Become a Member

David Gardner’s “No Choice Revolution” Natural Gas Stock

Well, the copywriters over the Motley Fool seem to have been working overtime to churn out ads for the Motley Fool Stock Advisor … so I guess the lights will stay on late into the night at Gumshoe HQ, too. What is it they’re pitching now, and why does it have so many of my readers revved up?

Here’s the part that catches your attention:

“The simple fuel injector (pictured below) could power the “No Choice” revolution…

“And the ONE SMALL, PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY that makes it has a patent portfolio that dwarfs those of Siemens, Toyota, Ford, and CAT — all now clamoring to get a piece of the action…

“On March 30th at Georgetown University, President Obama publicly backed this small company’s mission — and sent its shares soaring…

“Here’s the important part in all this for you: this stock is still poised like a spring, waiting on a congressional announcement that could come as early as TOMORROW…”

TOMORROW?!?! OH NO OH NO WHERE’S MY WALLET? MUST SUBSCRIBE NOW!

>ahemDavid Gardner's "top dog" and "first mover" companies in a space where there is a huge unmet need (might it also be a "Spiffy Pop?” Hope springs eternal) …

“David instead invests like a venture capitalist — focusing on ‘first movers’ and “top dogs” capable of breathtaking innovation… often delivering lower consumer prices and improving the lives of millions and millions of people in the process.

“But let’s back up a second. Here’s what I mean by a ‘first mover’: A company with a product or service so revolutionary it disrupts an existing industry or creates an entirely new one. And a “top dog” is a company that dominates its industry and basically has no peer.

“On the rare occasion you find a company that is both a top dog and a first mover — the chances are pretty good you’ve found your next big winner. And that’s exactly what David projects for the small ‘no choice’ fuel company I’ve been telling you about…

“Keep in mind, though, the time needs to be right if rare, possibly life-changing profits are your goal… there needs to be a historic need for a solution. And a particular company uniquely positioned to deliver it. ”

And then, in teasing us with a few more details about the specific company Gardner is pitching, we also learn where the “no choice” bit came from:

“This little company, David Gardner’s top pick for new money now, is the technology leader in the conversion of diesel-fueled engines to natural gas.

“Its proprietary technology centers around the fuel injection system, it has all the patents sewn up, and the lion’s share of the natural gas engine market already locked down!

“The New York Times writes, ‘this isn’t pie-in-the-sky technology: there are already 12 million vehicles around the world that use either liquefied or compressed natural gas, though only 140,000 in the U.S.’

“Meaning, we’re in the very early stages here in the U.S. of a landmark shift to what one analyst at bank Societe Generale calls the fuel of ‘no choice’…

“That’s because it’s really our only viable course. Take a look: there is enough known natural gas in North America to last centuries… and it won’t involve a future of transferring huge amounts of wealth to Middle East sheikdoms while competing with the Chinese for imported oil.”

And the urgency?

“But a quick word of warning: Wall Street is beginning to catch on. In March, Morgan Stanley issued its first report on this little company…

“JP Morgan began covering this stock in April with a 42-page ‘initiation report.’ And other firms are following suit as we speak.

“Now I have to ask you… what would make the biggest financial firms in the world take notice of a small-cap company like this? I’d say it could only be one thing: they project an epic move.”

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


So what is, in their words, “David Gardner’s #1 Stock for the Coming ‘No Choice’ Fuel Revolution?”

Toss all that into the Thinkolator, and we find the answer right quick: This is our old favorite Westport Innovations (WPRT)

I’ve owned Westport in the past and I profiled it for the Irregulars a few years ago when it was still trading primarily in Canada — they are indeed the leader in heavy natural gas engines, they have a great and lucrative joint venture with Cummins to build midsize natural gas engines for fleets (garbage trucks, UPS trucks, city buses, etc.), which is really where the core of the natural gas conversion has taken place (fleets are the “low hanging fruit,” in large part because their vehicles generally stay in a small geographic area and are easy to refuel without needing a big fueling station network). And they’re counting on heavy trucks to supply their next phase of growth and help them become profitable — which means they depend a lot on the political landscape …

