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

below taken from e-mail, recieved today, asking why all the panic and why this latesrt rns



We stated in our interims that we were reviewing the funding and our financing options. The announcement made today is an update.
We are continuing to review all the options. At half year we had 300k in the bank. Today we have 900k.
In the meantime, we continue to progress the commercialisation of our products and, as noted in Martin Wagers quote, there is positive news on this front from USA.
Best regards

Sylvia

____________________________________________
Sylvia Leavey
Investor Relations Manager
Tel: +44 (0) 2380 867 100
Fax: +44 (0) 2380 867 070
Email: Sylvia.Leavey@Stanelco.co.uk

Of topic
Translation Site added to Drivers tips.

http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=9585#lastread

from the 5th august 2005

"The Directors are also now seeking approval for two further resolutions.



The first such resolution seeks Shareholder approval for the issue of further
new Ordinary Shares for cash, other than on a pre-emptive basis to existing
Shareholders, under the terms of section 95 of the Act. The Directors obtained
an equivalent authority at the Company's last Annual General Meeting, though
such authority has now been exhausted by the placing undertaken by the Company
on 8 June 2005. Whilst the Directors have no current intention to use this
authority in the event that it is granted, they believe it would be useful in
providing the Company with the flexibility to raise further equity capital in
the future on a quick and cost effective basis, should market conditions so
permit and should there be a bona fide strategic reason to do so. The authority
now being sought would enable the issue of 46,432,910 new Ordinary Shares,
representing 5 per cent. of the Company's current issued share capital of
928,658,222 Ordinary Shares. The authority will lapse at the conclusion of the
Company's next annual general meeting.



The second such resolution is required to increase the borrowing powers of the
Company set out in Article 94B of the Company's Articles of Association, which
are currently limited to 10 million. Having regard to the level of deferred
consideration payable under the Acquisition Agreement and the level of trade
creditors with which the Group operates, the Directors believe that the current
borrowing limit will be insufficient, and are accordingly proposing that it be
increased to 25 million."

my own view fwiw is they have already approached bank/banks and have not got the terms they wanted hence the paragraph in the rns.
As indicated in the interim results, in order to enable the Group to move into
the next phase of the commercialisation of its intellectual property portfolio
and to meet its working capital requirements, the Company is currently exploring
all financing options including a public equity issue.
as anyone still got there copy of the last agm As indicated in the interim results, in order to enable the Group to move into
the next phase of the commercialisation of its intellectual property portfolio
and to meet its working capital requirements, the Company is currently exploring
all financing options including a public equity issue.
has anyone still got a copy of the last agm resolutions that will tell you how many shares can be issued before they seek shareholder approval.
as always dyor

ignore last sentence did not see bosley last post

.3m on 1 May.
3.7m raised early June.
.9m now.
Therefore at least 3.1m spent in 3 & half months, probably more considering revenue income.
Of this 1.6m was the stage payment to Biotec (already made according to half year statements, OBLO)
So the "other" rate of burn is 1.5m. A little lower than in the first half year.

So SEO doesn't need more funding - good, then why is the sp down? (Or Up from the Director Buys at 3p about two years ago).
This company seems to be up and down like the proverbial.
Packing is not exciting, Governments are trying to say "use less" - whereas SEO want us to use more (of theirs). I just don't see SEO selling the environmental aspect.
We hear they are experiencing difficulties in borrowing (my words) food processing machines (to trial their wares)....yet isn't it highly likely this would be the case? What efficient company has spare capacity lying idle?
SEO needs to be partnering either the machine manufacturers, or the food processors - OR, offer a machine that is dedicated to their own needs - why don't they buy one - or do a deal with the manufacturer so they have exclusive sales for the first year? MAybe they should be making their own stainless steel and plastic machines...dedicated to their materials...double the interest, or by Rental, gives them a greater grip on the consumables.....
I get the impression this company is flapping about like a ship with a broken rudder. Confused RNS don't help. If they have enough cash, why don't the tell us how much - and how long?
That SEO's RNS is confusing the Market should be no surprise - Yet (posted here)their PR firm says SEO has enough cash (for survival?).....but I suspect the Market know best: The price has dropped 6% today.

had a call from the new FD who said he is not worried about the cash position. Joining the company 8 weeks ago he said his first job was to review the financial position of seo. As they were now going into commercialisaton stage he took out the staff he no longer required(12) and mr robbins now advising only. He blames GS delay on the packhouses having the busiest period ever, but states that a live trial in stores for september. He states starpol selling well in the US and wagner's visit to the US rated 10/10. Also the asda rns was pulled when they relised while updating the website it was accidently published before the rns, another blunder!
Starpol 3000 approval is imminent, but he like many states that biotec will be the real money spinner and they are running at full capacity in germany. But all this relies on generating money very soon he said...

