Can Geoengineering Thicken Arctic Sea Ice? Exploring Duration and Impacts

Every winter, significant infrastructure is developed in Canada, including 7,000 kilometers of ice roads. These roads are partially constructed by drilling holes in the lake ice and pumping water to the surface, where it freezes, thickening the ice for large vehicles seen in the Ice Road Truckers series.

Could applying the same technique to Arctic sea ice effectively thicken it enough to halt its decline? This question was explored by geoengineering researchers during field trials in Canada and Norway in 2024 and 2025. The loss of Arctic sea ice is a global concern, as it is projected to be virtually nonexistent by summer as early as the 2030s, which impacts the planet’s ability to reflect solar energy.

Both experiments showed that sea ice thickness increased, which some Canadian scientists claimed slowed the ice’s melting rate during summer. Norwegian scientists, however, reported different results, and both groups continue their investigations.

“Yes, the ice is getting thicker, but the impact on its eventual disappearance is still uncertain,” states Christian Haas, who analyzed the results of the Norwegian trial at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany.

In April 2024, the Dutch company Arctic Reflections drilled into approximately one meter of ice in a Svalbard lagoon and deployed an ice road pump to submerge the 8-inch layer of snow. After just over an hour, they created a 1,500 square meter puddle of slush that froze solid within three days, increasing total sea ice thickness from 90 centimeters to 1.16 meters. However, long-term observations indicated that the thickened ice began to deteriorate and melted similarly to other areas.

In a subsequent phase from December 2024 to February 2025, British company Real Ice drilled holes and pumped seawater into the sea ice at eight locations in the Northwest Passage, adjacent to Cambridge Bay’s Inuit villages. This effort produced over 250,000 square meters of increased snow thickness.

By May 2025, flooded sites averaged 1.93 meters in thickness, compared to 1.62 meters at control locations.

When seawater freezes, the expelled salt can impact ice quality. While the thickening process warms the ice and increases salinity, researchers like Haas are concerned that salty ice could accelerate melting, akin to salting roads. “It’s the quality of the ice that matters most,” he explains.

Alternatively, brine pores might facilitate the drainage of meltwater, potentially slowing ice loss. Data from temperature sensors indicated that melting in the Canadian test site was slower than the historical average and could continue for an additional seven to 10 days.

Both experiments demonstrated that as ice thickened, it become brighter. Satellite images taken in June revealed the Real Ice test site reflecting sunlight amid the surrounding blue meltwater. “We are contributing to global cooling,” stated Cecolini of Real Ice.

Despite the promising findings, Arctic Reflections suggests that the cooling impact may be limited compared to the warming effects created by pumps and vehicle emissions.

Further research is necessary to determine the viability of thickening Arctic sea ice for conservation efforts, according to Michelle Tsamados of University College London, who is developing models supported by a £9.9 million UK government subsidy, which also funds Real Ice and Arctic Reflections.

“It could work locally,” he remarks. “But can it be scaled to 10km, or even 100km?”

The implications for ice-associated species, including algae, polar bears, and seals, remain unclear. If thickening sea ice proves feasible, Real Ice anticipates using underwater drones to refreeze up to one million square kilometers of sea ice.

Arctic Reflections is also exploring opportunities to refreeze critical areas, such as the Channel, where sea ice flows southward and melts.

However, a collective of 42 scientists recently published an article arguing that polar geoengineering, including sea ice thickening, is impractical and could hinder essential emissions reductions.

“This technique may have limited short-term benefits in localized areas, but it is not a feasible large-scale solution,” cautions Michael Meredith from the British Antarctic Survey, who was not involved in the research.