Energy and the industry overall.

Fair enough, for a moment I thought you were talking about me. I did get confused and posted a falsehood, discussed below.

A lot of what I said goes to credibility. If you look at an internet archive of the Breitling well site, you might see why I mentioned what I did.

If you remember, I earlier said I have never found where Breitling was lying. Let me illustrate. I have an interest in about 10 fractured wells, several horizontal. These wells were successful and I have made money off them. I have never claimed to be a oil man. I have never talked about the technology I used. I have never claimed to have spent money on research. Maybe I should have, it would not be lying and might impress people. It would be misleading, but not a lie.

Now, I have met scores of promoters, ranging from legitimate oil men to con artists. There is something about Breitling that impressed me. It was when they sued a newspaper for telling the truth about them.

"BECC has never drilled a commercial well.
Name a well, operated by BECC, or that BECC and its direct investors own more that 50%, that has paid out. Name one with published production that indicates that it is likely to payout. Consider only those wells drilled while BECC has existed."

Someone would have to be an idiot to sift through TRCC filings looking for Breitling well data when they already know they are not the operator of most of the wells they participate in.

I disagree, I sifted through a lot of data looking for which wells Breitling had an interest in. Leads included information from Beitling. It is not idiocy to look at the track record of a company. It is not idiocy to try to find one successful well controlled by a company claiming technological superiority. It is idiocy not to, if you are investing. Most of the wells I examined were not operated by Breitling.

Thanks for the comment; my point stands.

"BECC can't keep books.
BECC has already stated that they have problems with their books. Is this irrelevant or is BECC wrong about its books? Why is there no annual report if BECC knows its books are in order."

Breitling went through a corporate restructuring in late 2014 by announcing the formation of an asset management division. It would constitute a change in controls and procedures that the company has noted as one of the reasons for the delay.

The previous auditors were acquired by KPMG and Breilting was forced to find a new auditor to evaluate the company’s position.

I will concede that the late filings add risk and contribute to the lower PPS.

You forgot to mention their auditors' comments on their bookkeeping.
Thanks for the comment; my point stands

"BECC brings nothing new to the business.
Name something."

Irrelevant.

Not when they claim to be an industry leader in technology. Goes to credibility. Re-read the crude website where they claim to spend $2 million a year on research. I also brought this up to point out that there is nothing special about BECC.

We have a difference in investment criteria on high risk stocks. Nonetheless, you did what I asked, saying that whether BECC is different from the hundreds of other small public oil companies is irrelevant.

When Amazon went public, it was a high risk stock and interestingly, I don't think they have ever made a profit (I didn't confirm this). However, they did bring something new to the industry, which makes them different from BECC.

"BECC has never made money.
Show an FEC filing showing a profit for BECC or more importantly show a filing that BECC is willing to certify as correct. Is profitability irrelevant in stock analysis?"

The last posted financial filing showed that Breitling was profitable for nine months ending 2014. Double check your claim.

I did check my claim yesterday and found I was wrong. They did make a tiny profit for two quarters. One of those quarters rounded off to a penny a share. Their last quarterly report showed a loss. I relied on memory and conflated with another company--to my disadvantage. Now we simply have to wait for an audited report to show a profit.

"BECC has fired a third of its employees for ripping it off.
Show that this is incorrect. The public information is that they had 10 employees and three were fired. All sued."

Why would anyone care? Employees come and go, its irrelevant. Faulkner bounced a few employees and stated publically why.

Fair enough. Goes to management style and corporate culture.

BECC is slow to drill.

Slow is an opinion, but when it takes over a year to put a well online, that’s slow. The permit has expired on the SL 21339. Is that wrong or irrelevant? If you think I am cherry picking, then name some wells that were drilled and put online quickly.

BECC is slow to report results

Again an opinion, but they are months behind most operators on reporting production on some wells. The Teaf would be one example, though that is a BO&G well. Have you seen any production or tests from the Permian wells? The Blackstone 1 was completed April 27, 2014 and production has just recently popped up on TRRC and IHS. Hasn’t made it to DrillingInfo yet. Are either of those statements wrong? The Hankamer is a nice well that tested a ground-shaking 500 MCFPD. Though spudded in 2014, no production has been reported.