… which is probably why this Motley Fool ad is running right now. There was a good article in the Wall Street Journal today that summed up the basic state of natural gas for heavy truck engines, and the short summary is “depends on big government subidies.” These engines cost far more than competing engines, especially in the heavy truck business where Westport doesn’t have quite as much economy of scale as they do in their Cummins joint venture, and the stock has waxed and waned based largely on changing subsidies and on sentiment about future subsidies. The base argument for natural gas engines is strongly in an uptrend right now, not just because of energy security but because the engines can operate at a lower cost than diesel engines because of the last few years’ disconnect between natural gas and oil prices (which itself is thanks to shale gas, for the most part), but I don’t know how to handicap the future for natural gas engine subsidies in a world of competing priorities and budget pressures.

The urgency of the email builds around the potential for natural gas legislation being passed, as you might expect, but there is often news from Westport — unfortunately for them, the non-political news seems to have limited ability to move the stock since the non-political news doesn’t yet create earnings (they’ve not had a profitable year, so announcing that Caterpillar is “evaluating” their technology for their high-horsepower fleet, like they did yesterday, doesn’t really count as enticing news yet)

I do like Westport and the technology, and I have suggested the shares to the Irregulars in the past (though that was several years ago, and I would have been scared out of the stock during California’s fiscal crisis — their original goal to become profitable in 2009 depended on rapid adoption of natural gas drayage trucks at the California ports, and I was worried about CA’s commitment during their budget crisis), and if you think natural gas infrastructure buildout will happen on the highways, and, more importantly, if you believe that we’re on the dawn of a long-term system of stable and predictable government support for “no choice” natural gas as a transportation fuel, including, probably most importantly, very good subsidies for natural gas trucks, then I bet Westport will do really, really well. If subsidies are cut or don’t get written into law at the level that fleet owners need to be motivated toward conversion, then WPRT’s stock could certainly suffer — the natural transition to natural gas as a transport fuel, without aggressive subsidies and infrastructure support from the government, could easily not happen, or could happen far more slowly than a company like WPRT needs to generate profits. There was also, coincidentally, a free article from a different author over at the Fool this week that mentions WPRT as well as Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE, the company most levered to building out natural gas fueling stations), you can see that here if you like.

I’ve said before that if I could buy Cummins Westport, their JV with Cummins, I’d do that in a second because having every city bus and garbage truck on natural gas is the easiest transition, and the one that needs the least US government subsidizing … but we can’t do that, and I haven’t been confident enough in Westport’s heavy truck business to buy back into the shares in recent years. Their share of Cummins Westport makes up the vast majority of both revenue and earnings for Westport, but it’s the heavy investment in building up their partnerships with other groups, particularly their heavy duty truck business, that drags on the revenue and prohibits that Cummins Westport profit from hitting the bottom line (it’s also, on the flip side, the investment that could potentially turn them into a far larger company). Is this another case like Netflix, where I’m being a fuddy duddy about a Stock Advisor pick that someday goes ballistic as a half-dozen or so of his ideas have in past years? Or is this another one of those “forgotten” picks that aren’t going to be mentioned in future teasers as 500% gainers?

Westport, absent profit or dramatic revenue bumps, moves a lot on sentiment for natural gas vehicles, and on investors sniffing the air in the corridors of Congress — seems like the political side is actually moving in their favor now, though the stock is down a bit from it’s highs, but I’ve thought that before and been wrong. This is a billion dollar company that, despite a multitude of partnerships with heavy truck, engine, and equipment companies, really needs a bit of a jump start to get to profitability, and the US government is the most likely source of that spark. That’s just my opinion, of course — your mileage may differ. Let us know with a comment below if you see that jump start coming soon from Capitol Hill, or if you think the technology leadership will evaporate or political follow-through will be lacking.

guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

87 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
boband
Guest
boband
May 18, 2011 9:50 am

I'm a bit puzzled by the implication that some unique new technology is needed to convert to natural gas for vehicles, trucks, etc. There have been nat gas powered fleets for years in some places, everything from taxis to utility company fleets to city buses. These were relatively simple conversions to gas engines, I think. So perhaps to convert diesel engines requires some relatively unique technology…but although I believe that nat gas is the likely fuel of the future I'm not totally convinced of some parts of the story here.

