for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

Oblomov Hi,

Your again going to annoy everyone here as you did on FYB, with your adolescent continuation of another saga, I have told you I am not answering your questions, and as I said before, if you continue with your insinuations such as 'avoided' 'sinister' 'smoke screen' etc, I will have no choice but to squelch you.

Cheers,
PM

Paul

You said you had "squelched" him!

Why not just admit that you don't know whats in the next rns?

If you did know it would not just be illegal but also morally wrong, why you would want to be associated with that is beyond me; suppose it's probably down to you getting the chance to act the big man and say I told you so if you've guesed right.

Tetrapak are also at the Packaging Sustanibility Forum, they are also in IBAW, along with Stanelco and Natureworks, read into that what you like ....

You may be thinking that this is just 'old news' but it shows that as far back as 2004 Tetrapak were actively looking at the subject of sustainable packaging, Biotec can help them, but thats for another day :)

Tetrapak KNOW from their own report, that only 2% of UK cartons are recycled, and only 30% in the EU, so why not just make them biodegradable ?

The reason they are not biodegradable is because they are laminated with Polythene on the inside, something that could possibly be replaced with Biotec TPS.



What a waste: Recycling rises up the food industry agenda
27 Oct 2004
Source: Catherine Sleep

Some 75% of UK household waste is sent to landfill, with packaging accounting for 25% of this waste. With landfill sites rapidly filling up, we have two options: we can use less packaging or we can recycle more. Catherine Sleep looks at a new report that examines the problems of recycling packaging in the UK and makes ambitious recommendations for policymakers and food and packaging manufacturers.

Although the recycling of packaging in the UK has increased by approximately 10% since 2000, the UK still lags behind the majority of European countries. Food and drink packaging is a significant focus for the problem, and an area in which manufacturers, retailers, policymakers and consumers have a part to play. A new report commissioned by Tetra Pak and produced by the educational charity Forum for the Future gives some pointers that could help us all do a lot better

UK household waste has increased by 15% in the last five years, as Jonathan Porritt, programme director of Forum for the Future and chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, told a gathering of industry delegates last week. An embarrassing three quarters of this is sent to landfill, compared with 50% in France and just 7% in Switzerland. The UKs domestic waste recycling performance is improving, but it is still near the bottom of the European Union recycling league (14.5% in 2003, compared with Austria 58%, Germany 53% and the Netherlands 59%).

Packaging makes up 25% of the 13-15 million tonnes of household waste that goes to landfill in the UK each year. Last year the UK managed to recycle 47% of this packaging, behind most other EU countries. It was the only country that failed to meet the EU packaging recovery target of 55%.

Its economics, stupid

There are a number of barriers to progress, as the report indicates. For many local authorities, the economics simply dont add up. There are insufficient economic incentives to encourage authorities to implement radical recycling initiatives. Landfill and incineration are still the cheapest disposal options. For example, the landfill tax in the UK is just 13 (US$23.4) per tonne compared with 34 per tonne in Denmark. As Friends of the Earth points out, incineration currently has more tax breaks than recycling.

Furthermore, weight-based waste collection targets for local authorities hamper the recovery of lightweight packaging. Weight-based targets encourage authorities to go for heavier collectables such as glass, paper and green waste, while lightweight packaging such as plastic and aluminium is neglected.

The bias towards heavy materials has led to questionable outcomes. For example, the UK is currently exporting over a million tonnes of recovered paper as far as China because there is too much of it for UK markets, and importing recovered aluminium to keep the UK aluminium recycling industry going. In 2003, Alcan, the UK market leader, bought 10,000 tonnes of aluminium cans recovered from the UK and had to import 45,000 tonnes from all over the world. Yet three out of four aluminium cans consumed in the UK (about 3.25 billion cans) were sent to landfill or incineration (Source: Based on conversation with Paul Williams, Alcan, August 2004). According to Alcan, recycling aluminium cans saves up to 95% of the energy needed to make cans from raw materials,

Other forms of lightweight packaging, such as liquid cartons, are hardly collected at all. In 2003, only 2% of liquid cartons were recycled in the UK, according to Tetra Pak estimates, while the average for the EU was 30% (Source: Unpublished data from Tetra Pak).


Download the Tetrapak report here ....

http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/TetraPakWastedopportunities_pdf_media_public.aspx

Brandname Hi,

Thanks :)

Cheers,
PM

brandname

Go to the BES thread and ask those there what they think of the chap you're defending, his ramp went horribly wrong just after he calimed someone at the company had told him it was going to 50 per share within a year; many people lost life savings believing him.

Masterson

Why not just post the link to your useless research?

It would save the hassle of skimming past it and would save Moneyam webspace.

sham

Read what I said again.

"Any of you with any intelligence will look at what PM posts and make your own minds up as to what is relevant and what is not. If it wasn't for PM a lot of people would not have a clue as to the ins and outs of SEO. "

Now what part of the above is complicated for you. I dont care about BES or any other thread. This discussion board is for SEO. Sham SEO means Stanelco. Hope you are following so far, if not I will go slower for you.