BECC overestimates well performance ability.
Show where the Teaf has made 160 BOPD."

I can cover these three concerns in one comment.

You claim Breitling overestimates well performance, slow to report results and slow to drill.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

I think you mean "wrong, wrong, and irrelevant."

Breitling continues to meet their drilling commitments in the Clayton Williams NYSE: CWEI farmout agreement.

The teaf is your only example of Breitling overestimating a well. Who cares?

I have to admit, with an extreme shortage of information on well performance, there is little information on this point. In fact, that is central to my overall point. As far as the Teaff is concerned, Faulker made that comment when he knew or should have known the well would never perform at that level. If this glimpse into the reliability and usefulness of Breitling well performance statements is irrelevant, fine. I think it is telling.

Of the hundreds of wells that Breitling has participated in, you boast one instance.

Breitling has frac'd thousands of wells according to them. There is no public information that Breitling has participated as a working interest owner in more than 10 to 20 wells. Public source on the hundreds of wells, please. The one well performance comment (unless I missed one or two) was grossly wrong. Irrelevant? I'll let the individual decide. As far as their success on trading royalties, there is no information.


We both know this, because of the patriot energy video that I assume we have both seen.

I actually did not see the Patriot and obviously I am surprised that permit to spud was so quick. As far as the Williamson wells are concerned, they met a spud requirement, but spud to tanks was quite long. I was thinking of the long times between permit or announcement and production to the tanks. I understand why my loose language could be misinterpreted. Did you find any comments on well performance?

You are quite right to mention the Kent, Knox wells. Since Breitling is not in charge of those wells, the schedule will run at the operator's speed. Nonetheless, it is relevant.

Now, I know that Breiting's predecessors participated in wells that are quite good. They have several tiny interests in wells in North Dakota that they paid who-knows-what for. I do not find that fact helpful in determining Breitling's skill.

I won't ask why you think BECC stock will go up, because that, I am sure, is based on your experience and would take too long to explain. Do you have an opinion on the future of the company with regard to profits? Will you explain your basis? I am not suggesting you are obligated to answer, we all can just wait a few months.

I do have an opinion. Because BECC invests other people's money, performance is not as important as it is for companies that rely on return on investment for profits. There is a finite probability that the company will survive. Since I cannot fathom why it once had a market cap of $500 million, I cannot predict whether it will again. I have my doubts.

reaper,

I asked you to back up your assertion that what I said was wrong. You won't do that. If you don't like the expression "folding," then pick another. How about, "Full of hot air" or "constantly makes self-serving statements backed up by nothing."

I think you are insinuating that I don't know how to trade stocks. Just another statement without evidence or substance.

In any case, I consider it entertaining when someone says I am wrong and I get a chance to respond, but it is even more entertaining if I get a remotely challenging response.

By now, most people will understand that if I said the sun rises every 24 hours more or less, you will say I am wrong if it suits you.

I will respond further if you say anything.

Have a nice day,
FM II

reaper,
The questions were rhetorical and written for other readers. I knew you would fold if asked to substantiate anything. As I have said before, I want nothing but to bring out the facts for people thinking of investing. You are an expert who is making money, you don't need or want my opinion.

IMO, LOL

I looked at your “public evidence” about the company and had a good laugh as well.

Its all either wrong, non-sense or irrelevant.

You are long on assertions and short on substance. Like when you said I was wrong about stockholder equity because I didn't comply with your personal definition, but rather the way everyone else does.

Let me dumb this down for you:

BECC has never drilled a commercial well.
Name a well, operated by BECC, or that BECC and its direct investors own more that 50%, that has paid out. Name one with published production that indicates that it is likely to payout. Consider only those wells drilled while BECC has existed.

