Seeking Alpha

David Allen

 
View as an RSS Feed
View David Allen's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Lindsay Makes It Rain [View article]
    Great article. Thank you.
    Sep 17 11:19 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Infrastructure Improvements And NGV Adoption Can Take Clean Energy Fuels Higher [View article]
    Touche.
    Sep 16 02:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Infrastructure Improvements And NGV Adoption Can Take Clean Energy Fuels Higher [View article]
    Instead of rhetoric, be an intelligent investor and do the math. The chart shows that class 8 sales have been 400 to 600 trucks per month for the first six months of 2014, with a slight upward trend. At a 50%/50% LNG/CNG split, we are now adding 200 to 300 LNG trucks onto the road each month -- with no growth, it will take four or five years to reach 13,000 trucks (assuming 1,000 trucks already on the road). At a 30%/70% LNG/CNG split with no growth, it will take 5 to 10 years.

    CLNE has enough cash to fund losses equivalent to 2Q14 for more than two years. They have debt starting to come due in 2016. Will they be okay? An intelligent investor will take into account a reasonable projection of class 8 LNG truck growth, as well as their growth in CNG deliveries, Redeem fuel, CNG compressors, and fueling opportunities in the rail and maritime sectors, and then make a decision as to whether their current market valuation is reasonable.

    I have done these calculations. I am disappointed that Class 8 sales have not reached the 800 per month levels that Cumins, Westport, CLNE and others set as expectations earlier this year. I am disappointed (as an investor in CLNE, but not as a consumer or investor in other stocks I own) that oil prices have been declining downwards, suppressing demand for NG powered vehicles. Nevertheless, despite these disappointments and the endless, mindless rhetoric of the anti-CLNE crowd, it is hard for me to conclude that CLNE won't be valued higher in the future than it is now.
    Sep 16 09:51 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Infrastructure Improvements And NGV Adoption Can Take Clean Energy Fuels Higher [View article]
    While critics of CLNE say things like "CLNE bet the farm on LNG", they often ignore that it will take only a small number of LNG fueled trucks to generate a positive return on CLNE's investment. The equivalent of 13,000 LNG trucks fueling at CLNE, each consuming an average of 20,000 gallons annually, would double CLNE's current natural gas deliveries and push their cash flow into the positive -- even including their expensive interest on debt. Considering there are well over 200 thousand new class 8 trucks sold every year, even the most pessimistic critics must concede that this number is going to be reached within a few years. CLNE is almost certainly on the road to profitability.
    Sep 15 10:36 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    Upside, you certainly don't lack for opinions, but please don't pretend the facts to support them. Your formula for distortion is to state something obvious, then make an outrageously false claim about what it means.

    Example: "CLNE bet big on LNG...": the obvious, then "...this will destroy the common shares over time": the outrageously false claim. First, CLNE's big bet will pay off when only a relatively small number of LNG fueled trucks are on the road (about 4% of only one year's sales). Second, CLNE's is a leading CNG provider and also benefits from the growth of CNG. Third, as clearly explained in the article, there's no threat to common shares.

    Example: "The trucking industry, by and large, doesn't want to move from diesel to natural gas in the first place...": the obvious, then "...It simply makes little economic sense...": the outrageously false claim. The trucking industry, like anyone else, doesn't like to have to invest in new technology -- they'd like to keep using the trucks they've known all these years. But it's ridiculous to say it doesn't make economic sense. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner; this is why customers are demanding it (as stated in the WSJ article) and why trucking companies are making the change. Yes, it's true the return on investment isn't as good as it needs to be for the change to happen quickly; but there is a return and the change is happening.

    Example: "Having bet big on LNG...": the obvious, then "...and lost, CLNE's strategy now for CNG is reliant on its IMW division": the outrageously false claim. First, CLNE hasn't lost -- they are starting to win now that trucks are on the roads. Second, their CNG business is in no way reliant on its IMW division; CNG would be big business for CLNE just like it is for some 200 other companies in the CNG business that don't have compressors.

    I could go on, but correcting Upside's distortions grows tiresome -- I'm sure most readers if they've read comments this far can see this man/woman/boy/girl -- whoever he/she is -- is so vested in convincing people that CLNE is about to crash that accuracy is unimportant to him/her.
    Aug 26 11:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    Upside, somehow I am not surprised that you would reject all available evidence and instead rely on an industry newsletters' quote of small consulting firm report -- a report that obviously makes no sense.

    You may want to stop reading this response, Upside, because you seem to get confused by facts, but for anyone else out there who bases their investments on facts, let me briefly explain why the quote Upside relies upon is obviously misguided.

    The quote says there will be a total of 11,000 LNG powered trucks sold in the eight years between 2013 and 2020, starting with 304 in 2013 and ending with 4,227 in 2020. Keeping in mind that the 304 trucks sold in 2013 were all purchased in the last month or two of the year and that today's Wall Street Journal article as well as numerous other sources are all reporting that numerous trucking companies are purchasing LNG powered trucks, does Upside's quote make any sense? Let's do the math. According to the quote, there will be 6,469 LNG powered trucks sold in the six year period of 2014 - 2019 (11,000 total trucks, less the 304 sold in 2013 and the 4,227 they project will be sold in 2020). Is there any distribution of sales over these years that passes the smell test? How about:

    2013: 304
    2014: 1,000
    2015: 1,000
    2016: 1,000
    2017: 1,000
    2018: 1,000
    2019: 1,469
    2020: 4,227

    This adds up to 11,000, but it makes no sense. Why would sales stay so low for six years and then jump in 2020? Is there any evidence that LNG truck sales are only going to be 1,000 this year when the expectation has been about 5,000?

