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

Blinger,

How much do you want to bet that the sp will be 8p or below before 2006?
I'm game.

Not bugging, just a loose end. Alls well that..... OOPS, we did Shakespear the other day!

Evening all

This was posted on Interactive Investor's board. I think it helps to put things in to perspective even though most regulars on this board who are long on SEO are fully aware of the points made in this clip.

Copied from ADVFN:

"The stock market is based on Perception of Intrinsic Value, i.e. Forwards Looking for Future Earnings per share, stocks like SEO have that Blue sky, i.e. that Future Exponential Earnings Net Income Growth Potential which is why it is an extremely news driven stock.

The trouble you face here with your perception of it being overvalued is that basically all the other supermarkets have to talk to SEO on competition grounds, it is not an if it is a when, they simply cannot ignore the ASDA/WALMART Lead.

So to me it is daft to be bearish a stock which has inevitable news flow as a direct result of the pretty much essential product it is marketing.

The intellectual property, the critical mass that ASDA gives them and positioning makes SEO the prime mover in the sector IMO.

So the market will by definition want a position in the future alternative bio-degradable packaging market, the earnings, the cash flow, after all how can they ignore it?

As I posted on other thread I like the idea of Stanelco because it strikes me they have a huge upside potential marketwise if they cement a similar working relationship with WALMART as they have done with ASDA and because it is deeply gratifying to make money as an investor trader long out of clearing up the pollution of the world we live in by sponsoring financing and supporting biodegradable alternatives to Hydro Carbons on every level especially packaging.

I think many of us are fed up to the front teeth with Polypropylene, PVC etc plastic wrappers littering the streets with 400 year plus degradation lives.

I think we know full well land fill sites are at a premium and running out globally.

I think we know full well that combustion of heavy carbon acetates and polymers, plastics etc is not a viable option due Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide emissions, never mind Sulphur Dioxide, creating Sulphuric Acid droplets i.e. acid rain (also Carbonic Acid from CO, CO2).

We know full well that what SEO have is good for the world we live in, the environment, and if we can make money investing or trading in such technology, well bluntly that feels good, because I do not think mankind has any choice but to push this biodegradable Technology to the mass market and quickly.

I think 2006 will be a very good year for SEO and the market is beginning to start pricing in what could be exponentially growing earnings per share/net income, in what could be a rapidly, exponentially growing global marketplace.

Anyway have a nice weekend but I must say I am bullish next week.

Cheers

Ash"

The oily one

ROFLOL

Oilyrag/ dogbawls,via AFN/iii/foulyerboots etc.
you couldn`t make it up!!!!!!!!!

oh and " the market is pricing in", oh yes its HALVED in the last few months

geddoutahere!!!!

So - what's your point?

Blinger. Do you have shares in this stock?
If you do and you believe your own opionion, why hold the stock?
If you don't then, what exactly is your beef?
time will tell with this stock.
still happy to loose money in short term, as would appear are most.
So unless you've got something constructive to add either way. STFU.

fao tweenie and anybody else. blinger/sequestor doesn't care about seo. he only cares about making money. if he feels seo will fall he shorts it and vice versa. it really isn't worth getting into an arguement with him. it is worthwhile taking on board his opinions.

I have just read on teletext Channel ITV , that BAT want to create a safer cigerette . They are also based in Southampton.

You can bet your life that seo are alteady talking to them

Baza

just seen this. it's along similar lines. jaguar, any chance you could write up of find the original article?


'Safer' cigarettes plan is attacked


Anti-smoking campaigners have said plans by one of the world's largest tobacco companies to launch so-called "safer" cigarettes in Britain could cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

British American Tobacco (BAT) denied claims it intends imminently to roll out products developed using reduced harm research - but admitted that producing less-toxic cigarettes is an urgent priority.

A spokeswoman confirmed that it is currently developing new brands which could take advantage of new filtering procedures, but admitted the science around harm-reduction is inconclusive

She said: "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette. We are working very hard to bring a reduced risk product to market, but we are very, very far away from that."

The company has also denied suggestions that it had privately spoken of creating a product which could reduce the risk of a smoker developing cancer or heart disease by up to 90%.

"There is no truth in the claim over a 90% reduction in risks, that relates to a study of the use of smokeless tobacco, or Swedish-style snus," said the spokeswoman.

"That product isn't lighted and has reduced health risks - but the same figures do not apply to any combustible tobacco product."

It is thought that BAT may be ready to launch new brands as early as next year - prompting outrage from health campaigners who believe such a move could hinder efforts to reduce the 120,000 annual deaths caused by smoking-related illnesses.

"This is an ongoing project at a development stage, it is possible that there could be a launch in 2006, but it really is far too premature to talk about a launch date," said the spokeswoman.