BECC can't keep books.
BECC has already stated that they have problems with their books. Is this irrelevant or is BECC wrong about its books? Why is there no annual report if BECC knows its books are in order.

BECC brings nothing new to the business.
Name something.

BECC has never made money.
Show an FEC filing showing a profit for BECC or more importantly show a filing that BECC is willing to certify as correct. Is profitability irrelevant in stock analysis?

BECC has fired a third of its employees for ripping it off.
Show that this is incorrect. The public information is that they had 10 employees and three were fired. All sued.

BECC is slow to drill.

Slow is an opinion, but when it takes over a year to put a well online, that’s slow. The permit has expired on the SL 21339. Is that wrong or irrelevant? If you think I am cherry picking, then name some wells that were drilled and put online quickly.

BECC is slow to report results

Again an opinion, but they are months behind most operators on reporting production on some wells. The Teaf would be one example, though that is a BO&G well. Have you seen any production or tests from the Permian wells? The Blackstone 1 was completed April 27, 2014 and production has just recently popped up on TRRC and IHS. Hasn’t made it to DrillingInfo yet. Are either of those statements wrong? The Hankamer is a nice well that tested a ground-shaking 500 MCFPD. Though spudded in 2014, no production has been reported.

BECC overestimates well performance ability.
Show where the Teaf has made 160 BOPD.

The above statements are about tangible, verifiable things. If you cannot answer the questions or show the statements wrong, then you are making stuff up. So sort each into wrong, nonsense, and irrelevant. Let the other readers decide who makes sense.

You are basically repeating what I just said. I understand why you do not want to disclose your trading methods or why you think BECC will run again. Maybe you did that a couple of years ago. But for the new people researching BECC, "I'm a good trader, BECC is gonna run." is not only unhelpful, it's boring.

Here something that would be interesting. Demonstrate that one of the things I have said is false using public information. So far your response to everything negative about BECC has been, "LOL, I'm a good trader." OK, granted, but the is about BECC, not reaper247. Facts? Analysis based on facts?

Shall I write your response for you? "All you goobers don't know what you are talking about, I am an expert on penny stocks and I know this because I have made money trading. I am so good at it, you should except what I say without evidence or analysis."

"I've already won."

And so you have. If one buys penny stocks, eventually one will get enormous returns. There is little doubt someone made money trading Bering Energy, for example. If you have a knack for finding companies that people are willing to pay too much for, good for you. You can and will make a lot of money. You were on the winning side of those 95 cent stock trades. All I can crow about is that I wasn't on the losing side and I was warning people against buying at that level.

There are and will be more like CF out there and you can make money, but us mere mortals have to stick to whether a company will ever make money. All the public evidence points to:

BECC has never drilled a commercial well.
BECC can't keep books.
BECC brings nothing new to the business.
BECC has never made money.
BECC has fired a third of its employees for ripping it off.
BECC is slow to drill.
BECC is slow to report results.
BECC overestimates well performance ability.

If that is the kind of company you like, good. There is little doubt this is high risk and has the potential for high return. One profitable well or one profitable quarter and I am sure you can find someone willing to pay double for this stock. Foolishly in my opinion, but you can find them.

I'd like to read a filing. I'd like to read the 2014 annual report or the first quarter report. Laugh all you want, but it doesn't take five months to audit books that are in order. If they are not in order, then it has been well over a year since there has been a reliable financial report.

One thing I do know from experience is that lunches with congressmen do not a profitable company make. I have a great deal of confidence that BECC has not made a dime, but CF has. I would give odds on those West Texas post holes never getting drilled.

How many years before we get any performance reports on the Permian Basin farmout wells

BTW, CF just received another judgement against him in Dallas County District Court. He'll never pay it, of course.

Assuming for a moment the first well is the Barker Trust No. 1, the operator is likely Atoka.
26332107 8A BARKER TRUST 1 ATOKA OPERATING, INC.(036606) KENT Submitted: 03/31/2015 Approved: 04/02/2015

I found this question and answer today. It a year or so old. Make of it what you will.