    Upside may make his investments based on obviously flawed analyses like these, but I don't and I wouldn't imagine many other readers out there would either.
    Aug 26 04:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    You continue to amaze me, Upside, with your distorted slant on everything you write. How about just trying to be a little objective?

    The article you quote also says "About 10,480 of the [natural gas powered] heavy-duty trucks are expected to be sold this year". Remember, CLNE just needs to fuel 13,000 LNG trucks to reach total cash flow break even; more than this and they'll be profitable. It's old news that it's taking longer for this to happen than originally projected; the real news is that it is still happening.
    Aug 26 11:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    Upside, I think you have set a record for number of comments with the highest percentage of errors. The article and my post concerned Dillon's Texas operations. The Texas laws limit the length of tractor and trailer.
    Aug 23 12:00 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    You keep shifting your views and making unsubstantiated claims. First you say that CLNE will fail because they don't have as many stations as they claim, then you say they'll fail because they won't have any customers. When those issues are refuted, you make assertions about their cash flow and share dilution -- but provide no specific response to anything in my article except your childish "plausible (NOT)" comment apparently about one of the several cash flow projections I make.
    Aug 22 06:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    At least now you're admitting that these stations will serve garbage trucks, but you did not admit that in your article or your comments. You repeatedly lie and distort.
    Aug 22 06:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    Upside,

    Your links add nothing to the discussion. The article concerns Dillon operations in Texas, so linking to a map showing their other locations doesn't mean much.

    I don't know why you keep posting incorrect information. Do you not understand or are you just so determined to trash CLNE that you will say anything even though you know you are being untruthful? In summary, I would say your behavior is like an adolescent boy: too proud to admit you're wrong, too uncertain of yourself to disclose your identity, and too immature to discuss complex matters intelligently.
    Aug 22 06:11 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    I haven't heard anyone dispute that CNG is rapidly being adopted as a fuel for trucks. This article confirms that. However, it doesn't tell us much about LNG as a fuel. Dillion Transport concentrates within the "Texas Triangle" of Houston, Dallas and Austin/San Antonio; within this region, rapid fill CNG is accessible and inexpensive because of proximity to high pressure natural gas pipelines. Also, as mentioned in the article, their typical length of haul is less than 550 miles, at the outside edge of effective CNG range. Because this carrier operates within one state, Texas, and because this state allows longer trailer lengths than virtually any other state (59' as opposed to 48' to 53' in most other states), the extra size of CNG tanks is less of a factor. Finally, I don't find the ROI estimates to be conclusive; CNG is better established and more competitive, so LNG trucks are of course more expensive at this time.
    Aug 22 12:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    Interesting information, movin', and maybe the most relevant of anything I've seen you post. I agree that a company that does not treat its employees well is a company that should be suspected of bad business acumen. Even taking it with a small grain of salt because employees who get fired often have a negative perspective, it is troublesome to hear.

    I think your point that other companies have vapor recovery units is interesting because it confirms a point I make in the article: that it is quite feasible to reduce methane emissions with a little bit of effort. Nevertheless, it is disheartening if true that CLNE is venting directly into the atmosphere. I disagree, however, that it poses any obstacles to CLNE's future prospects; if they were required to do it by government or customers, I'm sure they could do it as easily as anyone else.

    Finally, this relates to another point about CLNE that I haven't made before, but have been thinking has some relevance. That is that while CLNE has over a quarter billion of cash on hand -- enough to last more than two years at their current burn rate -- they are a company that is feeling some financial stress. I suspect this is why you and others have observed that their prices are somewhat higher in business segments that are marginal to them. It may also be an underlying factor if they are not treating certain employees well or not practicing the highest environmental standards. This is not to excuse this type of behavior -- it is inexcusable -- but to offer a possible explanation.
    Aug 21 07:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    I would point out that Upside has also changed his position about LNG fueled Class 8 trucks. Now he says "LNG is going to be a tiny fraction of the overall natural gas use in trucking", but in comments as recent as June 2 he says "A recent Navigant Research report forecasts North American sales of natural gas trucks and buses to grow from 10,444 units in 2014 to 36,669 units in 2022." (http://bit.ly/1lhNo5h). This shows once again that he will say anything to try to defend his misinformed opinions.
    Aug 20 12:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: The Battle Of Bears Versus Bulls [View article]
    This is the kind of post that angers me, because it is dishonest and deceitful. I hate to think that a small time investor might come to SA for thoughtful and useful information, but instead find slanted, distorted information like this.

    Upside says he "exposed" a "misrepresentation" by CLNE CEO Andrew Littlefair, but he did nothing of the kind. He quotes a truthful statement, then tries to make readers think that there is something wrong with it. There is nothing wrong or inaccurate with what Mr. Littlefair said.

    At the time of the quote, CLNE had 96 stations open for heavy duty trucks, far more than any other company. Heavy duty trucks has a very specific meaning that is defined by the Federal Highway Administration (http://bit.ly/QdEjEb). Heavy duty trucks include Class 7 trucks (e.g., garbage trucks) and Class 8 trucks (e.g., long haul tractor-trailers). About 40% of all garbage trucks nationally now use natural gas, and other Class 7 trucks like cement mixers are starting to convert. Class 8 trucks using natural gas just started hitting the highway in the last year. CLNE is the leading retailer of natural gas fuel for heavy duty trucks.

    Upside is trying make a bear case by not disclosing the above information and, instead, trying to make people think that a fueling station designed to put CNG in a garbage truck somehow should not be counted as a heavy duty truck station. Upside is wrong and dishonest.
    Aug 20 12:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
170 Comments
197 Likes