Putin will trust no one in the West to honour a lasting ceasefire, and no one will ever trust Putin (I doubt even in BRICS). This will only end in one side being forced to stop fighting against their will.
"give the insider investors that inside knowledge"
Not sure if you're aware, but insider trading is illegal.
I had read it all, thanks. I'm very aware of EUA's full ESG policy. If you actually read my post again, you'll see I was responding to what Del929 had written (that I then quoted, for clarity) which did not mention the E part, hence neither did my response.
"Stonk - not sure your view is correct. Globally ESG is a big thing."
The E in ESG - i.e. the environmentally friendly industry - is a commercially valuable (and so important) thing. The stuff in Del929's post is the S and G bit that is frankly just fluffy PR and of no tangible value to a company - it is only used commercially to offset the cost of potential litigation.
EUA are a very distressed company with all eyes on realising as much proceeds as possible before we go bust. Del929's list will not even make the BOD's to do list.
" i’d prefer they focused on their communication issues rather than fecking lack of bod diversity."
they'll focus on none of it at all. this is standard esg corporate whitewashing bull**** that all companies have to have; another "copy/paste, publish, tick the box and forget" document.
The exact wording in the 7-Dec RNS was "no production expected on site in 2024". It is a forecast view, not a statement of immutable fact. To my mind, they based that forecast on facts available to them at the time.
Something unexpected may well have changed since that RNS (after all, that is all we're hoping for anyway, right?) that means they are now actually producing (mining, washing, selling, delivering). Or it means that they are now mining again but not producing (e.g. merely digging up and stockpiling the raw dirt). There are many ways that the current observed ground activity is perfectly compatible with the RNS statement.