Appreciate your input and keen storytelling ability Idle. But...

Appreciate your input and keen storytelling ability Idle.

But when somebody posts a screenshot of a sensationalised headline…. With no direct link to the article, or even a comment like “hey guys, I can’t access this but please check it out”, then the motive seems rather clear to me.
Or else it was just plain carelessness.


Particularly when I could access the article fine, without any subscription etc.

A little disingenuous to assume that all 2000+ companies were even audited/targeted with these warning letters, see the link below.


https://www.copyright link/companies/financial-services/asic-targets-fossil-fuel-companies-over-climate-change-20210531-p57wq4

Also :

“Mr Phillips said that while ASIC had not conducted a “detailed review” of the non-disclosures in question, it nonetheless reminded the directors and auditors of the requirements under section 299A of the Corporations Act, which requires full disclosure, and warned it would be monitoring disclosures in 2020 annual reports.”

Im assuming the 2020 annual report was to their satisfaction, or else we would have heard further on the subject.

Ergo, last year’s news.

We also know exactly how the company plans to be “carbon neutral” by the target date (and they’ve indicated this) …. via using the empty chambers to store the CO2.

Endearing that you’ve found a “nickname” for supporters of the company , but what should we call the same folks who clearly have an agenda of pushing misleading information to downramp the company ?
I can think of a few


Im all for constructively discussing the risks, rewards and challenges of the company. But some of the stuff is just plain absurd.


Cheyne