There are some facts:

- Contracts/permits are now being issued at an increasing rate for drilling and mining in Arctic territories.

- Humankind requires energy, minerals, metals and other resources.

- Shipping routes are open now in the summer, which previously weren't.

- Conditions on permanent icecaps and in sea ice regions are deteriorating.

- Ice levels fluctuate and sometimes are an increase on the previous year.

- Some estimates of ice loss year on year are vastly exaggerated.

- Headline grabbing claims of ships reaching super-high latitudes are misleading. For example, the 2009 Greenpeace voyage to the Hall Basin in the Nares Strait was due to an anomaly in the ice (ice arches not forming either end of the straits) which has not occurred since.

I have some misgivings about the current relationship between polar travel and environmentalism:

- Green claims are shamelessly used to enhance the worthiness of a proposal for sponsorship.

- Expeditions, even those labelled as responsible and carbon-neutral, are not good for the environment. They burn fuel and use resources.

- Campaigning by polar travellers can lead to bizarre 'saving the world' slogans when their understanding of the science can be non-existent. It can often be more for personal egotism.

So, where do we go from here? I'm a firm believer in the free markets and to a broad extent, capitalism. It fits in well with my understanding of the way the real world and the natural world works. It therefore makes sense that isolated and idealistic attempts to campaign or lobby will ultimately fail in the fight against profits and bottom lines. People, naturally, will tend to be most generous and 'green-minded' when they have spare cash. To that end, in my mind the only way to make serious inroads against any human-caused damage to the global environment is to make it commercially viable and profitable.

Those who control the direction in which large sums of money are invested need to decide that mining minerals and exploiting fossil fuels is not the best way to make more money. Recycling is a good example of this - one of the few success stories. Using existing waste materials, like plastics, to create new products has proved more efficient in the long term than starting from scratch. Until the conceptual and technical leaps are made in other fields, I don't believe anything will change, no matter how much good-intentioned campaigning there is.

I think that the reality is that the vast majority of us want the same thing - a pristine natural environment, a conserved natural world and a prosperous civilised world. What can be harder to take is that the practical way to achieve this might not be by appealing to a person's better nature, but to their wallet. The same end result, but a route which works with human tendencies, not against them.

Polar expeditons are not all made the same. Some are at altitude - some at sea level. Some at -40 degrees and some which vary from freezing to thawed temperatures. This makes the choice of a sleeping bag complicated and also critical to the success of a long expedition. Poor quality rest will degrade someone's ability to work in extreme conditions over many weeks or months. Here are some of the decisions that I make when choosing a sleeping system.

- Down bags -

Bags filled with goose or duck down are a traditional method of creating insulation through loft and a warmed air layer. It's enormously lightweight and allows the bag to be compressed down very small for storage in a sledge or rucksack (I tend to keep my tent-bag in a rucksack on my back - partly so I have a life-saving sleeping bag should my sledge be lost in a crevasse or lead). They do however perform less well in the wet. Moisture from a sleeping person and items drying in a bag will move through the inner lining and into the down (unless a VBL is used). This wet down will then lose its loft and stop insulating to anywhere near its original ability. This moisture will most likely freeze on the down and will not escape through the water-resistent outer shell easily. Water can also enter the bag through this outer shell which, by way of being breathable, is not fully waterproof.

Sleeping at -30Once water and ice-logged, drying out a down bag is difficult. On icecaps where there is potential for reasonably flat, stable surfaces and periods of sunshine, the bag can be left on top of a sledge and the ice allowed to sublime out. The down will then recover and loft up. On sea-ice or heavily crevassed ground, it's impractical to have the sleeping bag strapped to a sledge and so drying it out is harder.

- Synthetic bags - 

There is an alternative; using bags which replace down filling with other man-made fibres, often Primaloft or similar. These are a lot heavier and harder to pack down than their down counterparts. It's harder to therefore get such a low temperature rating for a given weight. One great advantage of these bags is the fact they keep their insulating properties even when wet or ice-logged. This is great for when it's impossible to stop moisture entering from within (e.g. when having to dry lots of clothing inside the bag) or when the ambient temperatures are straddling zero degrees, meaning that ice/frost melts and enters from the outside.

