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

And Stanelco lost.

shamona
You said that you are a thirty plus year investor so you must be over forty eight, you are just embarrassing your self on this adult SEO thread by acting like a two year old. If you think SEO is a pile of crap or you do not have the funds to invest in a future FTSE 100 Company then go elsewhere and stop bothering us adults.

FCUK the bashers, they will ALWAYS LOSE !!!!

KBC Peel Hunt Brokers Note from TODAY !!!!

Says more about the Stanelco future than any previos KBC or EVO note, and kicks the butt of every BASHER !!!!


The prospects for Biotecs products are truly exciting as they offer
the only commercially viable biodegradable alternative to the
plastics being used in the packaging industry. More importantly it
will also generate very real profits. Furthermore the prospects for
the groups GREENSEAL technology remain strong. Following the
successful completion of the third trial, the 12 month exclusivity
agreement has started and we anticipate the roll-out programme
to start in earnest once the initial machines have been
commissioned and signed off

Biotec is already forecast to be strongly profitable in the first
full year of ownership. The deal recently announced with the
groups jv partner SP Metal should ensure that the group is
profitable in the first year. Initial projections suggest the contract
will generate around 4m of EBIT and we anticipate that additional
deals will be announced over the coming months. In our numbers
we have attempted to be prudent and have assumed that around
15,000 tonnes of product will be sold in the first twelve months (the
SP Metal deal already covers 10,000 of this total).

Long-term opportunity for Biotec probably exceeds that of
GREENSEAL. The use of plastics in the food industry is clearly
extensive and is also an integral part. Until now there has been no
viable naturally biodegradable alternative to the likes of
polypropylene or APET. The introduction of Starpol 2000 (Biotecs
core product) changes this. Price is an issue, however the price
premium for Starpol 2000 is only 10-20% and as the product
becomes adopted so the price will fall. Additionally, both
Polypropylene and APET prices are linked to the oil price and with
the ever rising price of oil it is unlikely to be long before the pricing
of Starpol 2000 falls below that of the traditional plastics.
Quantifying the potential for Biotec is impossible due to the scale of
the market. However merely replacing all of SP Metals existing
internal requirements would result in a 14-fold increase volumes
from the existing 10,000 tonnes. This would imply a 56m EBIT for
Biotec on a pro-forma basis.

Stronger balance sheet. The recent fund raising and part sale of
Biotec has improved the groups cash position from the start of the
year with a current cash balance of around 7m.

Summary

The acquisition of Biotec and the speed with which the management have
subsequently secured both a jv partner and its first commercial contract
have helped improve the visibility of profits in 2006 and onwards. More
importantly it has fundamentally changed the groups underlying
prospects. Both GREENSEAL and Biotec have enormous opportunities
but are both early stage. Consequently the addition of this second leg
reduces the risk of failure for the group and due to the cross selling
opportunities that exist should actually increase the likelihood of success
for both parts of the group - the only way to make an MAP seal on Biotecs
products is to use RF welding.

The Biotec acquisition

At the EGM on the 29th August the group passed the resolution to
purchase Biotec Holdings GmbH (Biotec). The original terms of the deal
are as follows:

The group is paying US$25m to E Khashoggi Industries LLC for the entire
issued share capital of Biotec and its subsidiaries. $1.23m in cash has
already been paid and a further $11.27m is payable in cash on completion
of the deal. A further $6.25m in cash is payable in 12 months and a further
$6.25m is payable in cash six months thereafter.

Biotec Partner - SP Metal

On the 5th July the group entered a binding agreement with SP Metal for
the sale of a 50% interest in Biotec for $12.5m. Payment will be satisfied
by an initial payment of 6.25m with two additional payments of $3.125m
on the 12th and 24th month anniversary of completion.

Under the terms of the agreement Biotec will be run as a 50:50 joint
venture with SP Metal.

SP Metal is a pan European supplier of household packaging and
manufactures 140,000 tonnes of plastic film a year. Of this 100,000
tonnes is used for refuse bags and 16,000 tonnes for shopping bags.
Clearly SP Metals interest in Biotec is as a source of biodegradable film
to replace, over time, their existing raw material.

It is our understanding is that SP Metal was actually one of the other
bidders for the Biotec.

SP Metal Agreement

Following the jv tie up SP Metal entered into a conditional agreement to
purchase 10,000 tonnes of biodegradable pellet worth 20m p.a. from
Biotec. We anticipate that this will generate around 4m of operating profit
for Biotec

On acquisition Biotec was trading broadly at break-even consequently as
a result of this deal it will be profitable. Applying the contribution of 4m
means that Biotec was effectively purchased for a 5x PER.

