Mark Thompson

Metals and mining entrepreneur. Former hedge fund manager. Trading and investment, qualified bulldozer driver. Tin guru.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

Follow the money.
Show me the incentive, and I will predict the outcome.

The West has been played like a Stradivarius.

Ed Milliband is making Britain poorer to make China richer:
Why is he doing this?
What is his incentive?

The outcome is the destruction of UK manufacturing, and the impoverishment of bill payers.

@UKLabour
@reformparty_uk
@Ed_Miliband
@TiceRichard

[Amanda van Dyke @AmandaVandyke13]

China didn't build the world’s biggest solar farms in 2025 because it needed the energy or even because it was deeply committed to Net Zero or Climate Action.

It recognised something the West largely missed.

The real opportunity wasn’t generating electricity. It was manufacturing the equipment everyone else would need to generate electricity.

Since 2018, China has exported close to $1 trillion worth of solar panels, batteries, EVs and wind equipment.

China now manufactures roughly:
92% of global solar modules
82% of global wind turbines
75% of EV’s
80%+ batteries
65% +of renewable energy equipment

Net Zero created demand. China captured supply.

The West subsidised deployment. China monetised the transition.

China’s production capacity has grown so dramatically that it can already meet global renewable infrastructure demand even under the most aggressive Net Zero by 2050 scenarios, even though they don’t intend to get to net zero until 2060….when their coal runs out.

For a deeper dive see my Energy Reality Check article. Link in comments.
#China #EnergyTransition #NetZero #IndustrialPolicy #CriticalMinerals #Mining #EnergySecurity #criticalmineralshub #mineralimperative

[Anglo Futurism Capital LP 🇬🇧🐿️ @RollingHedge]

Ed Miliband is insane.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

Dawn over The Great Sandy Desert.

[John Galt @AtlasShrug1]

$STAR.L

Man that chart is looking delicious. I mean it is literally smiling at you, what more could you ask for?

[Alan @A1an_M]

I spent a large part of yesterday trying to explain to people who supposedly are proponents of science what a "confounding variable" is.

Rather than say the same thing again today to about 100 people in about 100 different replies, I'm going to write it all in one place, here.

When scientists do science, in the form of an experiment or study, they will ultimately write it up in a standard report format containing the same sections:

Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References

One of the most important aspects of the Discussion is a critical analysis of what was done. What went well, what could have been done better, what should be done next time. In particular, the authors attempt to identify if there are any "confounders" which may have influenced the results and rendered them invalid.

Let's take the example of a medicine in a clinical trial. We might, if we are ethical scientists, want to study whether a particular medicine causes adverse effects to those taking it before letting it loose in the wild. So we might recruit some people for a trial, and divide them into two groups. The first receives the actual medicine, the second receives a placebo. We might then monitor the recruits for a few months (or, preferably, a much longer period) on a daily basis and note any illnesses suffered in both groups.

We would then do a statistical analysis on the results from the two groups. If the results of that analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in the levels and types of illness suffered in the two groups, we might then conclude that no adverse effects were caused by the medicine. If, on the other hand, there was a significant difference between the two groups, that would point towards the need for further study and might lead us to conclude that the medicine was the cause of the difference.

The key thing here with our experimental design is that we want to make sure that the two groups in the study - the experimental group who receive the medicine and the control group who do not - are, in every other way, identical. Because if they're not, those differences might have caused the effect we observed, rather than the differences we created in our experiment.

What factors might make these two groups different?

1. Age differences. If one group was older, we might expect they might suffer more illness than the younger group.
2. Gender. Dependent on the medicine, males or females might be more affected. If the groups weren't balanced for gender, this might distort the reported illness results.
3. Health differences. If one group had poorer general health than the other at the beginning of the trial, we might expect them to report more illness during the trial.

These are all examples of "confounding variables". Factors which we did not control but which might influence the outcome and render our results invalid.

So in our experimental design we would want to make sure the experimental group and the control group are closely matched for age, gender and health status.

Which brings me onto climate change.

Climate scientists contend that Carbon Dioxide created by human activity in the industrial age is causing global atmospheric temperatures to increase.