Add a Topic
338
Dan
Guest
Dan
February 12, 2012 10:57 am
Reply to  boband

There are some major maintenance issues associated with Natural Gas driven vehicles. Perhaps as companies look at this they are seeing that the numbers in terms of $ saved not as encouraging. This is a clean fuels move more than anything unless. Based on supply and environment this move is still good all around.

Add a Topic
338
Fonz56
Guest
Fonz56
March 12, 2012 8:27 pm
Reply to  boband

I’ve read almost all the comments but nothing I could find as why LP isn’t used in this country extensively. WELL, several months ago I DID research on Natural Gas powered engines. Guess what? My research(I hope someone will verify), discovered that Natural Gas CANNOT today be used with Fuel injected engines. So unless someother means is found to replace the carburator on engines(besides fuel injection),,,, its a dead horse. That today is the chief drawback

Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
338
👍 21716
Fonz56
Guest
Fonz56
March 12, 2012 9:13 pm
Reply to  Fonz56

Can be but not yet? Or are they in production?

👍 21716
Fonz56
Guest
Fonz56
March 13, 2012 11:20 am

My telecommunication company used Propane converted engines in the early ’80’s. The conversion was very cheap and easy. However, later when fuel injected systems appeared most of the converted vans were eliminated because of cost. Same goes for pleasure vehicles. Fuel injection made conversions very expensive. My research found Natural gas engines from OEM would add another $13000.-$15,000. cost to a new car. Probable the main reason no full conversion(w/o battery’s) passenger is available today. Large companies with large fleets have no problem with cost spread over years and miles.

Add a Topic
338
gerry barth
Guest
gerry barth
March 13, 2012 10:46 am
Reply to  Fonz56

Natural gas, whether in a liquid or gasious state is and will be the fuel of choice on our highways as soon as the infa structure inproves and Detroit starts production. The major cost in cng conversion in motor vehicles is the cost of the storage tank, not the engine modifications. 3M and Cheasepeake have entered into a JV to innovate and improve the manufacture of these tanks to improve efficiency and cost. The current cost comparison to gasoline is almost less than half on a national avg. and as far as its wear and tear of the vehicle, burning cng is better for the engine and requires less maintenance, not sure about the LNG but I’d find it hard to believe LNG would harm a motor and its components more than diesel fuel.

Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
653
Add a Topic
653
Fonz56
Guest
Fonz56
March 13, 2012 11:30 am
Reply to  gerry barth

Major cost in cng is carburetation. Storage tanks are minor because of present construction of tanks. Running line from deck(trunk) to engine is only issue and minor. With modern engines w/o carburetor and with computer programming that’s a real issue. And, yes, LNG is cleaner with less carbon and fewer byproducts therefore less maintence. Having driven the early Propane vans I can say there is practically no difference in power, pickup or speed.

Add a Topic
653
slumdog
slumdog
March 27, 2012 12:05 pm
Reply to  Fonz56

All the buses and taxis in New Delhi run on natural gas!

Add a Topic
338
👍 116
David B Byers
May 13, 2012 2:25 am
Reply to  Fonz56

I used to live in Cqli ( I have now nested in WA) and several of my friends there had their
pickups with a switch to lp gas, with the gasoline engine working just fine together.

TeaTownCowboy
Guest
TeaTownCowboy
July 3, 2012 11:02 am
Reply to  Fonz56

That is incorrect. It’s quite easy actually to convert a vehicle that is gasoline powered and fuel injected to run CNG, and it does not have to be dedicated, i.e. one can switch between gasoline and CNG. You can do a little research on this on YouTube, quite a few end-users are converting their cars and trucks in this manner.

BradM
Guest
BradM
July 5, 2012 11:19 am
Reply to  Fonz56

Crazy talk. CNG vehicles are mass produced as duel fuel vehicles with two tanks. Conversion kits are available for many production cars today and it takes the better part of 1 day, some computer mods, some fuel injection mods and a certified cng tank .