Oilprice.com: How are drilling advancements contributing to a re-evaluation of old data and the collection of new data?

Chris Faulkner: There’s no doubt that MWD and LWD [Measurements-while-Drilling/Logging-while-Drilling] have helped operators gain a better perspective on old well logs. As accumulation of drilling data in real time makes even more technical advances, progress will continue. This may be the biggest contributing factor for the dramatic reductions in spud-to-release times that we’ve seen in the major unconventional plays.

LOL, as you say.

One problem that BECC has is clashing with previous statements. In the release, CF says that seven net post holes "is a substantial asset for the Company." This from a company that has frac'd thousands of wells.
{/sarcasm}
It turns out, cutting edge technology (circa 1940's) was used to "pinpoint" the locations. No mention of who used this technology.

But more importantly, they are going to use a drilling rig, loggers, cementers, much like every other well drilled. And...! Phase II will follow Phase I.

Wow, it's easy to understand why they would be "excited" about seven net shallow wells. The "Best North American Independent" is on the move. They could easily finish this project in a year or so and double their proved producing reserves.

"The subsurface work appears favorable for this area and we have the ability to grow and expand here."

Well, good to know they are not randomly poking holes in the ground. Subsurface work supports drilling; now, that's novel.

And just consider the expansion seven net wells affords!
{/sarcasm}

As always, the press release is about what they are going to do and what will be happening real soon now.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breitling-energy-announces-new-14-well-development-program-300122980.html

Well, there's always the option of discussing facts. For instance, here is a list of the wells that BECC chose to mention in their presentation:

Operator Well API Status
Breitling Teaf #1 4244134434 Producing @12 BOPD
Steller Parramore 1 4243133456 No reported production
Steller Hoppe '63' 1 4243133464 No reported production. BECC says went online 6/2014
Breitling Buresh 17-1HM 1519122715 Last Reported production 12/2014
Crown Energy Breitling-Woodring 1 3504724523 No reported production

Sorry about the format problem.

Out of the thousands of wells BECC has frac'ed. These are the wells they selected.
There are two other wells I have linked to Breitling:

Crown Energy Wilson 1H 3508323976 Last Reported production 10/2014
Crown Energy Meek, Thomas 7601 4221132189 Producing @30 MCFPD

Did you read my post?

I think I am right regardless. An ORRI has reserves and so does a carried interest. Remember, I didn't say they were right, just that there is no evidence that they are wrong. If you think that all of BECC's ORRI and WI and carried interests don't add up to 84 MBBL, then I cannot prove you wrong, but the question is whether there is any evidence you are right. OR more correctly, no evidence I've seen.

If you think through experience that the gross reserves are too large for a company like BECC, that is your opinion and you may be able to back it up.

I have been looking for evidence either way and have not found it. The company does not discuss what it owns. It does discuss what it has drilled as operator, but only in a vague sense about what the wells is going to do or can do or what operation they will be doing real soon now. They do not discuss what their interest in the well is. I could see trading several hundred royalty interests purchased with someone else's money and coming up with 84 Mbbl in overrides. That simply means someone is good at talking other people out of money.

If one believes that BECC can continue to draw investors in an increasing volume, then the company might do well. There are some things I filter out in general and I may miss a specific opportunity. For example, I don't open letters from Nigeria. One could be the business opportunity of a lifetime and I would never know it.

I have mentioned an number of red flags and that doesn't mean BECC will fail.

I read the 2013 filing with its reserve summary. It's all I have seen with regard to reserve estimates. I didn't see anything to suggest the reserves were owned by anyone else. In fact the PDP numbers looked reasonable. Now, it is certainly possible to falsify reserves even through a reputable engineering firm. The reserves estimators don't check title.

There is simply nothing that I have seen to suggest the figures were not correct. That doesn't mean they are correct, but you can say that about most reserve info.

In January 2015 oil bottomed out at around $41. BECC was trading at around $0.40. Knowing that the market had priced in the low oil prices, I'm sure you again started to load up.