VBLs (vapour barrier liners) are waterproof bags that sit inside a sleeping bag and stop moisture from a sleeping person entering the bag. This can result in a clammy night's sleep and a silk liner within can avoid the 'plastic bag' sensation. Socks and gloves that need drying and keeping warm are usually put between the VBL and sleeping bag.

So, the big question is what would you use for different conditions? There are various opinions on this and no clear answer with so many variables. Just because, for example, you're skiing over the sea, an Arctic Ocean expedition would not necessarily need a synthetic bag just to protect from water as the temperatures are averaging so low - there are other factors.

Greenland icecap (spring) -35 to -5 degrees - DOWN

e.g. Mountain Equipment Snowline, Iceline or Everest depending on how warm you sleep

Greenland icecap (summer) -20 to +25 degrees - EITHER (down if weight-conscious)

e.g. Mountain Equipment Snowline or Mammut Ajungilak Tyin 5-Season or Mountain Equipment Starlight IV (for warm sleepers)

South Pole/Antarctic (summer) -40 to -10 degrees - DOWN

e.g. PHD Hispar 1000 or Mountain Equipment Everest 

North Pole (spring) -55 to -10 degrees - SYNTHETIC (due to lack of opportunity to dry out bag during day)

e.g. Mammut Ajungilak Denali 5-Season or -30/-40 rated down bag (both with PHD Overbag)

Iceland/Norway (winter/spring) -25 to +15 degrees - SYNTHETIC (due to wetness of freeze-thaw alternation)

e.g Mountain Equipment Starlight IV

(NB Northern Outfitters, a USA-based manufacturer, are producing impressive equipment but I've yet to test them)

Essentially, synthetic is the 'safe' option but is heavier and harder to achieve low temp ratings with than with down bags. Hopefully the right decision results in a good night's sleep!

Pre-orders will be available from early April at a discounted price. The RRP is planned for £25.

Here are a few images to whet the appetite. (Unauthorised reproduction of images is strictly prohibited)

On the 31st Jan, Alex and his team-mate set out from the junction of the roads 1 and F206 in order to cross the Vatnajokull from west to east in winter. Before even beginning the icecap crossing, 50km of lava fields and valleys would need to be crossed. By the 3rd Feb, this was achieved.

- The expedition proceeded on schedule and as planned for the first 7 days. Their final position was only 1.5 days from their chosen glacier, where they would descend off the icecap. They were on the ice for a total of 9 days, not 30 as reported in some places.
- The pickup by ICE-SAR was undertaken entirely in daylight hours
- There was no search. GPS coordinates accurate to 10ft were given and the skidoo team drove directly to our position.
- The ICE-SAR were thanked in person at the time and publicly in the initial press statement. Only one publication made the decision to print this part of the statement.
- Wet and cold conditions played no part in the decision to evacuate the team. Iceland in winter is wet and cold and the team were prepared for it, coping adequately throughout.
- Three separate members of the home team forecasted wind speeds of 120kph+ for the night of the Thursday. The team therefore asked for a Wednesday pickup during a lull in the wind.
- The tent was usually able to withstand high winds. Due to a change in wind direction during a period of 100kph wind, the tunnel design of the tent worked against it and part of it snapped and collapsed. Alex decided that this damage made it unable to withstand another major onslaught.
- A weather window of reduced wind was identified on the Wednesday prior to even higher winds.
- The tent canvas was not wrapped around the bodies of the team to keep them warm.
- Alex's UK-based team varies in size and type depending on the length and scale of the expedition in question. It can include logistics managers, experienced friends, members of his family and the family of other team members. In this case, it happened that he was in dialogue with his father, who naturally acted to activate the pickup.
- Press interest would likely have been much reduced should it have happened to be another member of his home team who made arrangements.
- The team had registered their PLB (personal locator beacon) with the radio administration and had notified the National Parks officials of their plans.
- The PLB was not activated due to adequate communication via phone.
- ICE-SAR offered to perform an immediate pickup. The team responded that they could secure the tent for the night to allow for a daytime operation.
- It is standard procedure to transmit vital information quickly and briefly to a home team via satellite phone and then let them make lengthier arrangements. This is due to limited battery power.
- The team was fully aware of the 112 Icelandic emergency number.