As evidence, they point to an increase in global atmospheric temperatures over the last 200 years or so.

So far so good. Temperatures have, broadly, risen during that time. There are plenty of other things to criticise about this hypothesis and about climate "science" in general but that is for another time.

Yesterday we saw, all over the media, headlines about new record May temperatures of 35 degrees at Kew and Heathrow, and below the headlines was text saying that experts were saying this was another example of evidence of how the climate is warming.

Now I don't deny that it's been hot the last couple of days - where I am it has been around 32 degrees - so I don't doubt that the May record may have been broken somewhere in the country.

But the specific problem I have is with the temperatures at Heathrow and Kew, or indeed anywhere close to London or a big urban area being used as the evidence that the May record has been broken,or that they are evidence of atmospheric warming.

Why? Because of a confounding variable.

When we say a temperature record has been broken, we need to make sure we are comparing apples with apples. So not only do we need to compare temperatures that were measured in the same site using the same type of equipment in both instances - we need to make sure that the sites themselves have not changed.

We know that modern urban areas create a "heat island" effect. The expanses of heat-retaining materials like concrete, asphalt and cement retain heat during the day and release it slowly overnight, leading to higher daytime and nighttime temperatures. Added to which are the many buildings and vehicles in urban areas generating their own heat. All of this means that temperatures in, or close to, an urban area are typically several degrees warmer than in countryside some distance away.

Given the expansion and urbanisation of London over the last century, this effect will only have grown over time.

Arup measured this effect in London and concluded that temperatures there are often 4.5 degrees hotter than in the surrounding countryside (see first comment for link).

This effect obviously varies between different parts of London, as shown on the heat map, and reduces as you move away from central London, but even at Kew, the effect is estimated to cause temperatures to be 0.9 degrees higher than would be the case if Kew was sited in the countryside.

And Heathrow clearly creates its own heat island effect given the scale of the airport and the big expanses of heat absorbing materials there.

So if we are going to use temperatures measured in, or close to, London as evidence of atmospheric warming, we have a problem. We have a significant confounding variable. The warming caused by the heat island effect is going to add to any warming in the atmosphere, and give us an exaggerated result.

You can perhaps forgive tabloid newspapers for running headlines about this, just quoting the raw temperatures measured. They want to make money and it being very hot outside is a great news story. And urban areas becoming increasingly hot in summer is an issue in its own right.

But what is unforgiveable is people who claim to be scientists using these measurements as evidence of atmospheric warming, when there's such a glaring confounding variable influencing the data.

How would a proper scientist deal with this confounder?

Well, they might say "from now on, we will only use temperatures from rural weather stations which are not subject to urban heat island effects, and we will only declare records on the basis of those measurements"

And they might say "we will not use temperature measurements from areas subject to urban heat island effects as evidence of atmospheric warming".

But the Met Office and the climate science people aren't saying that. They're going with the artificially inflated temperatures. Because they have an agenda to push, a vast Net Zero industry to sustain, research grants to chase, and any evidence, however shonky, which backs up the global warming narrative is welcome.

This isn't science!

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

Keep the faith - the home stretch beckons!

[Hspooner @Hspooner665]

A great message from a poster on the New $NWBO community message board.🤟😁

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@NodgePi @metoffice No, they should do proper science not involving making numbers up.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

Have you been leaving your thermometer in direct sunlight because you have an agenda to push?
The higherst recorded temperature in india in 51 degrees centigrade, recorded over 10 years ago, beating by 0.4 degrees the 1956 record.
More inconvenient truths.

[BladeoftheSun @BladeoftheS]

As the UK hits 35C it is hitting 55C in India, just a few Centigrade from causing instant death.

This is the most heavily populated country on the planet with 1.47 billion people.

More than all of North America and Europe combined.

Imagine if they all have to leave.

[John Galt @AtlasShrug1]

$STAR.L should be getting far more attention than it is after yesterday’s filings showing that the founder of Blackberry and commodities guru @METhompson72 bought an absolute crapload of stock via private placement right around this level.

