We have no plans to industrialise Antarctica. The timber chipping plants will be built on the Falkland Islands or at the southern tip of South America. Terafactories for the formation of composite icebergs are located off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsular, and the finished composite icebergs will be positioned off the mainland. We don’t require any activity on the Antarctic mainland.

We agree that humanity has created a “climate hole.” As a result, we have a responsibility to correct our error before rising global temperatures destroy Antarctica. To protect the planet’s last great wilderness, the composite icebergs will be formed and stored off the mainland.

The impact of composite iceberg placements on Antarctica’s penguins (and other wildlife) necessitates extensive research and ongoing monitoring. Potentially suitable slopes can be added to the sides of the composite icebergs to allow penguins to climb onto their flat tops, which might provide beneficial habitats.

Yes, a sizable fleet of cargo ships will be required to transport timber from plantations to Antarticia. Fortunately, bulk marine transport can be extremely efficient while emitting relatively little CO2. Following best practices, we estimate 97+% efficiency, requiring only a modest number of additional trips to offset carbon emissions due to transportation.

Long-term prevention of both accidental (e.g., lightning strike) and deliberate (e.g., arson) ignition would be extremely challenging.

As long as trees grow at a decent rate, this is a reasonable approach. However, if the native trees grow too slowly, they won’t capture a sufficient quantity of carbon to reverse Global Warming.

Yes, our trials with willow have been successful. Beyond trees, a variety of other plants can be used to capture carbon as biomass. For example, we have tested bamboo which is a grass.

Absolutely, a wide variety of tree species to suit the geographical location and support local wildlife could be grown.

Please take a look at the infographic on the ‘Home’ page, which explains the benefit of breaking the carbon cycle by preventing organic material (timber) from decaying. In other words, each composite iceberg removes thousands of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere on a permanent basis.

Yes. Wildlife will face challenges if Global Warming is not solved.

People may ‘baulk’ at the thought, but bulk marine transport can be extremely efficient with relatively low carbon emissions.

We have no affinity for eucalyptus beyond the fact that it is a useful species for calculating ‘optimistic’ carbon capture rates. There is a sliding scale of species vs. land area required (for example, eucalyptus requires the least amount of land).

On a global scale, tree planting can only be a short-term fix unless something is done to stop trees reaching maturity and starting to decay. Growing trees, without ‘breaking’ the carbon cycle, results in a net zero change.

Possibly, to a limited degree. However, the total quantity of composite ice which needs to be stored greatly exceed the expected demand for construction material in extremely cold regions.

We believe composite ice would melt in temperatures typical found in Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan. The trapped carbon would subsequently be released back into the atmosphere through decomposition.

The closest analogue we can think of is a tourniquet for the planet. It’s not perfect, but it appears feasible. If it can keep the Earth alive long enough for advanced energy technologies (such as affordable fusion power) to be developed, it will have fulfilled its purpose.

Theoretically yes, however in practice, it is difficult to submerge wood with a density less than seawater. There are a few wood species with densities greater than saltwater. Unfortunately, because they are slow or medium growers with a poor regeneration rate, the land area required is excessive.

The conversion process would release more carbon than converting into composite ice.

The long term storage of diseased timber is currently being evaluated.

To reduce carbon emissions associated with transporting the timber to the seaport, the cargo ships will operate from commercial seaports closest to the plantation. Timber will be moved downriver to seaports where feasible.

The chipping plants will be built on the Falkland Islands or the southern tip of South America. As a result, cargo ships do not require any offloading port facilities within the Antarctic Circle. The Terafactories (for the formation of composite icebergs) are located off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsular and unload biomass directly.

When wood is buried in the ground, it usually decays quickly. However, if the burial hole is lined with a thick layer of airtight clay, the oxygen supply is limited and the rate of decay is slowed. In order for this to work in the long run, the land must never be built on because any damage to the top layer of clay would allow air to enter and allow the contents to decompose. Furthermore, a large amount of impermeable clay needs to be available to line and hermetically seal the hole. These constraints have an impact on financial costs as well as suitable geographic locations.

Pykrete is made from freshwater and wood, whereas composite ice is made from seawater and wood. In comparison to Pykrete, the rate of organic decomposition in composite ice is slower. Furthermore, seawater is more readily available than freshwater.

A study of the annual temperature profiles at both poles suggests the Antarctic is more suitable than Arctic for long term composite iceberg storage.

Polar bears are native to the Arctic and surrounding areas, so the placement of composite icebergs around Antarctica will have no direct impact on them. However, combating climate change will aid in the preservation of the Arctic, which will benefit them.

As the composite icebergs are relatively flat and stable, a layer of ‘fresh’ snow will form on the top surface. This will reflect solar radiation back into space, which would otherwise be absorbed.