Seeking Alpha

David Allen

View as an RSS Feed
View David Allen's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Clean Energy Fuels: Down But Not Out [View article]
    I don't believe concern about emissions are relevant at all to CLNE's prospects. No informed investor would decide to buy or sell CLNE because of concern over methane emissions.

    Three of the reasons methane emissions are not relevant are: 1) it's a long way from the administration commenting to actual legislation or regulation; 2) even if legislation or regulation is enacted, there almost certainly will be time given to the industry to come within compliance; and, 3) coming within compliance is relatively simple because there are many inexpensive ways to recapture what is currently emitted. Non issue.
    Mar 31 11:36 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: Down But Not Out [View article]
    20,000 Diesel Gallon Equivalents (DGE) per truck per year

    times

    $3.00 per DGE

    equals

    $60,000 DGEs per truck per year

    times

    5,000 trucks

    equals

    $300 million (or, times 25,000 trucks, equals $1.5 billion)
    Mar 29 04:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: Down But Not Out [View article]
    I think your research is spot on, but your interpretation of what it means needs refinement. Let's look at what the Kenworth salesman said and consider the implications:

    Is the NG engine available? Yes, the salesman knew it and that is a good thing.

    Is it expensive? Yes, it is very expensive. One of the reasons for this is that there is a limited supply -- as of late 2013, a Kenworth sales executive told a conference that they were sold out and backordered. They're delivering them as fast as they're able. Until Volvo introduces their NG engine later this year and Cummins-Westport increases their production runs, prices are going to remain very high. However, even with these high prices, fleet owners are reporting that they are evaluating whether their investments will be recouped within 3 years. Isn't it clear that demand will grow significantly IF prices start to drop?

    Is it under-powered? Yes, the 14 liter engine is described as suitable for long haul trucking in relatively flat areas of the country. It is not suitable for crossing mountains. This limits the market substantially; however, as noted above, more engines are planned and even with this limitation, existing supplies seem to be selling out.

    Does it have low range? The CNG tanks have low range, the LNG tanks have ranges competitive with diesel -- if you travel routes with CLNE stations. I am certain the salesman was assuming CNG.

    Does refueling take a long time? Yes, if you're using CNG and especially if you don't have access to a "fast fuel" station.

    In conclusion, I think your due diligence is accurate and useful. However, I think the appropriate conclusion is that we're early in the NG adoption process. It appears that there will be about 10,000 Cummins-Wesport 14 liter engines on the road by later this year; as the year develops, we will see what percentage of these are LNG versus CNG, whether prices start to come down, whether new engines come on the market as previously announced, and -- most importantly -- we will start to develop a picture of whether 2015 will see us with 5,000 LNG trucks on the market or 25,000.

    5,000 trucks represents about $300,000,000 of total LNG fuel sales; 25,000 represents $1.5 billion. In other words, this sales potential provides a significant opportunity for a company the market now values at less than $0.8 billion.
    Mar 27 10:36 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: Down But Not Out [View article]
    I'm just speaking facts, I'm not sure what your game is.
    Mar 26 11:57 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: Down But Not Out [View article]
    The post I responded to says "selling stock the entire time". Up until six months ago, there was significant insider selling. However, sentiment appears to have shifted about six months ago and now there is significant insider buying.

    Also, you seem to want to emphasize that the old selling was "at higher prices". If this is important, it would also be important to note that when Mr. Littlefair's made his $1.4 million September purchases on the open market, he paid nearly $13 per share. The new trend towards insider buying began when the price was substantially higher than it is today.
    Mar 26 12:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels: Down But Not Out [View article]
    This is not correct. Insiders are buying, not selling. Andrew Littlefair, CEO, bought $1.4 million of CLNE shares on the open market in September and another $100,000 last month. Several directors also made major purchases on the open market last month.
    Mar 26 11:05 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Netsuite's Massive Moat: Amazing Growth For The Next 5-7 Years [View article]
    Good overview... Thanks!
    Feb 26 09:47 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels - Misinformation And Facts [View article]
    I do not believe this article or many of the comments are accurate or helpful in describing what is actually a very complicated situation.

    There are a number of assertions that people make that are plainly false. For example:

    * False: CLNE is going to lose if CNG is chosen over LNG. True: CLNE is going to lose if there isn't a transition to natural gas (but nobody seems to believe there won't be a transition). True: CLNE won't win as big if LNG fails to develop as a widely used as a transportation fuel.

    * False: CLNE can't sell CNG profitably. True: CLNE has been selling CNG primarily thusfar and CLNE has been unprofitable, however CLNE's losses have occurred because they have been investing tremendously in LNG not because they can't sell CNG profitably.

    * False: CNG rapid fuel technology is going to eliminate the need for LNG. True: CNG rapid fuel technology is accelerating the conversion of many vehicles to CNG fuel. LNG is further behind in its adoption rate. But CNG rapid fueling does not eliminate the need for the LNG option; CNG tanks add a considerable weight factor to trucks and CNG fast fueling is going to be much more expensive in vast areas of the country where access to high pressure natural gas lines and/or adequate electricity is problematic.