Hangon,
The issue is not so much about using less as wasting less.
The Greenseal system has less waste, as the products apart from lasting longer due to the seal, have a lower spoil throw away percentage.
Starpol is also a less waste product as it will not pollute or fill landfill sites.
SEO are selling the environmental aspect, governments across the world are pushing it, but as always it's the end customer that will decide if SEO make it or not.
Anyone who thinks the green issue is not the way to go is in a very small minority.

greekman (Your boys took one hell of a beating ...... etc, etc) ;-)

I think that it is about time that a particular myth be readdressed and put to bed. Starpol may be a great product with its environmentally freindly benefits, but don't get too carried away with the idea that this will be the future of packaging. It wont. Why am I so sure? Have a think about disposal.

I keep reading posts from holders on this thread stating that Starpol being biodegradeable will not fill up landfill sites, etc. But do any of you holders out there have a local refuse collection where they ask you to seperate out the biodegradeable plastics? Do you have a third bin for this. I didn't think so.

The truth of the matter is that the consumer will still throw away the packaging material with the rest of the domestic rubbish destined for a landfill site. I very much doubt that at the refuse collection sites there will be a host of people sorting out the biodegradeables from the rest of the trash. As a result, Starpol products get incinerated or land-filled along with the rest of the rubbish.

So what incentive is there for a retailer to move over to Starpol. It would be more costly in the short term and they couldn't advertise the green benefits since the consumer would be aware that there is no special provision to deal with the disposal of biodegradeable products.

Sorry to sound negative, but it had to be said at some point.

And on a lighter note, what exactly is wrong with land-filling all our bio-products and paper based products. This will provide the oil for our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-(etc)-grandchildren in years to come.

Hi StarFrog,
The point is that biodegradable wont fill up landfill sites due to its breaking down qualities. Oil based plastic products can take well over 100 years (can't remember the stated time scale) whereas biodegradable is often, given average conditions less than 1 year, so more room for all that waste that we do throw away.
I agree that we will still chuck a high percentage of recyclable material onto tips but hopefully this percentage will drop.
As to the footy, 4 lucky goals. We was robbed.

StarFrog
You only got half the story.


">img src="http://www.flateric.biz/downloads/racehorse.gif" alt="" />

Ignore the above cant delete it either.

Hi greekman

Point taken, however ...... landfill operators try to disperse the rubbish evenly to avoid pockets of material decaying at a faster rate than the material surrounding them. If this were to happen there is a danger that pockets of explosive gases accumulate (e.g. methane). Additionally, a landfill site containing volumes of material that decay at different rates is mechanically unstable (don't forget, the plant machinery has to drive over these sites, and who would risk the chance of dropping into a hidden hole!).

With this in mind, there is always the possibilty that fast degrading biodegradeable materlals will not be allowed to be placed into conventional landfill sites. So, without a proper disposal method who would want to buy?

Brilliant site THANKS Driver

Peter

StarFrog, sorry, but what a load of nonsense. You say in one post that landfill operators do not sort one material type from another and then in the next rubbish is dispersed evenly. As all of your household rubbish is tipped into the site, the 'dozers spread it around, end of story. This rubbish of course contains materials of differing degradeable rates, food, paper etc and non-biodegradeable products. Whether it contains any quantity of biodegradeable is immaterial in this context. What is important is that we reduce the amount of non-biodegradeable whether that be by recycling or for example the use of Starpol. There are only so many holes we can fill.

pth

pth

Sorry pth - I guess I phrased that last post a bit poorly. The point was that landfill operators don't take any old rubbish (no pun intended). It is effectively graded by merit of what is and what is not allowed to be tipped. Accordingly, landfill operators attempt to keep materials that decay at different rates apart. Now I am not talking about some guys sorting through your domestic rubbish when it arrives at the site. What I am saying is that different grades of material (domestic, industrial-light, industrial-heavy, low toxicity bio-medical, etc) are tipped at different sites or at different locations within a landfill. What the operator does not want is domestic waste that contains material that may decay within one year when the rest takes 100 years. So if Starpol and its freinds are to be marketed as the new green materials that decay in a year, then it may be that alternative arrangements will need to be made for their disposal.

Recycle while you still can!

4000000 buy after hours

StarFrog,

If you looked through your own rubbish bin, you would find all sorts of rubish that decay at vastly different rates, from plastic packing to potato peelings - how does throwing away biodegradable packaging alter what is already happening at present??