In January, rival firm Philip Morris began tests of a new Marlboro Ultra Smooth brand - marketed on the strength of a new carbon filter system. Critics attacked the marketing slogan 'All of the flavour gets through' and claimed there was an underlying implication that the cigarettes carry a reduced risk to health.

this is from the guardian.

Scientists stub out hopes for a safer smoke

Amelia Hill
Sunday October 27, 2002
The Observer


For some people, the idea of starting the day without a cigarette and a strong cup of coffee is inconceivable. But even the most addicted of smokers has clung to the hope that, one day, modern science would produce a safe cigarette.
More than 120,000 people a year in the UK die from smoking-related illnesses and, amid growing pressure from consumers and governments, cigarette manufacturers have been racing to develop toxin-reduced cigarettes.

According to recent claims by manufacturers, a cigarette that contains a fraction of the usual number of lethal toxins could be on the shelves of British newsagents by the end of next year.

But the search for the smoker's holy grail has been ridiculed by one of the giants of the tobacco industry. According to BAT, the safe cigarette is a myth and any company that claims to have produced one is seriously and dangerously confused.

'There's no such thing as a safe cigarette,' said Dr Chris Proctor, head of science and research at BAT. 'I'm pretty sure we will see products coming along in the next year, some of them from us, that are trying to make these first small steps towards less risk but we're still talking about something that is going to be very dangerous.

'As a tobacco company, we need to be seen to be putting in as much effort as we can to try to reduce the risks but these first-generation cigarettes are the smallest of steps along the way.

'There's a possibility we can reduce the risks a very little bit but even if we do produce a cigarette that contains fewer toxins and tastes the same, there is still no guarantee we will know whether it has any potential for reducing the harm suffered by the smoker.'

According to Proctor, there are simply no laboratory tests sophisticated enough to gauge whether a particular cigarette is less risky over a 30-year time frame for human beings than any other brand.

'We have no way of testing whether a certain cigarette is 1 per cent or 20 per cent less risky than its competitor,' he said. 'There is no question that the best public health advice is to quit.'

Despite rising profits, the long-term financial viability of tobacco companies is currently in question: a ban on tobacco advertising that will become law in Britain next year could be followed by a worldwide ban under a treaty discussed by the World Health Organisation last week.

And after defeats in the courts, tobacco companies are anxiously counting their depleted profits: Philip Morris was this month ordered to pay $28 billion, the biggest individual damages award in US legal history, to a 64-year-old woman with lung cancer.

The defeat came hot on the heels of the first successful payout over claims that 'light' cigarettes are less hazardous. Tobacco companies also recently lost their first passive smoking court case.

Proctor's admission has, however, been greeted with scepticism by anti-smoking campaigners including Professor Martin Jarvis of University College London, who is a principal scientist at Cancer Research UK.

'When an ordinary cigarette is lit, the 300 or so toxic and carcinogenic substances in tobacco explode into a cocktail of more than 5,000, including 60 cancer-forming agents,' he said. 'There is no way that a cigarette can, therefore, ever be safe.

'The really big confession I want to see the tobacco industry making is that they are investigating methods of non-combustible nicotine delivery, such as gum or powder.'

This is a point taken up by Clive Bates, director of the Action on Smoking and Health, who was part of last week's WHO tobacco treaty discussions. 'Nicotine gum and powders, such as the Swedish oral snuff, are 90 to 99 per cent less dangerous than cigarettes,' he said. 'The new generation of so-called safe cigarettes, on the other hand, almost certainly offer a neglible reduction in risk. There is no question what product the tobacco industry should be investing in if they really care about their customers.'

no mention of biodegradable filters , though.

Bos I can tell your bored - it must be as shitty up north as it is down south - but at least Blackburn trounced Charlton.

Got e sneaky feely that Manu might give Chelsea a good run this pm

Baza

baz, very bored, very shitty, in a mood, full of a cold. united will beat chavski.

I have read elsawhere that the green seal machines are running too slowly and are therfore not profitable. is this rubbish!!! Does anyone have any information to squash this?
Thanks
Lindos

Lindos,
I feel that it is total B/S or misinformation spread by shorters,who have only started posting on various bb's ( under several pseudonyms ? ) in the last month or so !! .Time will tell .
But ask yourself this Question ? Would you rather believe, an anonymous de-ramper ,who has his own vested interest in seeing the share price fall ,or two senior members of ASDA and Sainsburys who have left their previous careers to join Stanelco ?

That was my gut feeling as well
Thanks

Oilyway,

Your post 12496, (although copied as you state ) says it all. I have no doubt that on present fundamentals SEO is overpriced but on future prospects is far too cheap.
Not one to guess or state possible future prices, but I am sure as I can be this share has excellent prospects.

lindos,

I agree with ghengis re misinformation, if there was any sort of problem with the greenseal project, SEO would under LSE rules have had to release such. They could not possibly hope to keep such a price sensative issue quiet.