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.
I misread reverse split as reverse merger. I really have no idea how many times the corporation has been passed around like a cold beer. Maybe never, until Breitling came along. I suppose I could look it up.
Does the size of an obligation that will never get paid matter? Does it matter whether it is called toxic debt or accounts receivable?
By making incorrect observations, you seem to be implying that Faulkner was responsible for Bering Exploration’s poor performance that was largely funded by toxic debt and CDs that were dilutive in nature and destructive to shareholders back then. You also falsely imply that Faulkner was responsible for executing two reverse splits (1 in 2010 and one in 2012.) That is also not the case.
I implied no such things. I didn't even insinuate them. In fact, I expressly said he wasn't involved and also implied he wasn't involved. If you are going to make up stuff about me, I am going to question your motives and your sincerity.
It is interesting how may times that corporation has been passed from failed management team to failed management team.
Was that $0.016 a new closing low? I don't remember.
Breitling has not been a public company for five years as you have falsely claimed and it existed for about ten years before going public, not the six or eight that you incorrectly stated.
Just the fact that you stated "six or eight" years demonstrates that you didn’t know and were just guessing.
I have already answered those assumptions. The fact that you don't believe me is of no consequence whatsoever to me and....no one else cares.
Often times, people confuse paperwork with action. A permit can be seen as a sign of development. Someone might think registering an LLC establishes a functioning exploration company. It is much the same as thinking purchased radio time or awards or photographs or appearances on television establish a track record of finding commercial oil.
At the same time other people get confused about testing for performance and start acting as if inability to prove something false means it is true and inability to prove something true means it is false. All this dependent on a pre-conceived wish.
Let's say you are looking for an oil company that is going to fail because you have a need to lose some money. If you randomly pick an oil company, but limit the choice to only corporations who don't file required reports and where it is extremely difficult to verify their track record, you have very little chance of picking a successful company. But make sure they have no independent board members and no independent auditors. Check to make sure they have a bunch of default judgements against them because their lawyers quit. Also, check to make sure their exploration strategy is to drill in depleted areas.
A completely different company, with different officers and employees that had no prior connection to Breitling.
I know that and implied that in the very post about BERX.
There is no getting around that Bering had negative shareholder equity. I mean that in the way everyone but you uses it, assets-liabilities.
Specifically, what assets did Bering have?
As I said before, Bering Exploration was a struggling company with a decent share structure and public float, with assets and liabilities that may have been advantageous to Breitling as they went public.
That's a lot of speculation. Bering was not a struggling company; it was a corpse.
He didn’t do that. He was conservative and tried to do the right thing for everyone involved, including the shareholders of BERX.
I suppose there is some substantive difference between taking 90% of a company and taking 100%. What stockholders were protected? After the creditors and CF et al took their share, what was left?
I can answer some of that. I don't know if there were any general public shareholders left, but if there were, they benefited by jettisoning worthless stock, thus cleaning up their portfolios. The insider shareholders, the officers, walked away from millions of dollars in debt (best I remember) and a corporation with less than zero value. They then were in a position to move on to their next "venture" and perhaps missed not a day of salary, but maybe they missed a few months while they lined up "investors" by touting their years of experience experience in the pharmaceutical business or the oil business or the gold mining business. They probably had some things lined up before the deal with Breitling. Heck, CF had been running Breitling for years before CI collapsed. He walked away from CI, ducked a $700,000 judgement and the rest is history. I really doubt he missed a day of salary.
Maybe the insiders had some plaques showing they were the best North American Gold company. Maybe they had some pictures of themselves standing next to a Senator. In any case, the messy business of BERX was in their past, never to be spoken of again.
Based on Breitling oil and Gas's reported value, CF et al gave up about $15,000 in equity to appease the creditors. They gave up less than zero value to gain something with the possibility of value. They cleaned up their loan portfolio and wrote off the loans, cleaning up their balance sheet. We know now that the reported value of Breitling probably was incorrect. BECC is working on figuring the number out and will get back to us as soon as practicable. I have a feeling that the number will go down.