Biotec Products
All Biotecs products are starch based and consequently naturally
biodegradable. This is the key reason that the business was purchased as
the group believes that this is the future direction being pushed by food
consumers. The point that the products are naturally biodegradable is
important as some plastics can be biodegraded but only by way of a
composter, Biotecs products need no such assistance.

Starpol 2000 this is the core product within the Biotec portfolio with
applications for the global food industry. The key properties of the product
are:

Pricing is marginally higher than the existing products used in the
market namely polypropylene and APET. APET is the main
competitive product so getting comparable price points will help
accelerate the adoption of Starpol 2000. Scale of production is clearly
a critical issue as the greater the quantity of Biotecs products being
produced the lower the unit cost will become. What should accelerate
the short term take-up of Starpol 2000 is the rising oil price as it has
only a negligible impact on Biotecs products but a significant impact
on both polypropylene and APET. Double digit percentage price rises
are anticipated for both these plastics over the coming quarter. The
group is likely to have a flexible pricing approach to Starpol, the aim
being to price at a slight discount to APET, but moving with the APET
price. This approach is aimed to maximise returns.

It can be used on existing machines. No change or adaptation to
existing machinery is necessary ensuring that the product can be
used as a substitute to existing plastics easily.

It is a better gas barrier than polypropylene. This is very important
where it is used in MAP (modified atmospheric packaging) as it can
considerably alter the shelf life of the contents.

Up to 50% of the scrap can be reused, this significantly reduces the
unit cost and mean that total cost compared to APET is more
competitive.

Other Products

The group is still evaluating the full product portfolio within Biotec however
there are a number of interesting opportunities including; thermoplastic
starch, a starch based cork and a biodegradable alternative to existing
cigarette filters 95% of cigarette filters contain a plastic material and
there are concerns over the migration of this plastic from the filter to the
lung. A direct entry into this market by the group is unlikely however sale
of the technology over the coming months is likely.

Prospects for Biotec

The group is addressing the global food tray market. To give an indication
of the size of the market in North American Wal-Mart alone purchases
2.5bn food trays per year for red meat only. Each tray, on average, weighs
40g this equates to an annual usage of 100,000 tonnes of plastic (they
presently use polypropylene which is a notoriously poor gas barrier).
Wal-Mart in turn accounts for only 10% of the North American market so a
simple calculation suggests 1m tonnes of plastic is used in red meat
packaging in the North American market.

On a pro-forma basis as per the SP Metal deal this volume would equate
to 2bn of gross income and an EBIT contribution of 400m. Even
assuming that the EBIT margin falls by 75% to 5% then this would still
give 100m of EBIT.

yeah smelly, go away and leave us adults alone.....nah nah na nah nah

Paul...does the broker's note give any update on price tagets, etc?

One thing to remind ourselves of is the rapid reduction in risk when a greenfield company with a new product and no sales starts to be able to quantify its market as a prelude to projecting likely sales. KBC's note does just that more convincingly, I believe, than EVO has done.

SEO's strategy of developing IP which it then brings to market via JV and similar partnerships has just demonstrated the viability of its business model to a high degree.

Great post Paul.

sd

PP Hi,

Download the PDF here ....

Stanelco 6 Sep 05.pdf


Bear in mind the analysts 'conservative' figures .....

2005 profit down from 3.8m to 1.59m
2006 profit up from 18.59m to 36.63m
2007 profit up from 36.20m to 57.97m

Very significant forecast improvement, S.P not going to be <25p for long

Cheers,
PM

SD Hi,

Agreed, and thanks :)

Cheers,
PM

thanks

What a stunning brokers note. The potential for Starpol is absolutely immense.
If Biotec are going to have any chance of producing these sorts of quantities, they are surely going to have to build a new production facility in North America?

By the way ( and at risk of boring people! ) I must just correct some basic misunderstandings re the CC appeal. SEO have lodged two separate appeals. One regarding the original judgement, and the other agianst the prior art judgement.

The prior art refers to a 1963 patent concerning the encapsulation of pesticides in PVA using RF welding ( nothing to do with fertilizer!! ) and the other is a reference in a book by C A Finch published in 1973 ( not the 1950's !!! ) which refers ( on page 42 ) to HF dialectric welding of PVA, for purposes such as unit packages for washing powder.