Sounds like you think CF was trying to give the wrong impression, laraz.

It is true I had some exposure to oil, but not much. That has been a general rule for a long time because there is no reason to expose my savings and my job to the same risk. I was even further limiting my exposure because the price of oil was too high.

I did, however, tell friends and co-workers to bail on GDP, CHK, XCO--quite proud of that. You don't think I indirectly moved the market, do you?

As far as financial advisers, they know the risk and I am sure they diversified. I am sure some people were wiped out when XOM dropped over 15%.

Look, there is nothing wrong with going high-risk, high return, long shots. A lot of people made money trading Enron. I missed out because I thought Enron over-hyped and I did not see the revenue potential they did. I am rarely the smartest guy in the room.

If you got into BECC for a few cents and sold, good for you. As with GDP, CHK, XCO, I look at the value of reserves, what they are paying to replace them, and, if applicable, debt level. Not really a technical stock analysis. I do not look at the awards the CEO got, who he had lunch with, his opinion on world oil markets, or how many times he appears on CNN. That's my style and I am sticking with it.

By the way, I made a great return buying cellular phone stock because I thought it was going somewhere. That's my style.

reaper when you are right, you are right. Your analysis is way more sophisticated than mine. Back in July 2014 I thought BECC was overvalued at $0.90 a share. I completely missed the lunch with a representative.

But you knew it wouldn't be a penny stock for long. I'm sure you loaded up. Another missed opportunity for me. A slam dunk and I was invested elsewhere.

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.

post# 1302

Oh, and by the way, lest you think I don't understand how you defined market cap, I will say I do and it still doesn't matter. It is still not stockholder equity. I am not going to re-read the merger terms because you bring up some far-flung point, but when I did read the agreement, my understanding was that Breitling did not just give away significant interests in it's assets for no particular reason. They had no reason to because Bering was less than worthless. I have forgotten the small bone thrown to the creditors and Bering stockholders to avoid an IPO, but I remember they did throw a few and it really doesn't matter.

Now I understand why we are a cross purposes, you don't know the common meaning of some important investment terms:

Calculating Market Cap
Market capitalization is just a fancy name for a straightforward concept: it is the market value of a company's outstanding shares. This figure is found by taking the stock price and multiplying it by the total number of shares outstanding. For example, if Cory's Tequila Corporation (CTC) was trading at $20 per share and had a million shares outstanding, then the market capitalization would be $20 million ($20 x 1 million shares). It's that simple.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/031703.asp#ixzz3fvHNruZy
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter

So here comes the hard part. If 20 shares trade at eight cents and there are no other trades, then the market value (might want to look that up) has been established at 8 cents, even though a company has shareholder equity of minus several million. (See my previous post defining shareholder equity). It also does not mean that all shares would sell at eight cents if offered at once, because you would have to find enough people to pay eight cents, in this case for a company that had negative value. Bering had no value, it had virtually no assets and plenty of debt. Since that implies no shareholder equity in the sense that everyone but you uses the term, I said there was no shareholder equity. I don't know how to say it simpler.

Sorry, FN, I just can't help a few more comments.

Shareholders' Equity

DEFINITION OF 'SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY'
A firm's total assets minus its total liabilities. Equivalently, it is share capital plus retained earnings minus treasury shares. Shareholders' equity represents the amount by which a company is financed through common and preferred shares.


Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholdersequity.asp#ixzz3fsPVyONK
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter

Using figures from the last annual report:

Total assets: $765k
Total liabilities: $7,896K
Total stockholders' deficit: $(7651K)

These figures are for BECC not Bering, but Berring did not get worse by the BECC merger, at least I hope not.

If a handful of people choose to buy shares at 8 cents a share, that does not alter shareholder equity. It does alter market cap.


This is in regard to:

...It is my layman's opinion that there was no stockholder equity in Bering, but that is neither here nor there...

I don't remember the exact number, but I can assure you that you are wrong.