It is possible that BECC went public without giving up a dollar in value.
One could go crazy trying to track ownership of the various people and corporations, so if anyone has some enlightening information, I would be interested. If someone knows I got some unimportant detail wrong, I am not interested, but it's a free country.
BTW Reaper,
You failed to mention that BECC made a new intra-day low. Did you fail to mention that because it doesn't support your claims or was it because you don't mention things that don't relate to your point at the time? Or is it that you simply don't track that because it is unimportant? Just wondering, it seems like someone discussing stock trading would mention that.
I didn’t mention that permits can be transferred, because its common knowledge and not the case in this situation.
Is that kinda like saying you didn't mention something because it was not particularly relevant or important to your point? You failed to mention offset permits, are you trying to hide something or just not reporting every possible irrelevancy? Did you not even check offset permits? I mean just because they are unimportant to your point doesn't mean you should stop scouring.
By the way, I use commercial data gatherers so I don't scour the RRC site much at all. I use it to document things, since it is first source and sometimes I will check a specific well. You can't ask the RRC site a question like, "Show me every well in X county deeper than Y." Being able to search that way really speeds things up. You should give it a try if you ever decide to invest any serious money in the oil business.
I am not confused, I know exactly what happened and I stated it several times. CF looked around for a burned out corporation; he paid off the creditors with a stake in the corporation, thus avoiding the expense, rules, and scrutiny of an IPO. It is that simple. I still don't know what integrity of share structure means.
BTW, the SEC is not confused either:
You are correct. In April, you used an October permit filing as evidence that Breitling was continuing its drilling program. Now that I understand that, my only response is "OK." You can't hear the laughter, LOL as you like to write.
Ironically, the corporation didn't find any oil when it was BERX. I have this vision of these guys getting together and passing corporations one management team to the left, shedding debt with each cycle, but maintaining their salary. CF hasn't done that in the oil business and I doubt he will, but it will be interesting to watch.
Well, whatever, not worth refuting. I'll simply repeat my earlier responses by reference, because, oddly, there is nothing new to say and it doesn't have anything to do with BECC's performance.
So what you are saying is that you used a permit filing in October to back up the claim in April that BECC is moving ahead? OK, now it is clear. I honestly thought you were trying to refute something I said.
If you hear anything, let us know. I have a Pacer account set up, but in the few times I used it, I never felt I was seeing everything.
Just saying that the public information shows that Chris Faulkner seems to have done everything in his power to protect Breitling Energy shareholders by maintaining the integrity of the share structure.
I am afraid I don't really understand the term integrity of the share structure. I know that at the end of the day, CF et al ended up with at least 90% of the stock in the corporation formerly known as BERX. My memory is that most if not all of the remaining shares went to creditors in order to release debt that would not have otherwise gone away when BERX bought Breitling Oil and Gas with BERX shares. Now, the creditors exchanged worthless debt for a stake in BECC and perhaps sold some of the shares.
I am not going to re-read the agreement because it hardly matters if I get it exactly right, but what shareholders got protected? Since CF got real value for the leftover stock, the release of debt, why would anyone assume his motive was anything other than getting rid of said debt? HE "went public" by giving up about $15,000 worth of equity. That is certainly lower than your estimate of a typical cost of $50,000.
I must say, I have hardly any experience with reverse mergers, so I have a genuine uncertainty. Part of the agreement, I assume negotiated by the creditors, was a no-dilution agreement. The BOD agreed to a dilution that never took place. If I were a creditor, I would have been long gone by the time that clause expired. Because the creditors loaned money to BERX, I have my concerns about their business acumen, so I don't know what they did.
So who got protected? Shareholders who bought in at a market value of $500 million?
