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.
