BRS Resources Ltd. V.BRS.H

Energy

BRS Resources Ltd is an upstream oil and gas exploration and production company. It is engaged in production, exploration, and acquisition of petroleum and natural gas properties in Italy. The company along with its operational partner has drilled three explorations well in the Po Valley. Each of these prospects is in close proximity to and on trend with several nearby producing natural gas fields, including the Sabbioncello, Tresigallo, and Cotignola fields.

TSXV:BRS.H - Post by User

BRS Resources Ltd. > Why won't Byron answer some legitimate questions?

<< Previous

Bullboard Posts

Next >>

Comment by DuckDuckG00seon May 19, 2017 10:35am

51 Views

Post# 26264171

RE:RE:Why won't Byron answer some legitimate questions?

Maybe it's time for others to start pressuring Byron with these questions; unless you're happy with 'news is coming'...

DuckDuckG00se wrote:

DuckDuckG00se wrote: It appears Byron is avoiding answering the below questions; maybe someone else is curious enough & will have more luck at obtaining an answer?

Will any profits will reach BRS from the work being performed by Aleanna Resources (AR)? BRS owns 100% of Aleanna Energy (AE) which in turn owns 9.74% of AR. However, once AR starts making money, how will AE be using (or as the case may be, distributing) their 9.74% share of AR funds? Will the money be reinvested in AR or AE? Will BRS see any percent of the AE's money & if so, approximately how much/what percent is expected to be passed on to BRS?

What was the reasoning behind BRS going from 15.21% to 9.74% ownership of AleAnna Energy LLC?

I would really like to know the answers if anyone can get a response...

GLTA,
DDG

I've read all the responses (even those I have on ignore). What I get from the few legit responses is that it appears there is little understanding of actual business operations on this site.

Just because company A owns 100% of Company B, who in turn owns 10% of company C, does not mean company A will see any money. For example, company B may take their 10% & constantly re-invest it in itself (thus company A may not see any money for a long, long time). In such a situation, we need to know how company A will fund itself to remain viable, because if past history is an indication, selling it's stake in company C is a possibility to hold off debt collectors (or was there another reason?). Either way, it should be a simple answer.

Thus questioning why the drop from 15.21% to 9.74% becomes very valid & important, & if the answer is simply 'to pay off debt', why not just say so? I'm looking for answers not assumptions from those that don't truly know. The reasoning behind decisions is very important in business operations.

Again, those of you who are in touch with Byron, please ask him until he answers, preferably in writing...

GLTA
DDG