Mark said on X last night that his “base” case is a 30x and his bull case (I believe) is 50-100x for this microcap UK gas company (with some geothermal) positioned to benefit from the return of energy independence and prioritizing BTM data center solutions (think shale gas) in the UK. The political winds are shifting, and this company is now well funded to seek out additional attractive shale gas assets to bring into the fold before a massive re-rating is likely to occur w/ the next general election.

Mark was the first to recommend $EQR.AX at $.03, it was a Tungsten 10x and having run First Tin and Tungsten West among other things, he knows his shit. And I don’t hold him being an Oxford guy against him at all 😂

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

I am please to announce my new investment: I have taken a 5% stake in Star Energy Group in the recent placing, bringing my overall exposure to just under 7%.
This is a long term hold, in anticipation of the economic imperative of on-shore gas, energy security, re-industrialisation of the UK and a change in government.

https://t.co/wOIbmnL2pG

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@AtlasShrug1 I typically don’t invest for percentages, looking for big positions and big multiples in a handful of stocks where I am meaningfully engaged. The UK on-shore gas sector was valued at about £1bn under Liz Truss, now less than £30m EV.
30x is realistic base case.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

I am please to announce my new investment: I have taken a 5% stake in Star Energy Group in the recent placing, bringing my overall exposure to just under 7%.
This is a long term hold, in anticipation of the economic imperative of on-shore gas, energy security, re-industrialisation of the UK and a change in government.

https://t.co/wOIbmnL2pG

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@soulMiner1 No optimism involved. Just an identified massively asymmetric risk/reward opportunity and an openness to a 100% loss. Keep doing these sort of trades and outsized returns are very likely.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@oilgastourist Do anything at the right price.*
This is the way.

*Except Morris dancing and incest.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@Treespotter25 A sensible repricing of risk/reward would be a good start, but this is a high-conviction trade into the next General Election.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@AtlasShrug1 Catching the falling knife!

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@AmonkMonkey This may sound outrageous, but I see 50x upside in Star Energy's share price on a better than evens chance of a pro-hydrocarbons govt. There is risk - big risk; but it is currently seriously mispriced.

[Cut My Tax @CutMyTaxUK]

The intellectual decline of the so-called Labour “Right” can be seen in their recent proposals to hike capital gains tax massively to income tax levels, just copying a proposal from a far left group called Centax whose dodgy statistics underpinned Labour's disastrous move to force non-doms out of the UK.

The likes of Wes Streeting and the so-called Labour Growth Group ignored or more likely didn't even know about HMRC's calculations, which show that such a move would actually cost over £10 bn, as people unsurprisingly will decline to sell their assets if they have to pay a huge tax bill to the state. International & past UK evidence shows clearly that higher CGT rates lead to lower revenues, whereas lowering rates increases revenues.

Contrast Streeting’s thoughtless plan to hike CGT with Labour’s CGT cuts under the Blair/Brown government:

Gordon Brown first CGT reform in 1998 involved taper relief from CGT, so the amount of gain charged to tax would be reduced the longer an asset had been held. He described this as “a new structure of capital gains tax which will explicitly reward long-term investment, and which is based on a downward taper and lower tax rates”. The lowest rate was 10%

In June 2002 the Labour Government reduced the business asset taper so the 10% CGT rate would cut in after only 2 years.

“The UK’s CGT regime for business assets is now one of the most competitive in the world. However the Government believes it is now time to go further and ensure that our regime is among the most favourable to enterprise in the developed world”, a policy paper said.

The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury Ruth Kelly, commented on the shorter two year taper: “The change that we are making this year will specifically build on the success of earlier reforms and, in particular, encourage investment in start-up and growing companies. For such companies, equity investments are a vital source of finance”.

The reforms were indeed a big success, not least in the increase in CGT tax revenues which trebled over a 5 year period. Unfortunately the so-called Labour Right today are too dim to be able to draw conclusions from even their own party's past success in this area.

[Mark Thompson @METhompson72]

@AtlasShrug1 @AlexSherlock_ Ahh… my big new position has been outed!

[Sunday Sport @thesundaysport]

'If I cut tax on visting Alton Towers, more people will go. If I increase the tax on employing people...no, hold on...'