Admittedly, CF could have diluted the shares, but the dilution would have affected himself. Back in June you suggested, by implication, that the lack of dilution indicated that CF believed BECC was or could be a viable company. I think you were correct. CF also on two occasions bought around $5000 of stock (number is from memory, anyone who wants the exact number can look on Edgar or on my earlier posts). You suggested that that indicates CF thought BECC had value. I tend to agree with you, except that it is an extremely small amount. At the time and to this day, CF owns millions in market valued stock, so was that a genuine effort to increase his stake? IF so, why the de minimis amount? I truly don't know, so I have no problem stipulating that CF thought BECC had value through March of last year. On the other hand, CF has done such odd and ill-advised things in promoting himself and his company, I have to acknowledge that he may have been generating an SEC filing for promotional purposes. I am not talking about stock promotion so it would be off subject for anyone to go there.
Well, actually, I was talking about the recent time you used the phrase in connection with me not mentioning that Breitling filed a permit in October. You said earlier this year, but it was, in fact, in October. You also misstated well depths. People make mistakes, including you, get over it.
The stock promotion thing is irrelevant to my opinions and statements.
Like I have said before, whether someone is oblivious to the facts or is knowingly posting incorrect information is irrelevant.
The last time you posted that phrase it was in reference to my not posting some irrelevant information, yet there is a vast amount of irrelevant and relevant information you didn't post. You haven't posted much information lately. Perhaps because there is so little to post.
I have no way of knowing how much water the well is making or where the pump is set, but there is a good chance the well is not making operating expenses. The potential test showed a lot of water, but it was close enough to the frac job that most of that water could have been frac water.
The PI scout card showed tubing was set below the top of perforations, suggesting a deep pump, but that could have easily changed.
With the well making less than 10 BOPD, I wonder if anyone would be interested in a workover if the rods part. A few months should tell.
Well, to be honest, the filing of a permit is of such little consequence, I couldn't say for sure I didn't see it. Under what circumstances would an October filing have anything to do with what I have been saying? I see no reason to state what I presume everyone knows, that wells have been permitted and drilled and fracked. Heck, they spudded a well in October. Let me repeat that in full disclosure so everybody knows. Breitling has drilled and completed wells. Should I put that in my signature so no one gets confused?
I don't know, sometimes I do make bad assumptions, like if I am discussing a producing well on this forum, I don't need to spend time telling people that the well was in fact permitted and drilled. But in the interest of full disclosure, your post virtually proves that someone came up with $625.00 to pay the assessment---back in October.
Any particular need to state everything that doesn't have anything to do with my point?
Now what would be interesting is if any of the wells turned out to be any good.
The questions are rhetorical, I know you don't answer questions.
Heckling a CEO across multiple blogs and boards under multiple aliases, with information that is often incorrect or irrelevant, doesn’t provide anyone the moral high ground that some are trying to pretend to have.
That's funny, the way you twist reality. According to my memory I have posted comments under "Notafrackmaster," "Frackmaster2," and, of course, FMII. Multiple aliases, LOL. I have commented on other peoples's blogs. Two, I believe. Not that this has anything to do with anything. Is reaper247 on your birth certificate? Just wondering.
While I have demonstrated your lack of understanding about a lot of things, including well information, I will let others, at this point, judge what is relevant. They can scan the advertisements for BECC that you put at the top of this board and ponder what that has to do with an oil company's performance.
I have asked you multiple times to show where I was materially wrong. All I got were assertions, if anything at all.
Even speculation on historical or potential ROI for institutional and accredited investors are admittedly not to be taken seriously and posted for fun.
We have heard the stories of other failed or dishonest companies, in feeble attempts to imply some kind of guilt by association just because Breitling operates in the same sector.
What?
Even speculation on historical or potential ROI for institutional and accredited investors are admittedly not to be taken seriously and posted for fun.
There is that language problem we have. An assumption is not speculation and taking deal terms off the Breitling web page is not an assumption. But, yes, I have speculated, what's your point.
The terms of those agreements are not public information and any arguments regarding that information cant be resolved on a public forum one way or another
So?
In fact, by definition investors who participate in complex investments, like direct investing or advanced stock trading are considered to be more sophisticated and capable than the average observer or blogger.
If that statement had anything to do with anything, I would ask you to document your definition.
Those investors would hardly meet your condescending and false criteria of drunks and dementia patients.