Nothwithstanding the fact that Judge Floyd found this new evidence to be non-determinative, that finding is nevertheless being appealed, and I believe will be overturned.

If it is in fact overturned, the ramification for the original judgement is profound. For example, the breach of confidence ruling will have to be reversed, because you can't breach a confidence when the information which is aledged to be confidential is already in the public domain. No breach of confidence = no damages.

The reality is that neither party has "won". Both parties need the patents retained by the other to push ahead quickly. BPRG did of course have a good go at trying to win patent Families 2 and 3 when Barry Muncaster farcically tried to con Judge Floyd into believing that he was the inventor of those patents! He doesn't know one end of a dialectric welder from the other!

Hopefuly some of you may have found the above informative. It certainly puts into perspective the misunderstandings that some BPRG investors have of the CC issue, which, after all, is very very important to them ( eg Swallo! ), but, annoyingly for them, an almost complete irrelevance for us!! ( eg Greenseal and Starpol ).

Dormar Hi,

Excellent post :)

Cheers,
PM

Paul

My pleasure!

Off for a sandwich now.

Dormar

Dormar

WRONG i'm afraid, Stanelco have only been given the rights to appeal the prior art ruling, NOTHING ELSE!

You're also wrong about the prior art, it was in regard of sealing fertiliser bags, it was in a reference book but was not patented.

You are also wrong about the breach of confidence, even if Stanelco win the appeal(which is highly unlikely since Judge Floyd threw the weak prior art evidence out already)the ruling still stands.

Stanelco have not appealed about the breach of confidence ruling as the judge found they had stolen the idea, which part of that don't you understand?

Stanelco are now saying with the prior art evidence that the patents don't belong to anyone? Do you understand????????????????

They can't be claiming prior art AND that they still hold the patent!

By Masterson saying Dormars post was good just shows how little he knows about the court case, the sad little excuse for a man.

The abuse from the bashers has been reported, and acknowledged ....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

Could you have a look at the abuse on the Stanelco BB, some of it is quite .... sick ?

------------------------------------------------------------------


This has been pointed out to me and I am monitoring the situation,

Ian

Customer Support Manager

MoneyAM Ltd

Telephone: 0870 770 8300

Fax: 0870 770 9300

ian@moneyam.com

guys, move on. this is dull. shamona, grow some balls and start behaving like a man. what you think is as irrelevant as what everyone else thinks. people make up their own minds!! the best example is demonstrated by the wonderful , rising countermelody sung by seo's sp, against the dour descending apeggios of bprg's sp. the people have spoken!

Yes I am monitoring this thread as I am with all threads.

Can we keep to the subject now please

Ian

Shamona

Carefull, bloodpressure!

I don't know where you get your info from but it's profoundly wrong. The reference to pesticides is in a 1963 patent GB 317. You were betting on me not knowing that weren't you!!

As for who is appealing what, take a look at this! The you will see that Stanelco are appealing the order from the 2/11/2004: the original decision. Check it out with the link I've provided. You will also notice that BPRG are also appealing the original judgement - which you must not have been aware of either!!

A3/2005/0819 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Defendant from order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), dated 2 November 2004, filed 15 April 2005.

A3/2005/0823 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Claimant from order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), dated 2 November 2004, filed 15 April 2005.

A3/2005/0824 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Claimant from order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), dated 9 December 2004, filed 15 April 2005.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivilterm.htm

The one thing you are correct on, is that if the prior art is admitted, it will also kill Patent Family 1, leaving it open for the world and his dog to utilize the concept contained therein. The point is, anyone who wanted to exploit the concept, would have to do it in such a way that they didn't breach Patent families 2 and 3, which will be retained by Stanelco of course. This would be possible, but would take much time and money, during which, Stanelco would steel a march!. This IS Stanelco's strategy!!

You really must get a grasp of the facts before you come on here making a fool of yourself.

Apologies for boring others with this, but I can't let Shamona get away with posting such unmitigated rubbish without challenge!

bosley

Its not a match between Stanelco and Bioprogress, it's a debate on the upcoming court case; dormar was wrong in his reading of the case so I corrected him!

Some of you need to step back and not treat every negative as "bashing or "abuse", this company is clearly overvalued and "WILL" be hammered by the court case; best to be aware of the real situation before the proverbial hits the fan wouldn't you say?

Perhaps you'd much prefer the rose tinted specs version to the truth though, for me it's only about making money which is why i'm short here till February.