I was wrong in that no stockholder equity is not the same as negative stockholder equity, I suppose. Also, you may have been confused by my using stockholder when more correctly I should have said shareholder.

You did calculate market cap correctly and if I bought one share of BECC at a $1, market cap would rise to almost $500 million. So what.

FMII

Fair enough, FN. On the other hand, I have recently learned that BS unanswered becomes the truth, in business and politics as well an other areas.

To get off the Breitling subject for a moment, I have heard more BS from oil companies spending someone else's money to last a lifetime (to turn a phrase ). I am also not to keen on aggressive sales to people who are not in the industry. It might be to someone's grandmother. The oil industry is virtually unregulated as an investment (That requires some qualification that would take several pages. I'll leave that for now.) It is not for the layman. "Sorry, dry hole." and the small investor has lost everything with little practical defense against being taken.

That being said, I am done until, as you also wish, we here something of substance from BECC.

Just out of curiosity, what would you like to see here? Discussion of reserves? Done. Annual reports? Done. Business potential? Done. Past business successes? To the extent possible, done.

Say something substantive about BECC as an example of what would be a service to this board.

Time to summarize what I said.

1. I believe that Breitling has exaggerated it's technical involvement in wells. There is evidence to support this opinion and evidence to the contrary is under the control of Breitling and not public. I have not said that CF is a scam artist and I have not said he has lied.

2. There are a number of disturbing lawsuits.

3. It is disturbing that the annual report is very late.

4. There are very few wells that can be traced to Breitling through public records and most have been poor. It is possible to operate an oil company and keep out of public records with regard to wells drilled or to their performance.

5. Going from a few hundred thousand dollars to $65 million in annualized gross income in a few months is remarkable, especially without a source of capital that I understand. Direct investors are not included in the $65 million according to reaper.

There is nothing more. I have discussed other things with reaper, but that is simply an enlightening discussion. Everyone should do their own research.

I believe that the gross reserves are in the same report that you didn’t care to take the time to take a second look at, that shows that Breitling is a potential monster stock play.


In a reserve report, the gross reserves are total reserves of the properties. The gross reserves may or may not be owned by direct investors. If BECC were to own 1% of a 100 Mbbl well, then gross reserves would be 100 Mbbl and net reserves would be 1 Mbbl. The 99 Mbbl could be owned by anyone. In any case, the 99 is not related to the corporation's gross income, as confirmed by you. I didn't take a second look, but I did note that because net reserves were so small compared to gross, BECC must own a small interest in a lot of wells (or one very extraordinary one).

Additionally, you were talking about BECC involvement in well drilling and said something like "as a WI participant." My point was that $49 million could not have come from oil and gas sales from WI properties. It was not that you explicitly said it did.

As a working interest participant in these wells, they did show revenues of $49,000,000 for nine months ending Sept. 2014, their first nine months as a publically traded company.

Right or wrong, some people might think the $49 MM came from WI in the absence clarification.

Gross revenue from oil and gas sales in the last available annual report showed $461,772 for the year.

I don't want to mislead, so I have to say it wasn't a bald assertion. The last reserve report showed net reserves of 84 Mbbl of net, proved producing reserves. I'm going from memory because I don't care to look it up, but I am confident. I also remember that gross PDP reserves were several hundred times higher, meaning tiny interests in many wells. 84 Mbbl is about one-quarter of one Bakken well, so after reviewing several thousand prospects, designing or commissioning several thousand frac jobs, BECC comes up with 1/4 of one typical modern horizontal fractured well. Did not happen, makes no econmmic since.

84 mbbl PDP won't generate $49 million dollars of WI gross revenue from a horizontal fractured well over a few months, so unless BECC obtained $100 MM plus from no known source for its own account and drilled at least dozens of net wells in a few months, the $49 MM did not come from WI. Even overrides and carried interests, and reasonable fees would sugggest hundreds of net wells drilled over a few months with associated costs perhaps approaching perhaps a billion dollars. All without attracting the interest of people in the industry.