Stephanie
Guest
Stephanie
October 7, 2013 12:41 pm
Reply to  Fonz56

You can convert fuel injected engines just not DIRECT injection fuel systems. They start as low as $2000

Glen K
Glen K
March 13, 2012 7:06 pm
Reply to  boband

I don’t get it.
I spent about 40 years in the fork lift truck business.
During that tome it was common prsctice to convert the gas engines to LPG.
There are several manufacyurers with conversion kits… and they are very
inexpensive… Gas is the same tank that u buy for the barbecue.. and refilling
stations are all over NOW.

Next the big difference between the commercial gas and diesel engine is the wet sleeve
that forms a sleeve inside the cylinder. This was done to protect the engine block
so that if damage occurred the sleeve can be replaced not the entire engine. I don’t
remember converting diesels to LPG… seems like a waste… maybe the diesel fuel
handles the high compression better.. I’m not sure.

ALSO.
The fork lifts have been running on electric battery power forever. They use to use magnetic controllers but years ago converted to the solid state controllers… these
are also available as retrofits… They use mostly solid tires (very hard) to conserve fuel

It kind of irks me that today’s geniuses never refer back to the history of a NEW invention
so as to mislead investors and confuse the public.

Add a Topic
1614
Lloyd Moss
Irregular
Lloyd Moss
May 12, 2012 10:06 pm
Reply to  boband

I do think there is a bright future for CNG and LNG as alternative fuels in the US, but there is one huge obstacle: the EPA. I think bi-fuel conversions of both diesel and gas engines is the way to go, but EPA certification rules (and CARB rules in California) are ridiculous in that conversions for each vehicle make, model, year and engine have to be certified at a cost of up to $250,000 each. That cost has to be passed to consumers and businesses in the form of higher prices. An EPA certified conversion for a passenger vehicle or light truck can cost $10,000+ including labor but an uncertified installation could cost as little as $3500. At that price government incentives are not needed. Bi-fuel conversions allow the engine to operate on the original fuel if CNG is not available. This makes the lack of fueling infrastructure less problematic. Some types of conversions have the engine operate on gasoline under 1000 RPM and switch to CNG over 1000 rpm if it is available. The conversions have much lower operating costs and emissions than then original engines. CNG is 93 octane so performance is good. Yes, you can buy bi-fuel conversion kits for fuel injected engines. Bi-fuel conversions have a better ROI than electric hybrid vehicles (including plug-ins) with equivalent reductions of carbon dioxide and other emissions. The EPA recently “simplified” certification rules but they are still terribly misguided. Instead the should look to Europe for some guidance. Certifying by engine and vehicle type would provide adequate protections and reduced costs. Today’s rules must have been influenced by big oil lobbiests as far as I can tell. Though most large oil companies are involved in some aspect of the natural gas business, I suspect they will stay out of the CNG and LNG alternate fuels business on any scale until competitors force them to do so. They want to milk their legacy fuel businesses as long as possible.

As far as WPRT, they are in a good business with a great market potential but I suspect the lack of profitability is due to the approach they have taken to the issue: manufacturing CNG/LNG only engines rather than focusing on bi-fuel conversions of original engines. This is certainly more difficult with heavy truck engines but still possible and practical if it is done when the engine is new or nearly new. Again EPA compliance is enormously expensive under current rules. If the EPA would get out of the way, I suspect their profits would increase and you would see a huge wave of conversions right down to mid-size passenger vehicles. I am not sure there is a good way to play this though. Some of the best conversion kits (today uncertified by the EPA) is imported from companies in Argentina, Denmark and other countries diffiicult or risky to invest in. Over time I suspect that will change.

Add a Topic
653
Add a Topic
5916
Add a Topic
359
Stephanie
Guest
Stephanie
October 7, 2013 12:43 pm
Reply to  Lloyd Moss

The EPA has changed some of the requirements. You can purchase top quality EPA compliant systems for less than $1200 and still apply for state incentives.

david
Guest
david
May 18, 2011 9:51 am

my friends in Italy all converted their gas driven cars to run on natural gas (refueling at night at home!) why these converter kits are not taking hold in the US

Add a Topic
338
Fonz56
Guest
Fonz56
March 13, 2012 11:33 am
Reply to  david

Converting a carburated engine in this country is less then $100.00, but if you will notice most if not all engines today are fuel injected.

cws
Guest
cws
May 18, 2011 11:49 am

i HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE USE OF NATURAL GAS AS A FUEL FOR HEAVY "OVER THE ROAD" TRUCKS IS IMPRACTICAL BECAUSE THE ENERGY IN NATURAL GAS IS LOWER THAN THE ENERGY IN DIESEL FUEL. THIS MAKES IT DANGEROUS FOR SUCH VEHICLES TO USE NATURAL GAS IN HILLY OR MOUNTANIOUS TERRAIN. aNY BASIS??

Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
338
Fonz56
Guest
Fonz56
March 13, 2012 11:41 am
Reply to  cws

Anyone remember the old Army day where anything could be burnt in a diesel engine. Main reason why most Army vehicles had diesel engines. Today regulations(?) prevent cheap fuel, like after shave lotion, or cooking oil from being used, I guess,,,,,,,,,,,

Add a Topic
359
T300
Guest
T300
March 25, 2012 10:59 pm
Reply to  cws

I can tell you that there is a company out there that is selling complete kits to convert diesel engines to Natural Gas. They sell the complete kit. They claim that payback is in the 1 year timeframe. They indicate that there are 8MM diesel engines in the US that could be converted to Nat gas. They actually hold a patent on this technology. The company is Omnitek Engineering (OMTK).

Add a Topic
338
👍 21716
Tom Tinacci
Tom Tinacci
May 18, 2011 8:57 pm

I recently secured a natural gas engine catalogue with the intent of performing retrofit engine replacements in cars, vans and light trucks. .While the average vehicle owner might not be interested in the retrofit, a company with a small fleet could be a prime target for this replacement. There isn't a great deal of work involved, the motors have plenty of power , and it just becomes a matter of standardization for the most common vehicles Westport has a wide variety of packages to choose from, but they are not cheap, but they are doable

Add a Topic
338
Tom Tinacci
Tom Tinacci
May 18, 2011 9:07 pm

EnI f natural gas vehicles were to become a new trend,the refueling part could be accomplished from the infrastructure that exists in just about every town and cityter text right here!

Add a Topic
338
drmaddogs
Guest
drmaddogs
May 24, 2011 4:10 pm

Costs on diesel fleets up front are what large scale trucking companies look at. So they will not buy NG or LNG untill costs come down.. a lot. 4 wheeled vehicles will be the first and some 6 wheel(postal ect) fleets will be the first mass acceptance.
NG has half the energy of diesal so regular trucks(Semis) would nedd 400 gal. tanks versus present stndard 200 gal deisel tanks.. @ 7 pds per gal(deisel) the NG (liquid) would add apprx. 1000 pds.. Balancing the position of tanks for weight limits on front tires and the assortied filling connections and different fuel tanks contruction all have to be taken into account. Costs soar.. they won't be bought till last minute.. even by the big boys that order 1000 tractors ata time.

Add a Topic
653
T Bone Pickens
Guest
T Bone Pickens
May 25, 2011 12:00 pm

Why no mention of Greenman Technologies (GMTI)? They can convert an already-existing diesel engine with almost no-retrofitting involved. Their technology is more in the software-driven "black box" that they add to an engine. And this stock is under $1 per share.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5916
w r pollard
Guest
January 14, 2012 9:55 pm
Reply to  T Bone Pickens

I agree with T Boone. He has been in the gas business since it was first invented(pre Moses era , I believe) Seriously he is referring to the KISS principal(Keep It Simple S_____)

NewPacifica
Guest
NewPacifica
May 26, 2011 10:41 pm

I've read quite a few different websites speculating that Motley Fool is talking about Westport in their newsletter. Their newsletter teaser said that President Obama made mention of this (unnamed) company in his speech at Georgetown University. I've read the transcript of that speech, and the only mention Obama makes of any specific person or company is T. Boone Pickens. Of course Pickens owns a significant portion of Clean Energy Fuels Corp. Westport owns about 175 LNG patents compared to Clean Energy Fuels 100 patents. I've read the Georgetown transcripts several times and I still can't find any reference to any specific company other than Pickens name.