    * False: Truckers have already decided that CNG is better than LNG. True: Truckers are implementing CNG at a faster rate because of wider availability of CNG, but LNG usage is also moving up the adoption curve.

    This is a good interview of the Raven Transport CEO about his firm's frustrations in implementing LNG trucks:

    http://bit.ly/1jTIN7e

    Raven Transport is based in Ohio and so isn't necessarily representative of long haul truckers, but the article makes it clear that a) it's difficult and not necessarily profitable for a trucking company to implement LNG now, b) that these difficulties are likely short-term and especially problematic for the trucking companies that go first, and c) long-term, LNG will be an important trucking fuel.

    I've done my research on CLNE and I am long and strong. I hope others will recognize that the road to natural gas as a transportation fuel is going to take a few more years and is not without challenges, but the oversimplistic bear arguments that SA has been publishing recently are just that: oversimplistic.
    Feb 21 09:15 AM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels' CEO Discusses Update of Natural Gas for the Trucking Industry Conference (Transcript) [View article]
    NGV,

    I'm not sure why this isn't clear to you. Building a fast fuel CNG station where there is no access to high pressure natural gas pipelines is very expensive and requires access to either a lot of electricity or trucked in natural gas. In contrast, LNG stations built at these same locations would require no more capital to construct than in any other location. LNG locations can be optimized to meet the needs of truckers, whereas fast-fill CNG locations will either be where pipelines happen to be or will require huge investments and high operating expenses.

    Let's say we want to send a truck from Seattle to Chicago following the I-90 corridor -- a little more than 2,000 miles. From Seattle to southern Minnesota, the only time I-90 is close to a high pressure natural gas pipeline is near Spokane, WA (near the beginning of the trip) and twice near Billings, MT and Casper, WY (relatively close together). Long expanses of Idaho, Montana and South Dakota would need to be crossed without access to inexpensive, fast fill CNG.

    Similar problems would exist for a CNG trucker traveling the I-95 corridor from DC to Florida, or traveling from LA to Sacramento, many other heavily traveled interstate routes, or most anywhere away from the interstate highway system.

    Trucks equipped with CNG do not have the range of LNG trucks because of both tank capacity and weight. The examples I'm giving also demonstrate that for many routes, CNG has the further disadvantage of being more expensive.
    Feb 12 01:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels' CEO Discusses Update of Natural Gas for the Trucking Industry Conference (Transcript) [View article]
    Here is a government map of natural gas pipeline compressor locations:

    http://1.usa.gov/1cwk68R

    It is true that many major highway routes are accessible to high pressure pipelines. However, it also true that many truckers will want to serve areas that are not accessible to high pressure pipelines (e.g. New Hampshire, San Francisco and the Silicon Valley, the southeastern coastline, the Interstate 90 route across South Dakota). If these truckers are using CNG, they will either pay much more than LNG prices or they will have extensive downtime while waiting for their trucks to refill. This is why most experts believe long haul trucking will be powered by LNG.
    Feb 12 11:27 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels' CEO Discusses Update of Natural Gas for the Trucking Industry Conference (Transcript) [View article]
    I'm very confident. There are many areas of the country that have very limited access to high pressure pipelines, including much of California, the Pacific Northwest, the northern plains, Missouri, and the southeastern seaboard. If you owned a long haul trucking fleet, would you really want to have to commit to not driving in these areas?
    Feb 12 10:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels' CEO Discusses Update of Natural Gas for the Trucking Industry Conference (Transcript) [View article]
    Yes, both are fast full. Yes, CNG requires access to a pipeline, whereas LNG can be trucked anywhere. No, it is not true that a small hospital uses more electricity (I have refuted that assertion where ever I have seen you make it.)

    What is also true, but you are failing to acknowledge, is that where there is not access to a high pressure CNG pipeline, either a great amount of electricity is required to operate a fast fill CNG station... or LNG has to be trucked in. While a fast fill CNG station may be built less expensively in a location with a high pressure NG pipeline and high capacity requirements, building a fast fill CNG station in a remote location is prohibitively expensive.

    I find if funny that your information is demonstrably incorrect, but you keep posting it.
    Feb 12 09:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clean Energy Fuels' LNG Strategy Is Crumbling [View article]
    Wrong. A small hospital would be a critical access hospital; by definition, 25 or fewer beds. Therefore, CLNE is correct and you are wrong.
    Feb 12 09:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Sharks Really Circling Clean Energy Fuels? [View article]
    Movinman, it is beginning to seem like you deliberately distort information. FACT: high DGE/min CNG pump speeds are obtainable IF there is access to natural gas already under high pressure (i.e. in a high pressure pipe or as LNG) or there is a great deal of accessible electrical energy. Therefore, CNG can be pumped at a high rate in places like an Atlanta transit center, but it is not feasible at remote, low volume locations.
    Feb 12 09:15 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Sharks Really Circling Clean Energy Fuels? [View article]
    Hospital management is something I do know about. A 96 bed hospital is not a small hospital. A small hospital would be a critical access facility which is, by definition, no larger than 25 beds. So, the truth is that your analysis is wrong and CLNE's analysis is correct.
    Feb 12 09:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
105 Comments
97 Likes