Just a dumb layman, someone other than reaper, please explain.

You can assert that my opinions are wrong, but that is not the same as showing them wrong.

That $49,000,000 in revenue is attributed to the company, not the private investors who participate in these oil and gas wells.

I suppose you have some evidence of that or that it came from BECC owned WI? Perhaps when BECC comes out with some financial statements they are comfortable with, we will know.

The net revenue that their direct investors are enjoying is probably a little more,

You are not trying to plant the idea that the $49 MM is net revenue, are you?

There is no evidence of the magnitude of direct investor net revenue or NCF, you just made that statement up. I will give you, if you exclude capital expenditures, the revenue is bound to be positive, it's the nature of the industry.

Check Goodrich (GDP) gross revenue when it was trading at $30. Check its cumulative NCF, exclusive of loan or bond proceeds, over the last 13 years. Is gross revenue a good indicator of a good investment? I know you brought up the $49 million with regard to size, not investment quality, so I am not mixing up what you are said--just commenting on gross revenue.

I will tell you that it is highly unlikely that Breitling developed or even reviewed WI prospects that later generated $49 million in gross revenue for the corporation over the period in question. That is a bald assertion and I await anyone disproving it. I will be joyful if they do, because it would be one less red flag and that is a good thing. In the mean time we will have to deal with meaningless press releases like the one saying the Teaf is capable of 160 BOPD.

Funny how there are press releases by the ton of what is about to happen, frac'ing, completion, will be put on in the next quarter, etc. Very little comment when the thousands of wells are actually put on production or on how they are doing. Confidentiality and all.

FMII

I think it is misleading to say that Breitling has limited success in drilling wells. As a working interest participant in these wells, they did show revenues of $49,000,000 for nine months ending Sept. 2014, their first nine months as a publically traded company.

How misleading is it to attribute that $49 MM to WI? They own royalties, also. Secondly, it is gross revenue and even at that they would have a bigger footprint if that was their $49 MM and not that of direct investors.

I stand by my statement. There is nothing wrong with buying tiny interests in successful wells in limited risk areas, the trick is to profit from it.

I grow weary of this. I am not the one grasping at straws or making misleading misleading statements. I hope you and BECC's direct investors prosper.

Fair enough, reaper. In writing these posts I do consider all readers and try to make sure they do not conflate what I said with other posters or bloggers. TS has no more authority as an anti-frac'er than CF does as an advocate. TS has an agenda and makes no secret of her bias. While I think it is appropriate to question an "opponent's" expertise in a public debate, I have would not and have not done it in the sarcastic, snarky manner that she did. And that is hypothetical since I am not opposed to frac'ing.

Sticking to the question at hand, if people, with all available information want to invest in a company that is overdue on its annual report, has limited success in drilling wells, limited skin in the game and that is being sued by perhaps the most important vendor they have, OK,that's fine. No saying CF is a scam artist from me. I am sure there are hundreds of successful companies that started similarly.

As an aside, there are more than one oil companies that I "know" are going out of business even while they are getting buy or hold recommendations--that is without assuming that there must be dishonesty involved.

I suppose I could look it up, but I believe I posted I have never caught them in a lie. It is my opinion that Breitling has gone out of its way to give the impression they are far larger and more experienced than they are. I believe that tried to plant the idea of technical sophistication by sticking "Breitling" in front of other people's technology or just mentioning a technology such as "slim hole drilling" to plant the association. Since I cannot read Chis Faulkner's mind, I have no way of knowing it was intentional and my opinion may well be wrong.

If you go back through an internet archive of his early web pages, a reasonable person would think he was claiming to be a leading edge technologist. Some oil companies liked his writing so well, they literally cut and pasted from his web page: http://www.xenergypetroleum.info/3-D-and-4-D-Seismic-Imaging.html

I have never said there was a scam going on, so don't set up a straw man to knock down. Chis Faulkner has a business history that you don't care about. OK.

It is my layman's opinion that there was no stockholder equity in Bering, but that is neither here nor there.