Replies to post #4030 on Breitling Energy Corp fka BECC

[FM II]

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.

[FM II]

Strange that I don’t see the same folks that are harassing Breitling Energy CEO Chris Faulkner, over on the Ultra Petroleum board harassing CEO Michael Watford

There are too many of them to harass them all; I picked Breitling. From my perspective there is one big difference between Michael Watford and Chris Faulkner. I have heard of Chris Faulkner. I have already explained why I harass CF as opposed to the thousands like him.

[FM II]

The PPS at that time was $.08. That was roughly $800,000 in stock to settle all outstanding debt and obligations, while picking up oil and gas interests that were valued at roughly $500,000 at the time according to the final BERX 10Q.

I don't know who would buy BERX at $0.08 and I certainly don't know who would buy BECC at $0.02 or any other price. I do know that there is a big difference in moving $8000 dollars worth of stock at $0.08 a share and moving 10 million shares.

BERX shareholders were permitted to maintain an equity stake in Breitling when they went public and enjoy the gains of the PPS appreciation.

Using your information, it looks like there was a 7.5% stake in BERX left undisturbed. That's 30 million shares with a current market value of $600,000. Since the largest daily value traded in BECC is around $500,000, dumping that stock would definitely move the market. But, since dumping 100% OF BERX would have been problematic, I can see how the stockholder's position might be improved. Something for nothing is an improvement regardless of how small. And if they were extraordinarily savvy, they could have unloaded a small portion of their shares at close to a $1. So it seems stockholders could walk away with a few thousand dollars if they played it right.

I will grant you that there are a lot of things CF does that I don't understand. I think there is a good chance that Breitling Oil and Gas was valueless at the time, since BECC had negative equity as of 12/31/2013. What a few dozen traders thought might be the value of the company is irrelevant, because a) the trade volume was so small and b) a tiny group's assessment of goodwill doesn't mean much. So 7.5% of nothing is still pretty small. From CF's standpoint he was giving up nothing at all.


Faulkner took a diluting, stock promoting and reverse splitting, POS going concern, company off the market and replaced with his own company that at the time was fully funded and profitable.

In this context, I am not sure what you mean by fully funded. If you mean no debt, OK. As to profitable, I think that is a bit of a leap.