Yawn. I suppose it would be pointless to ask you to back that up. Besides I was talking about a subset of possible investors.
I would go as far to say that these sophisticated investors have skills beyond the understanding of most people.
If you are talking about investors in Breitling, they are very much beyond my understanding.
As far as Breitling goes, I have already stated that it is my belief that they are still moving forward in Sterling County and are in a better position to survive this downturn than some of their peers on the NYSE and NASDAQ.
OK.
You asked me to back up that claim of mine and I will here and now.
Chris Faulkner is still featured from time to time on cable news programs, including an appearance on Fox Business a couple of days ago.
So CF appearing on Fox Business backs up what claim?
And even though the company has been relatively quiet, they still filed the necessary drilling permit earlier this year with the TRRC, to continue the development of the CWEI farmout agreement.
I suspect that you knew that already and failed to mention it because it doesn’t support your claim.
Ooh, BECC filed a drilling permit. Everything must be OK. I didn't mention it, because I didn't know about it.
I guess I should remind you again that Breitling did not “spring up.” Breitling has been around for well over a decade and will likely be around for a long time to come.
I am sorry that you don't like it.
CF stuck his toe in the water while he was CEO of a hosting company in 2004. In 2009, the individual with some WWW sophistication put up a text based website and soon began a publicity campaign. I am pretty comfortable with CF staying in the oil business as long as he is quiet about it, I will be too.
I am sure he will have a stake is some corporation that has some connection to the oil business, but that really doesn't have anything to do with anything.
After going to a number of conferences and listening to the CEOs of many oil companies, some now bankrupt, sometimes I think I am picking on Chris Faulkner. I've said before, there is nothing unique about CF, he's as common as a house cat. His public persona is just so outrageous, he makes an easy target for an example. Sure the PR is bait, but what PR isn't to some degree.
I would never try to talk someone out of spending a little money on a penny stock, it's the direct investors I am concerned about. If you call enough people, you are going to find someone with the early symptoms of dementia, or who is drunk or who is having a careless day or who has little financial skills. ...and if someone who makes $50,000 a month wants to send $15,000 to BECC without checking, I can understand that. Heck, Mark Twain was a great writer, but a terrible investor, no shame in that.
So as we are coming to the end of the life cycle of CF's venture into the oil business, it is important to understand that these companies are springing up all the time and failing all the time. It is true that more spring up during boom times and more failures occur during busts, but oil price is not the cause of failure. BECC would have had to have found some oil for their "growth by the drill bit" strategy to have been directly affected by price.
OK, climbing down off the soapbox for a while.
I think I have identified two more wells that Breitling participated in. The Buffalo Run No.1 is the Devon-Karen Meek No.1 in Wheeler Co., 42-483-33175. It's a nice 16,000 foot horizontal well that could easily make 2 BCF. If gas goes to $6 and oil goes to $100, investors will get 60% of their money back in another 16 years.
I think their Trinity #1 is the Crown Energy-Matthews 1-28. It produced for four months and made 2,556 MCF of dry gas. There were no wells that matched up with the Trinity No. 3. There were no successful wells in Jackson Co., during any possible time period, but it is possible Breitling decided not to drill it. Too many wells in Nueces Co. to run down the Trinity No. 2.
March Production figures are out for the Hoppe well. My guess is it was shut-in for part of the month. We will have to wait to see if it is put back on. Anyway, this is the part of the life of a well where ultmate recovery is a little tricky. The well could produce quite a bit of oil producing just at the economic limit, siginifcant to ultimate recovery, but not to economics. Or it could stop at any time. The well could have an ultimate recovery of 2879 to 6000 bbls.
Yes, and there are non-misleading ways of saying things and there are misleading ways. If Parker Hallam had said in a press release, "The first well of our Cottonwood prospect has reached TD. The Holcomb #1H was drilled to a depth of 12,166',that would not be misleading, but he didn't. He said, "Cottonwood #1H" in the naming style for a horizontal well, not a prospect. When Crude specifically and consistently uses the industry standard, Operator Name-Lease Name well number, there is little doubt they know what they are doing. Remember, it's the best North American Independent that's been in the business for 12 years. When Parker or Faulkner uses styling like Crude Energy-Cottonwood #1H or Breitling Oil and Gas-Big Tex No. 1, they know exactly what they are doing and I have never seen anyone else do such a thing. I stand ready for reaper to find a case, though.
