News
Elon Musk provides critical context on hotly-debated “emerald mine” story
There are several points of legitimate criticism that are directed at Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Among the most persistent involves claims about an emerald mine, which critics on social media have related to Musk’s fortune and success being built on the back of “stolen jewels,” “blood diamonds,” or “apartheid,” for that matter.
Considering the prevalence of the story, it was no wonder that the claim emerged on Twitter this weekend. This time around, it came in the form of a Community Note on Twitter, which responded to a user’s post stating that Musk had come to the US with no money and graduated with over $100,000 in debt, and that the CEO worked two jobs while he was at school.
As per the Community Note, which has since disappeared from the post, the post was reportedly “misleading” because Musk “was born into an extremely wealthy family in South Africa.” The Community Note received polarizing reactions on Twitter, with supporters of the CEO stating that it was inaccurate and critics celebrating it.
The Musk Emerald Story’s Roots
It should be noted that the Musk family’s relation to an emerald mine was referenced years ago, initially in two reports from Business Insider South Africa from 2018. The reports were based on comments from Errol Musk, Elon Musk’s father, who told the publication, among other things, that Elon and Kimbal at one time sold a pair of emeralds to Tiffany’s in New York City for about $2,000, and that the Musk family was so wealthy that they had difficulty closing their safe.
Now, the idea of Tiffany’s purchasing emeralds from teenagers who walked in the store may be a bit suspect, as such practices are more commonly affiliated with traditional pawnshops, and the idea of a safe not being closed easily because of too much money inside may sound cartoony, but Business Insider South Africa ran with the story anyway. At the end of the article, however, the publication noted that Errol’s story could not be confirmed by Elon because the father and son have a complicated history.
Elon Musk’s Changing Narrative
What is rather interesting here is that Musk has actually referenced an emerald mine in past interviews as well. In a 2014 interview with Forbes, Musk noted that “This is going to sound slightly crazy, but my father also had a share in an Emerald mine in Zambia.” In posts on Twitter in December 2019, however, Musk noted that his father “didn’t own an emerald mine.” Granted, there’s a notable difference between “owning” a mine and “having a share” in one, but the apparent change in Musk’s narrative is notable.
The Crucial Piece
Fortunately, Musk’s recent post on Twitter provided some critical context on why his own interviews and later posts and comments contradict each other. As noted by Musk in his recent post, he actually believed that it was true for some time because his father told him that he owned a share in a mine in Zambia. However, it appears that nobody has really seen the mine, and he and his brother Kimbal are still financially supporting their father, even until today. Musk also shared some thoughts on his complicated relationship with his father.
“Our condition of providing him financial support was that he not engage in bad behavior. Unfortunately, he nonetheless did. There are young children involved, so we continued to provide financial support for their well-being. Regarding the so-called “emerald mine”, there is no objective evidence whatsoever that this mine ever existed. He told me that he owned a share in a mine in Zambia, and I believed him for a while, but nobody has ever seen the mine, nor are there any records of its existence. If this mine was real, he would not require financial support from my brother and me,” Musk wrote.
Whether or not Musk is telling the complete truth in his recent post on Twitter is still up for question. That being said, Musk’s post does explain why his comments and stance on his father’s emerald mine stake have changed over the years. If his post is accurate, then it is true that he believed that his father had a share in an emerald mine in the past, but it is also true that he is very skeptical of the claim today. His recent comments then, one of which is offering 1 million Dogecoins to anyone who can trace the emerald mine related to his father, would make sense.
Maye Musk, Elon Musk’s mother, also provided her own thoughts on the matter. As per Maye, she was made aware of the emerald mine story on Twitter about ten years ago. That being said, she also highlighted that when she and her children moved to Toronto in 1989, they stayed at a one-bedroom apartment and later a rent-controlled unit, hardly the accommodations of an extremely wealthy family from South Africa.
Errol Musk’s Most Recent Comments
To be fair, recent comments from Errol Musk also suggested that the emerald mine that he had a share in was not some grand operation that resulted in generational wealth.
“What Elon is saying is that there was no formal mine. It was a rock formation protruding from the ground in the middle of nowhere. There was no mining company. There are no signed agreements or financial statements. No one owned anything. The deal was done on a handshake with the Italian man at a time when Zambia was a free for all. Not even he knew exactly where the border was. At that time, it was like the Wild West,” Errol Musk told news.com.au.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads-up.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
