Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Eurocontrol Technics Ord EUCTF

"Eurocontrol Technics Group Inc is a Canada-based company involved in acquisition, development, and commercialization of security, authentication, verification and certification markets. The company through its subsidiaries is engaged in designing, manufacturing, marketing of energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) systems, and developing technology and property that combines two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) image processing technology respectively."


OTCPK:EUCTF - Post by User

Comment by kidl2on Oct 04, 2017 11:16am
56 Views
Post# 26775183

RE:Philipines

RE:PhilipinesPoorOpinion: I suppose the Philippines will have to get one of the three current versions (House, Senate and  DoF) passed before year end.
Sounds like the fuel marker program is part of the DoF version as well as House Bill 5636 but is it part of the Senate Bill 1592?
 
As for SICPA’s odds, if a fuel marker program is implemented, they probably haven’t changed, 1 in 4; SICPA, Authentix (SGS?), Dow Chemical and United Color.
Interesting ... In one of the articles I found, Seaoil, the largest fuel distributor, supports a marker program but refers to it as “low concentrations of a marked dye to be blended with the fuel”. An error in terminology or a preference for the much cheaper dye marker?
 
In the end it will probably come down to program cost and possibly more importantly, which of the four provides the most appealing “benefits” to the decision makers ... :-)
 

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>