With all the posts that you have posted I have not seen one intelligent one, its short this short that, its going down. Currently you will be receiving rounds of applause from the other single cell brains on here that cant give any particular reason as to why the share price is going down currently. Look at the fundamentals of the company, great management, great products, its going places.

Sham if you were intelligent you would have discovered SEO when the price was less than 4p, you would have received dividends, you would have had the advantage of the first rights issue at 3p.

Hope you get the point !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK now listen up and lets get this clear.

I appreciate what PM does in terms of research which is exhaustive. Where he gets the energy, time, motivation, etc I do not know.

I am as enthusiastic and hopeful as anyone on this board about the future potential of SEO.

All I and others on here want is to get a little more clear perspective as to what SEO is all about.

When anyone raises a query or questions someone else's opinion of perhaps a stated "fact" most are doing so in the spirit wanting to learn and be educated to theirs and others benefit. These queries should not automatically be taken as a personal attack on the person being questioned, asked for justification or supporting evidence.

Clear perspective only comes from moderated, reasoned, balanced and accurate information and not people implying that they are privy to "inside" facts and by that getting others to believe that what they say is gospel.

The less experienced readers of the board are consequently more likely to follow blindly like sheep suffering the resulting financial loss. I know, Ive been there during the techno boom of the late 90's.

So please, choose your words carefully and weigh the impact of them on others.

The oily one

Oily / Dog

Totally agree with you.
Unknown

A 'must have' from IBAW ....

http://www.ibaw.org/eng/downloads/IBAW_Pressmaterial.pdf

here's an easy answer to all this. pm1, stop posting so much shit and, as you said, talk about seo. we have already figured out that high oil prices are good for seo, we don't need the same point constantly repeated. also, stop making crass statements hinting that you are privy to inside information. it only leaves you open to accusations of being full of shit. as to the question of whether you are right or not, all i know is that you have consistently told everyone all is well and the sp is going to rise, but , instead the sp has fallen nearly 50% since you started posting on mam. that is not to say you are to blame. any bb poster who thinks he can influence the share price is surely deluded. your record so far isn't good. infact, since you came to mam it is the people you have squelched who have been correct in predicting the current price trend.

Paul

Did you E-Mail SEO about Starpol 2000 and ASTM standards, if so, did you get a reply ?

BN

Brandname Hi,

ROTFLMAO !!!!

Cheers,
PM

Totally agree Oily and feel that the question Oblo asked was one that anyone else on here could have reasonably asked after the originally quote and as such should have recieved a decent response.

Amities ? Slt shamona ....My sentiments exactly. But i reiterate your wasting your time and effort . You wont get an answer . What amazes me is l simply cant begin to comprehend how this simpleton seems to deceive folk with such consumate ease. l can read him like a cheap magazine . Even my g/f who has nothing to do with the city nor its nefarious antics describes him as evasive , defensive and would be utterly redundant without that bloody google search . Where was he when SEO were 3p when Bos bought or at 4.75 when i entered the fray ? .l will tell you . Attempting to ramp SEO on another thread until he was removed . ....And where is he now ? Posting the same nonsense so repetively on this thread. Please give us all a break . We are not all as green nor naive fools as you seem to so arrogantly assume .....@+ J.

Brandname Hi,

25 September 2005

Dear Howard,

Another shareholder has suggested that Biotec obtain the 'ASTM - D6400-04 Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics', the shareholder said "I think the ASTM only refers to Carrier bags at present and only in the state of California. However my concern is that they pass similar stature in USA for Food packaging materials, therefore may be prudent for SEO / Biotec to obtain ASTM approval on Starpol 2000. i.e. beating the legislation in the USA before it appears"

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/D6400.htm?L+mystore+taqw8859+1127689110


It sounds like a good idea to me, another bit of good advertising too I guess, depends if it costs much I suppose !

Kind regards,
Paul

BOS

The shorters have been right for a small part of the year so far. Yes if we had all been sensible and clever we would have sold at the top of this share and bought back in at the bottom. But guess what some of us didn't. The shorters / bashers are having there 5 minutes of glory, so let them. If the shorters were so clever they wouldn't waste their time posting gloating about it. Its only the wannabees that goad.

Nothing has changed as far as SEO goes, dynamic company tons of potential. What other company has so many diverse oppurtunites, not many that I can see around at the moment. The patience will pay off in the long run.

and then you woke up i presume lol

Brandname Hi,

ROTFLMAO !!!!

Cheers,
PM

ROTFLMAO is raw nerves to me, why'd you say that

QC Hi,

How could I possibly have answered the question ?

That's the point of Oblomov questions, it's just a way of putting me in a difficult position, I had all this on FYB, before the admin team told Oblomov to quit with the endless repetetive postings of the same question, they also asked me not to be drawn into arguing about it, so like I have done here today, I have given my last reply to Oblomov on the subject.

Cheers,
PM