By the way, using an H in the well number consistently means a horizontal well, consistent enough to filter in only horizontal wells. I have never seen this violated, but if there were a violation on one or two in a million wells, where the "H" means something else, I would not freak out, it's not a law or anything. It's a well, not a prospect, not a field, not a unit, not an AOI, it's a well.
People who are not trying to mislead do not use this style of naming on anything but wells in order to avoid confusion. Breitling has been causing confusion going back to at least the fake names in ND and the subsequent disastrous lawsuit against Petroleum News. Breitling said they used fake names to maintain confidentiality. Confidentiality for who? Not the operators, they are using the real well names and don't care if someone mentions it. In fact they would rather not be dragged into such nonsense.
Again, it Breitling are paranoid they can use the phrase, "the first well in our Big-Tex project." That way, they avoid getting multi-hundred thousand dollar judgements against them. They would not get the multi-million dollar damage to their business reputation because someone asked why there were not Breitling wells in ND. By their own statements they caused millions of dollars of damage by naming their projects in a misleading way.
So why do they continue to do it? In press releases they are still using fake names despite continued risk of millions of dollars of damage to their reputation. It is demonstrably and admittedly misleading; see Petroleum news case. It doesn't maintain confidentiality; I have identified most wells with relative ease based on their describing them to a tee. The reason is simple and discernable by a process of elimination and by logic. They want people to believe they are using advanced technology to pick well locations for hundreds, if not thousands of wells. They want people to think they are majority working interest owners by letting people think they are operator because their name appears in the operator slot.
Now, if someone wants to argue that Breitling and its wholly-owned subsidiaries are staffed by idiots who bring millions in damages upon themselves for no good reason and then completely fail to learn from their mistakes, it would be at least logical, but very far-fetched.
...and obviously there are people who think it is no big deal. BECC was bringing in investors until recently. People who ignore these kinds of red flags get skinned sooner or later.
By the way, besides the recent poster here, I have identified four Breitling direct investors. One asked for and received his money back. Another asked Breitling to contact him, the request was made as a comment to a transcript of a quarterly report conference call. Another said her check bounced but she was made whole. I say this because it's the truth, not that it supports my points. It is interesting that there is a shortage of direct investors who are enamored with Breitling, but that doesn't mean much in terms of company evaluation. Personally, for reasons I have already enumerated would want a recommendation from a trusted source. Something I have yet to find.
Prospects are named frequently differently but not in the style that wells are named. Also, when talking about a well reaching TD, there is no legitimate reason to use a fake name. If you are long on BECC, then you are going to lose money due to your lack of understanding. If you are short, you understand better than you let on. If I had a keyboard I would explain in detail, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. You either get it or you don't by now.
Prospects are named frequently differently but not in the style that wells are named. Also, when talking about a well reaching TD, there is no legitimate reason to use a fake name. If you are long on BECC, then you are going to lose money due to your lack of understanding. If you are short, you understand better than you let on. If I had a keyboard I would explain in detail, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. You either get it or you don't by now.
Not what you said. You specifically used the word royalty and you said you inferred your observation from BECC info. Besides I had already been asking you to back up things you made up, I mean observed. I ask you to follow a thread back to my questions. Ok, don't back up what you say. Who cares?
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they stumbled upon some bypassed pay in the Lauren that may have paid out, if they controlled their costs. Doesn't really explain why they participated in that Seely well.
I did get a chance to run down two of their Big Tex wells,:
42-165-37390-0000
42-165-37383-0000
No shot at paying out. Both are below commerical rates, 7 and 2 BOPD. One has produced 19 Mbbl in 4 1/2 years. The other has only produced for a few months at commercial rates and has made less than 3 MBbl in 4 1/2 years. Honestly, I think one could do better with a map and a dart and skip spending money on seismic.
