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.
