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

Sharesure,
i do you are correct about the LSE looking into the activity of the MMs,3000000 more buys than sells yesterday SP didn't make 0.50, today just one eg SP 4-95 an AT of 77 price drops 4-93 another share they could look at is DGO

If there is a LSE inquiry , they should look at EEL.

Gary,
just reading your post. Its actually quite negative.
What it is saying is that unless we create the right conditions for bio-degradable plastic to decompose, we are no better off than with conventional plastics.
I mentioned a few weeks ago that Asda had concerns over the green-ness of Starpol, but I knew nothing of this last bit. Perhaps they did know something and are questioning what the point is unless they can provide follow up composting facilities.
Alan

Yes Alan,

It is negative with regard to bio-plastics as it is seen as an additional material due to the fact that the cracking process will still produce the same volume of PE material which will have to go to some other use. So even though the production of bio-plastics is less harmfull on a direct comparison pound-for-pound, in their framework it simply adds to the environmental burden.

IF however, fuel production were to deminish, the case for improves.

That said, the production of paper items appears to be the most damaging, but considerably more beneficial with regard to waste.

But wouldn't the released methane ignite under landfill site conditions? I've seen landfill sites used for domestic waste and there are always small fires burning, caused by the heat produced during composting.


Carbon dioxide wouldn't burn itself out - it would enter the atmosphere.

Oblo, landfill methane can be captured and used to generate electricity. This can be done on quite a small scale, as it has been on a landfill site near my home in Bournemouth. However, whether it is done depends upon the will of the site owner plus other factors such as permission, etc.

I'm not sure, however, whether this info would help the "green" case for a packaging material that produces more methane.

Oblo/S.T.,

Its called Biogas which is a viable alternative fuel, use by certain industries. Landfills tend to flash off the methane, hence the flames seen.

So. In essence, Starpol is a greener alternative, but only if you either have the right disposal facilities in place or it goes to one of the few landfills that produce power from the resultant methane. The oil used in current plastic packaging is a by-product of stuff we will continue to use anyway, so no gain there.
We have rapidly come to an environmental audit that says its not a lot better.
Weeks ago, this was exactly what i was caused to ask by my imaginary friend, though I belted off down the wrong track altogether.
Could it be, therefore, that the delays are not of a technical nature, or of a contractual nature, but are caused by Asda / WM realising that there super duper new green image could be tarnished if they announce Greenseal / Starpol to the world, only to find that some polytechnic dropout pops up on a news bulletin and shoots it down?
Remember though, the environment is only one thing going for the products. the reduced cost of energy on the production, the longer shelf life, more presentable packaging and better seal are all simply business choices, dictated by the bottom line.
Thoughts anyone?
Alan

What about all these engineers in the USA who have been trained to convert Greenseal , if Stanelco don't hurry up these engineers will need a refresher course as they would of forgotten what to do !!!

I have it on good (cast iron) authority that all SEO's Greenseal experts, including Rob White the main salesman, were not available today as they were all in meetings. Whilst not good for sales, could it mean that they were busy finalising something?
kim

Or collecting their P45's. :-(((
Only joking. I'm just starting to develop a very black humour on this.
Alan

Thursday 3rd August, 2006
ASDA LAUNCHES 'OLD BAGS' CAMPAIGN
Supermarket Set To Introduce Reusable 'Bags For Life' In Stores Nationwide

ASDA confirmed today it wants to discourage customers from using free, single trip plastic carrier bags by introducing a new range of 'bags for life' in all of its 307 stores nationwide*. The new durable bags are designed for repeated use and will cost just 5p

Dont think we've seen these before (maybe the second one) - the first is interesting, but unfortunately shows some competition. SEO are mentioned near the bottom.


http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=69464-natureworks-rpc-bebo-biodegradable-pla

http://www.hemscott.com/news/comment-archive/item.do?id=10123

As to degradable/biodegradable, even if Tesco have gone for the degradable alternative, I feel that pressure will eventually cause all plastics wherever possible to be biodegradable, so Tesco may end up SEO customers eventually (wishful thinking perhaps).

