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

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:2I4f5RdLQpQJ:gatorpress.com/archive/uploads/post-10-1093560538.jpg

One for the super karaoke kid

http://www.britishbulls.com/StockPage.asp?CompanyTicker=SEO&MarketTicker=INDUSTRIALS&Typ=S

blinger, you really shouldn't be posting pics like that on this bb. some people may be offended.


mind you, if you posted it on the nowt thread, you'd get a round of applause. topless karaoke.....a definate winner in my book!!

Aw, Boz. What did you post that for????
I followed your advice and squelched the bugger and now your telling me is putting piccies like that on.
Lifes not fair!!
Alan

Sunday Times Article.
Article in todays Sunday Times business section.
Read both page 1and 2.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2769,00.html.
Comment before reading.
What SEO has is a starch based degradable product that is eco friendly
and cheaper than plastic based products.
What BAT is looking at is a Trionic filter that is supposedly safer and works by using a three layer filter ,each of which will remove a different set of toxins.
(What are these layers made of and will the SEO product do the same job)
If it wont then I cant see the industry using is as the stated intention is to produce a safer cigarette not a green one (FILTER) even if there is a huge financial gain to be made.
In short BAT are committed to going in one direction, whilst SEO have a product that is intended for a different purpose and they may not be compatible at this point in time.
WILL THE SEO PRODUCT DO WHAT THE TRIONIC PRODUCT DOES ??????????????????????????????????????????????.
Notice that the articles mentions nothing about SEO (not that it should)
but SEO product is potentially massive , makes you wonder.

SEOs filter does most maybe all that the BAT filter does but SEOs has the bonus of being environmentally friendly

With the huge scale of manufacture of the cigarette giants a 50% saving on filter materials over 5 years is likely and worth around $6Bn in savings and patent sales are based on values such as that

There are plenty of other companies interested in SEOs filter just come back in a few months time and see 50p added to the price from that alone

ROTFFMFAO@50p added,!!!!!!!!

There wouldn`t need to BE an auction if anyone thought it was worth anything,

dear, oh dear ,clouds and cuckoos

RED ERIK
Would you please post an article showing the evidence that you are claiming

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2769-1869301,00.html

willib5, your link doesn't work. also, it's pretty much the same article as the ones we saw last week. taking out 3 toxins will not make a ciggie safe, nothing will. seo have to push the green issue and the litter problem caused by discarded fag ends. but maybe it will be filtronic who show interest in buying the ip. ......just a thought and nothing more.

Bosley.
I copied and pasted the link ( sorry about that), however noticed you found it anyway.
I agree with you, cigarettes almost impossible to make safe.
However as the move has been made, inevitably a marketing campaign is sure to follow.
What I was trying to show was that it wont be based on a bio degradable filter tip, If SEO product doesnt do what the Trionic product does.
Consequently SEO are going to have to push the green issue.
Time will tell

I can't recall SEO making any claim that this made for a safer cigarette (I may be wrong). All I've read from SEO say a more environmentally friendly waste from it.
If that stops Leeds City Council loitering around trying to fine outdoor smokers 50 quid for dropping a cig end, then its fine by me!!

trionic filter seems to have been around for at least 3 years:
http://www.trdrp.org/Docs/NCTOH%20New%20Products%20Handout.pdf#search='trionic%20filter%20cigarette'

http://www.trdrp.org/Docs/NCTOH%20New%20Products%20Handout.pdf#search='trionic%20filter%20cigarette'

seo did make a big deal of the toxins found in smokers lungs from the current filters and that some of these toxins arn't in the starch filturds, (rispeck ii), but i agree that trying to push a safe ciggie is daft. much better to push the environmental angle which nobody can argue with, dissovles to water in 60 days, can only be beneficial.

Cellulose acetate appears to be one of the three components within the Trionic filter, so still scope for starch based material within these filters.

Don`t hold your breath- oh and watch the SP tomorrow for the truth.

As I read the part you refer to, boz, the only point it seemed to be trying to make was that fibres of the filters find their way into your lungs and stay forever, whereas starch based ones would break down, therefore being less harmful, but I may have missed the bit about toxins.

Blinger,

Curious, and what do you predict will happen tomorrow, and what would the "truth" be?

Just to be absolutely sure we/I understand exactly what you mean.

apologies, alan. you are correct. it is just filters getting into lungs, not toxins. i misremembered it.


see you in a bit, going for a fag.

garbyle.
I think the price will crash,
perhaps you don`t- its all in the lap of the Goods (no spelling mistake)

lol!!!!!!