Next up in the Archive is the Trinity 3 well project that went up in May 2010. Six months later it is shown as fully funded (http://web.archive.org/web/20101120075046/http://breitlingoilandgas.com/index-3.html)
I only checked the Okfuskee County well. There are no Breitling wells in the county, but there is the Crowne-Matthew 1-28, 35107234170, which is the only well that matches up with the description on the Breitling website. This well produced 2,566 MCF of gas in four months before going offline. It could well have paid off as much as 1% of the cost of the well.
That's all I am going to do for today, but there are more to look at another day. Of course, reaper, with his skills at online research, could cover a few to show BECC's skill at finding oil.
Here's another one.
Using the Internet Archive, I think this is the first project to show up on the BreitlingOilandGas.com website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100427011841/http://www.breitlingoilandgas.com/index-3.html
Of course there is no such well, but at the location described, there is a well named the Elliot Oil & Gas Operating Co.-Lauren No. 1, 4224532310. This well was put back on production, probably recompleted or re-entered, after not producing for 5 1/2 years. It made 302 MMCF of gas and 15,117 bbls of oil from June 2013 and May 2015. As a re-entry, this project may actually have paid out to the 100% working interest. The well stopped producing at profitable rates in 12/2014 and ceased producing altogether in May 2015.
Sometimes, their press releases don't make enough sense to me to extract any useful information. Here is Parker Hallam explaining that Crude Energy is leading the way in a little known Texas formation by participating in a non-existent well. The article then goes into great detail how Crude is going to use standard multistage fracturing technology, even though the well does not exist and the only well similar to what they describe was drilled and completed by someone else.
The article then explains that Crude Energy specializes in the Bakken and the Permian Basin and then, after discussing the size and activities of other companies in strange detail, explains why Crude is not drilling there.
Mr. Hallam is quite pleased with the results from the non-existent well, which is strangely similar to another company's well, the Holcomb No. 1H. If he is confused for some reason and is talking about the Holcomb No. 1H, it is hard to imagine that he would be pleased with it since the Holcomb is a crappy well.
mackfish,
In other words, there is no Cottonwood No. 1H. One might argue that BECC has the right to call someone else's well anything they want, but a well that has TD'd has a legal, recorded name.
I have the right to name my Ford pickup after a famous 19th century researcher, but if I say I drove my Tesla to work, it would be a lie. There is no getting around it.
The question, however, is whether BECC is referring to a well by saying "Cottonwood." It is clear that they want people to think so.
LOL repear,
Let me pull you back on subject. It is simple. You ask other people to back up what they say, but when you are asked, you simply ignore the question. I gave you but one example. How specific do you want me to be. Can you not figure some things out for yourself?
If one pays close attention, you can see that BECC goes to great lengths not to lie. Take this statement:
Reaper, you have a conveniently short memory. I can bring up another 1/2 a dozen if I choose.
Mr. Risinger got greedy. There is no need to go to jail. Just collect money from investors, charge a huge management fee along with a 25% carried interest. Drill crappy, close-in wells, all of which can be completed because depletion usually doesn't show up on logs and even if it did, your laymen investors won't recognize it.. Continue to charge management fees. Use fake names for wells so it is hard to check your track record. Buy time on radio stations and Fox news to add legitimacy. Buy yourself some awards.
But whatever you do, do not raid investors' funds to pay your salary. If you do, your independent auditors will smell a rat and quit. You will have to stop filing financials and you will sit around wondering why you killed the golden goose by going public. You can avoid all this stress by never ever going public. Sure people will eventually find out you can't find oil and the 10 year party will be over, but so what? Change the name of the company and start over.
I think we are witnessing that now.
Yep, Johnny,
The Sheriff was ordered in December to seize property within 90 days. I don't know how to find out how that went.
reaper,
Do you think that you should set an example for Mackfish by providing sources for what you say. I have asked you several times for some of the things you have said and you have posted nothing.