I hope that this answers many of the questions posed by interested parties and dispels some of the myths. Thanks again to all those involved with the expedition and evacuation. On a wider note, the only way to avoid the possibility of non-completion is to attempt easy challenges. This is not my style. The expedition will be relaunched in future years.

To escape criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. Elbert Hubbard

This winter brings the prospect of two interesting projects, both of which have been mentioned briefly over the past few months.

The first is a Greenlandic winter documentary I'm presenting along with a film crew comprised of the enormously talented trio of Kerr Loy, Adrian Samarra and Matt Pycroft. The blurb goes as follows:

“In the depths of the arctic winter, film-makers Adrian Samarra, Matt Pycroft and Kerr Loy will join Alex Hibbert in the Inuit communities and wilderness of Greenland.

They will produce a 30 minute documentary highlighting the lives and culture of the local villages as well as the spectacular and brutal conditions in this frontier nation. Combining highly creative camera techniques with a strong narrative with presenter Alex Hibbert, the team aim to capture a completely new angle on an amazing location.

The first instalment of a series, in Greenland, will tackle the notorious local weather, the northern lights, walking across fractured sea ice and travelling with local hunters as they work on the frozen sea with their dog teams. Adrian Samarra, Matt Pycroft and Kerr Loy are experienced and highly creative film-makers. Combining cutting-edge techniques with a keen attention to detail, they produce sequences which produce the ‘wow’ factor again and again. Their credits include the BBC, Kendal Mountain Film Festival, RAB and the BMC."

Following the period of filming in late January and after the film crew have returned to the UK, I'll be joined by a climber and outdoorsman friend in order to take on the notorious Icelandic Vatnajökull icecap in winter conditions. This expedition will be a full west to east crossing and will include a long approach and exit ski/hike instead of using local super-jeeps. Crossing the windy and heavily crevassed icecap in spring/summer is a major target but the darkness and tough conditions of the winter have inspired this expedition which will total over 120 miles of technical and complicated ice, snow and lavafields.

Supported by:

To contact Alex and team for free whilst on-location, follow this link and use this satellite number: 881632589071

Me hauling 200kg

Whether travelling on sea ice (where limitations include negative drift, leads and pressure ice) or an icecap (where limitations include gradient to climb and glaciated/crevassed ground) there is a limit to the length of an expedition. This is most likely to be the 'haulable weight', so long as the daily calorie intake is sustainable.

I have found on expeditions in a variety of temperatures, conditions and with wide varieties of sledge weights, there is a threshold below which I felt weak and over which I felt strong. This was 5000kcal/day for me. Of course, some days are more physically demanding than others but averaged out, I've found that weight loss on a mid-length (20-50 days) to long expedition (50+ days) can be sustainable, controlled and non-disruptive on 5000kcal. There is always a balance to strike regarding having enough calories to perform the necessary work whilst not hauling too much. A lot of emphasis must be put on where these calories are from too - protein, carbs or fats. Also, vitamin and mineral levels must be maintained.

I have been able to create relatively palatable and tasty ration systems between 5000 and 5500kcal for 970-1050g per day. This means that, putting aside mental struggles on long expeditions and the chances of accidents occurring, an efficient and professional polar expedition should survive on 1kg of food per day indefinitely. This brings us back to haulable weight and although some would consider 100kg a heavy sledge - for committed long distance unsupported expeditions by a highly-trained skier, 200-250kg is feasible in the early weeks.

Taking into account equipment weight and fuel and assuming a sledge-max of 250kg, 200kg of food is reasonable. This equals 200 days of travel. The question then is how far can be skied in 200 days, including bad conditions, possible open water and gradients to climb?