Alan,
I saw (can't remember where, it's my age you know) about 2 weeks ago a very good newspaper article where the writer was being devils advocate as regards the green issue. He argued along the lines of, increased transport cost for the longer journeys to and from designated sites, costs re burning, effects on re-cycling on the environment etc. It was mainly along the lines of increased costs re collection and disposal of items such as glass, paper and plastics. A good point was re-cycling paper, as new paper is made from soft wood tree's that are easily replaced, and new paper being cheaper to produce than re-cycled paper. Plastics although having the properties that enable them to be re-cycled are the most expensive of the materials mentioned to re-cycle.
The conclusion was that to re-cycle although a better alternative to final disposal was not the holy grail most people except it to be. The article did make you think.
As to biodegradable. It appears this will be the main way forward for materials that are difficult and or expensive to re-cycle or dispose, IE plastics.
In the future I feel that biodegradable items will be the way to go, as it is still by far the best alternative environmentally, as well as being the most cost effective when all else is considered.

Softwood trees may grow a lot quicker than hardwoods, but they still take several yeasr to grow and of course take up land ...... paper is wasted by the ton in almost every company, so to recycle must make sense

Not saying you are wrong, as I just repeated sections or the article, so it was not my argument. As you say they take up land, but trees are vital to the environment especially as they help to combat the greenhouse effect.
It looked at costs of both systems. I am still a great believer in re-cycling or, if possible bio-degradable, but as said it did knock some of the excepted ideas a bit.
In a nutshell, I hate waste.

not entirely sure of my facts that i think hardwood trees are more beneficial than softwoods on climate change, and most certainly are for biodiversity

Never been totally convinced by recycling as an ideal. When i think of recycling paper I do tend to think of enormous machines, massive delivery lorries and enormous energy spent pulping and bleaching. All for a product that is less than perfect for most office uses(grainy, grey etc).
Off track, but I often wonder about the "throw away society", and whether it might be a more effective target to try and ensure consumer durables are more durable, and easier to repair when they do break. hands up whos sick of throwing away electrical equipment, because replace is cheaper than repair.
Like many things in life, the easy target wins votes, looks like you are doing something and is cheap. the harder target is often the one that it is worthwhile trying to hit.
Greekman,
the point that was made by the writer was pretty much the one my imaginary friend was trying to get across to me, without actually saying it. i can't be bothered to check back on my posts of the time, but he was batting on about "is it really green when you take everything into account"? I thought he was talking about transportation and GM, and I set off in that direction. in hindsight, perhaps he was talking about the article that has sparked this afternoons lively debate on degradable v biodegradable and the recycling issues.
You wait till I see him!!
Alan

Greekman, I agree your/the article's comments. A lot of the problem with recycling is the energy cost of collecting and recovering the "waste" product and turning it back into something useable. Then there's also the fairly slender economic case as you also point out. I'm not aware of the figures, but in the case of paper the two factors together have been enough to put some local authorities off recycling.

I'm not sure that there is a particularly strong environmental case against "tree farming" as such. Obviously of far greater concern is mowing down irreplacable resources such as the Amazonian rainforest, but most of that goes for either hardwood logging or disputable agricultural and mining practices.

Countries looking to further recycling would do well to consider Germany's example - here there is a deposit on most glass or plastic drinks bottles, which encourages the consumer to return the empties to the shops, thus avoiding having to send special vehicles on separate trips to collect from homes or bottle banks. There is also a whole "industry" amongst the disadvantaged who go picking up stray bottles from bins or wherever they may be discarded as litter in order to collect the deposits, thus helping to keep the streets and parks clean.

I've always been against the recycling of paper for the following reasons:-

Many of the forests now redundant through recycling (large areas in Germany, for e.g.) have never been replanted - no need to, they existed to produce paper. There are now vast areas of land which once had trees producing oxygen - they're now being developed or left barren.

AND

The quality of recycled paper is poor and has limited use.

Dont start me on bottle recycling - totally ineffective.

A lot of recycling has been about business - not saving the planet. Unfortunately, many people who claim they want to save the planet live on a completely different one!