Add a Topic
329
Add a Topic
379
Add a Topic
379
robert
Guest
robert
May 31, 2011 3:55 am

I drove a 626 Mazda in the Netherlands in the early 1980's. I had a natural compressed gas tank installed in the rear trunk for a couple of hundred dollars. My mileage per gallon was slightly less than it was on regular gas put I could switch over from natural gas to gasoline while I was driving and have about a 600 mile range. natural gas was about 21 dutch guilder cents per gallon versus 1.20/1.30 for a gallon of regular gas at the time. Every fifth gas station or so provided natural gas by putting up an external tank which could be done in a very short time. Support by the U.S government for natural gas as an alternate major fuel source for vehicles will come sooner or later. With the recent developments in U.S natural gas supplies it will be a great dependable alternative to (foreign) oil. With ever increasing fluctuating oil prices, instability in countries that supply us with oil, projected surge in demand in the future and taking into account the need for a clean burning readily available alternative, then the Motley fools pick of Westport Innovations is in my opinion a very viable one……

Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
338
Investor1234
Guest
Investor1234
June 1, 2011 5:45 am

I don't understand whats the big deal here? I have seen Buses, Three Wheelers and Four Wheelers in India running on CNG. Any one in India can convert the Gas Car to CNG thru a small kit. Is Westport doing something different like converting water to fuel???? Many a times people have complained about certain drawback like (a) The vehicle on fire in case the system leaks which is rear (b) Increased maintenance of engine since CNG is dry (c) Low power…..But it is cheap INR 36/Kg compared to Gas for INR 80/L..

Add a Topic
247
Add a Topic
247
Add a Topic
540
careful
Guest
careful
June 1, 2011 4:45 pm

The big deal here is that in many countries a motor vehicle must pass emission tests! Meanwhile, Gumshoe,,,,,,if you like the combo Cummins/WPRT investment, why not simply buy CMI?

Mark
Guest
Mark
June 25, 2011 8:57 am

http://msn.fool.com/investing/general/2011/06/23/

Check out this site to read the Motley Fool Post.

Add a Topic
329
The Old Fashioned Way
Guest
The Old Fashioned Way
June 25, 2011 8:27 pm

Let’s see. Yesterday (6-24-2011) Westport closed at $21.49 a share. Westport also has 45,452,000 shares outstanding. So, how many shares can most of us cheapskates on the free site afford to buy? You’re right. Not very many. Consider this option instead. Hydrogen Engine Center, Inc. (HYEG) closed yesterday at $.29 per share. HYEG has approximately 31,000,000 shares outstanding, and a private energy firm recently purchased 51% of those shares from the founder. HYEG makes engines that run on hydrogen, and the hydrogen is made by passing windmill-generated electricity through water. This is the ultimate green energy company, and the shares (which were over $20 each many years ago) have risen this year from $.06 to a high of $.40. I have slowly been accumulating shares in HYEG as I believe that the private energy company that recently purchased a controlling interest in HYEG will not stop until they buy out the entire company.

Add a Topic
540
PZ
Member
PZ
January 19, 2012 1:01 pm

Well, 7 months after your post, HYEG is at $.15 and WPRT is at $34.23. It seems that your alternative would have lost people 50% of their little bit of money they have which WPRT would have given you over a 50% increase. Bad call.

Phil Menges
Guest
Phil Menges
February 9, 2012 9:38 pm
Reply to  PZ

>>Well, 7 months after your post, HYEG is at $.15 and WPRT is at $34.23. It seems that your alternative would have lost people 50% of their little bit of money they have which WPRT would have given you over a 50% increase. Bad call.<<

Yes, yes and YES! Take it from the voice of experience: penny stocks are BAD NEWS!
Three weeks after your post, WPRT is @ 41.55–up over 30% YTD! Happily, I'm in–$20K worth–and I discovered hidden gem on my own…no credit to the MF, although they touted the right one, this time.

Since the date of this blog (back in June?), a lot has changed in the nat gas industry. There is a recently-discovered glut of the commodity, prices are cheaper, and it looks like Congress is leaning pro-gas (not their "gas," for a change).