I would argue ultimate human ranges for:

Spring/summer icecaps including coastal gradient and crevasses: 2400 statue miles @ 12 miles/day average

Spring/summer icecaps just on a plateau with minimal disruption: 2800 statue miles @ 14 miles/day average

Winter/spring travel on sea ice before a major melt sets in: 1600 statute miles @ 8 miles/day average

The major caveat is that these potentials are mathematical. Polar expeditions in their rawest form are brutal. These numbers don't take into account mental struggle with isolation, accidents, freak weather or broken equipment. 

Looking at the actual 'world-best' ranges currently set by unsupported expeditions, there is plenty of scope for pushing limits:

Spring/summer icecaps including coastal gradient and crevasses: 1374 statue miles @ 12.2 miles/day average

Winter/spring travel on sea ice before a major melt sets in: 1070 statute miles @ 9.8 miles/day average

The Norwegians at the South Pole 1911

These are the words of Helmer Hanssen and Roald Amundsen, upon learning of the death of Scott's Terra Nova Pole Party:

I do not believe men have ever shown such endurance at any time, nor do I believe there ever will be men to equal it. Helmer Hanssen

Their deaths are more triumphant than most other lives. Captain Scott left a record for honesty, for sincerity, for bravery. For everything that makes a man. Roald Amundsen

I wonder how many victors of the modern day would act with such respect. It is my belief that the endurance, commitment and honesty which defines many of the pioneers does not have to be left behind in the 20th Century.

Don't let the standards slip.

These expeditions are not cheap to develop, especially since I don't take advantage of the restrictive infrastructures created by the commercial tourism industry which now exists. As such, much of my time and the time of my partners at a London agency has to be dedicated to generating support. Over the past year great progress was made towards securing a future for two major expeditions in both polar regions. Sadly, on the day before Christmas Eve, the news came through that our preferred option had fallen through. A great deal of equipment must be custom made and this means that lead times limit how close to a start date, in our case 26th February, we can get before funding is required. That time has now, miracles aside, passed.

You can react in a number of ways - and this applies to any setbacks in any walk of life. You can allow the frustration to lead to self-pity - an absurd reaction since anyone searching for something which needs so many unlikely things to happen at the same time should know the odds are not stacked in their favour. Another reaction, one that is very commonly seen, is to say 'no worry, we'll just try again next year with identical tactics and aims'. One year can so easily become five years.  There is a third way - the toughest way. That way is to simply increase your own commitment to another level and make it happen.

The vast majority of the cost of a polar expedition is dedicated to aircraft. Assumptions are often made that things like carbon-kevlar sledges and satellite phones eat up budgets. This isn't the case and kit rarely exceeds 10% of the allotted budget. For example, the insertion flight chartered for this February totalled £42,000 for a single flight. The sledge would cost a tenth of that or even less. Aircraft are a mixed blessing for expeditions to the Poles. They provide rescue support and quick access to start points as well as easy ways home. However, they have shifted expectations, in my opinion not for the better. People expect to be quickly and neatly taxied to their start point and collected from their highly inaccessible destinations without have to commit too much time or inconvenience. For polar tourism, built on the back of those with access to wealth but with day jobs, this is ideal. Clearly though, it has further widened the gap between the pioneers and modern expeditions. Logic therefore suggests that to make things happen, remove the aircraft. I myself have used helicopters and aircraft for access - they have both facilitated and delayed my expeditions - a mixed blessing and an expensive one. On removal of air support, you open a door to a world of difficulty, discomfort and commitment on a scale that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

These hints are probably sufficient for those with some familiarity with the polar world to read between the lines. For the remainder, I'll be making a detailed announcement in the coming days. For the time being though, I can say that apart from the documentary I'm filming in the Greenlandic mid-winter next month, here is expedition number one for 2012:

An unsupported mid-winter crossing of the Icelandic Vatnajökull icecap. It is notorious, especially in the winter, for fierce storms, crevassed slopes and low visibility. I will cross with a team-mate from the extreme west side to the east side - both approaching and exiting the icecap on skis - a distance approaching 150 miles. This will be be a serious technical challenge and part of my move to undertake mid-winter expeditions. 

