Replies to post #4041 on Breitling Energy Corp fka BECC

[reaper247]

LOL, FM 11,

I am not sure you understand what goodwill is.

I certainly don’t understand why you are trying to make it a topic of debate, since Breitling didn’t claim any goodwill in their financial statements. Any explanation on why you brought it up, or why you believe it to be relevant would be helpful.

As far as discussing financial statements that have potential accounting errors, you were the one who brought it up by talking about Breitling’s “negative equity.”

I am just responding by using the same documents that you are referring to.

I am also stating that Breitling existed roughly ten years as a private company without the need or ability to dilute shareholders and has only been public for just over 2 years, rather than the 5 that you continue to incorrectly claim.

I did explain about how the liabilities were carried over and the filings show it in detail for those who care to look.

You were the one who said that you had heard of Chris Faulkner CEO of Breitling, but had never heard of Ultra CEO Michael Watford. The point being that Fualkner has a media presence larger than some of his NYSE/NASDAQ counterparts.

While I did say Ultra had $2T in assets, it was obviously a typo and I did actually state the correct amount of assets in the same post.

"Ultra Petroleum had assets of more than $2,958,000,000 and a share price of $30 in early 2014 before $WTIC collapsed."

You claim extensive of research into Breitling, but still fail to acknowledge that most of Breitling’s royalty and working interests were accumulated as a private company and there is no way for anyone to comment on any of those wells, since Breitling is not the operator of those prospects.

The best that anyone can do, is guess at future production of a handful of wells that can be researched since Breitling became a public company two and half years ago.

While Faulkner does have some unpaid travel and advertising expenses that have gone to court, those debts are not toxic to shareholders at this point, as some people continue to falsely claim.

Many have also falsely claimed that Fualkner was fleecing investors, but there is proof that shows it to be absolutely false for public investors, while there is nothing to show anything of the sort for accredited and institutional investors.

IMO and FWIW.