Along with WPRT, I also picked up NGLS (midstream distribution) and am considering CLNE, owing to their campaign to build a nat-gas filling station highway.

freedomactionnow
Guest
freedomactionnow
July 26, 2011 6:38 pm

I was a Fool some years back, but got bogged down in the social and political boards ("You're an idiot! ! !" "No, you are! !), so I haven't been back. Recently, I signed up again, and these ads have been coming through.

The Fool copywriters are still in fine form. I was intrigued by this one, too, and did a little searching. Got here before the trail ran out.

WPRT's chart shows a big run-up in April (when was it that Obama talked about it?),

You may have seen the Fool's earlier (July 18) take on it and 9 others:
http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2011/07

"Though not profitable yet, Westport Innovations offers an enticing opportunity to invest in a company that could represent the wave of the future." That last is a link to an article that says

"The company has yet to turn a profit. "

Might b worth Watching, though

Add a Topic
652
lee
Guest
lee
July 28, 2011 10:53 pm

what about buying the stock and selling option on for income, since the stock moves slow/ wprt

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
996
Add a Topic
5971
j smith
Guest
j smith
August 13, 2011 5:34 pm

We ran our light trucks and cotton pickers on propane for many years with a simple conversion kit. This was back in the 60's and 70's until the cost of propane exceeded gasoline. The same kits are available for natural gas.

Add a Topic
338
robert gillies
Guest
robert gillies
August 16, 2011 6:11 pm

The US imports a lot of it's oil but has plenty of natural gas. So it seems likely that at some point natural gas will be commonly used in vehicles. The question is when and who is going to profit from it. At what price will it be economical to convert to natural gas from the present fuels? There is a lot of speculation involved since nobody can be sure. Most likely it depends on how fast and far the price of oil goes up.

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
338
Phatdaddyshu
Guest
December 10, 2011 12:10 pm

Hey man, I listened to the whole thing and feel more stupid for every second of it. Natural gas is a good fuel for stationary engines, where you can connect them to the existing STATIC (not moving) supply of natural gas (such as the meter that may be outside your home). As noted above, the energy content of the gas is lower, and it is necessary to compress the gas to very high pressures in a steel gas cylinder (like an oxygen tank) to carry enough around to make it a realistic source for automobiles. The carburetor required for NG is simple, in practice not much more complex than a bunsen burner, and has already been in use for decades. I see the present limitations to using NG as a motor fuel to be daunting, but not insurmountable. The real need is a way to store it in quantities that don’t require a visit to a fueling station once or twice a day.
Seems like they got in, are trying to create a buzz for a sucker rush to push up the price, dump it, then short it…..just sayin, not hatin…..go Seahawks!! John

Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
899
Rob
Guest
Rob
December 12, 2011 6:07 pm

It seems like we’re comparing apples to oranges. WPRT is selling a conversion from diesel to CNG for large vehicles that use a lot of fuel. It would appear that will only take off with government subsidies because of the huge expense. And it sounds like WPRT needs a new management team or an audit. The cheap $500 retrofit that has been mentioned several times is for the average consumer vehicle. So how come there is no big pitch and push for the consumer retrofit. I would think that would be just as profitable and may gain traction faster if refueling was available.

James Sullivan
Member
January 15, 2012 10:30 am

Anyone care to update their opinions on WPRT since its been almost a year since the writing of this article. I recently came across this thread after receiving a fool pitch email that struck me as familiar. I was right, its a new video promoting their paid service and hinting toward WPRT.

I have seen WPRT travel from 21-30 a share this past year providing a nice chunk of earnings for my small investment. They are still not in profit, but I am looking for anyone’s updated opinion on the stock since the Fool is still pitching it. Part of me wants to grab my earnings and run and the other part wants to stay invested until this stock pops.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971
Fonz56
Guest
Fonz56
March 13, 2012 2:08 pm
Reply to  James Sullivan

I saw the pitch(video) and was think while watching it might be a good investment because “small company and cheap”. However, after the viewing and getting a quote on the stock it was my impression the stock, I felt, at 43.+ was much too high for the result. Sounds like to me the company needs funds for R & D and IF it is ready to market the system,,,,,,,,what will be the cost. Keep in mind ,,,,,,,cars are powered much differently then large trucks and large companies are more apt to invest in the product.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
34
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x