As for the big announcement, I'll keep you guessing but I'll promise you one thing: think big, and then think bigger.

What are the photos you want to take for:

I'm thoroughly against the modern trend of everyone getting a digital SLR camera (DSLR) - there you have it. It think it's a waste of money and effort in a vast majority of cases and actually leads to the worst possible thing - people not taking photos when they perhaps could be. This purchasing faux pas is largely due to people not thinking fully about the end product they want from their photographs. There's also the fact that the cameras are vastly more affordable than even when I began agency photography in 2002. My first DSLR was 6 megapixels, had borderline unusable autofocus and was useless above ISO 400, yet cost £1900. Now you can get a body for £400 which destroys my old Canon D60 in every department. There's also a certain degree of envy - people want to be seen to have the best, 'professional' looking gear, even if they have no intention of using 5% of its capability.

Nikon J1 compactIf your output is for web, slideshows and printing up to A4 size in the years to come, do yourself a favour and get a well made and capable compact camera or 'cut-size' pseudo-DSLR. They can cost well under £400 even with quality lenses, capability for external flash and critically, can be pocketable. Great for expeditions, polar ones especially. Drawbacks can be poor low-light performance, slower autofocus when shooting action and no live optical viewfinder. Yes, a £6000 Canon 1DX is better, but for the output I describe, is massive overkill. Good examples include the Canon G12 or S100 and Nikon V1 and J1. Even smartphones (touch screens can be dodgy in low temps) can now produce exactly what you want for this need, which covers almost every expeditioner I've ever met. Don't get sucked in by gear-envy and end up overbuying.

If your output is for commercial, editorial or large reproduction size, or involves fast moving and tricky subjects (not polar skiers!), then yes a DSLR is vital. Put simply, if you need a large DSLR with top quality interchangeable lenses, you'll already know you do. If you don't, you probably don't need more than a quality compact. Modern DSLRs provide staggering resolution when viewed at 100% magnification, 100% coverage optical viewfinders, accurate and fast autofocus and good low light performance.Canon 1DX You can also control complex off-camera wireless flash arrays. My photographic agency, Getty Images, has brutally strict technical requirements and I so take the weight penalty of a large DSLR in return for profitable, commercial images down the road. Equipment ranges from £500 for low-end consumer bodies to £6000 for the most able cameras and then most quality lenses are between £500 and £5000. Examples include the Canon 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark III and the Nikon D300, D700 and D3 series.

So, once the type of camera you're after is decided, most of the subsequent cold-weather and expedition considerations are relevant to both a £100 snapomatic and a £6000 monster:

Battery-life

Most modern cameras use Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries, which are a vast improvement over those available five years ago. They don't suffer from memory effect and don't self-discharge fast. Yes, they run down fast when cold, but their initial capacity is generally so high for a given size that it's not an issue. As a comparison, the 12V NiMH battery I used in my Canon 1D Mark IIN in 2008 needed a charge every few days after moderate use and weighed a ton. In 2010/11 my 7.2V Li-Ion battery in my 5D Mark II was charged once in a fortnight and even fed back information about its exact charge level and how well it's charging. Batteries are no longer a major issue.

Cards

CompactFlash, xD, SD, whatever. Get a big one, but not too big. If one fails (which they rarely do), you don't want to lose everything. I use lots of 8Gb cards for my 21MP RAW files. They hold around 250 images each. Don't worry about 500x or 1000x speed cards unless you're shooting at 10 frames per second. Good brands are Integral, SanDisk and Kingston.

Viewfinders

DSLRs tend to have nice big viewfinders, especially full frame ones like Canon 5D and 1Ds series bodies, but they can be a hassle to use with large goggles on. Compacts have useless optical viewfinders or none at all, so you use the LCD screen on the back, which can yomp through batteries. Be discerning about how long you use this feature or have an effective battery charging system.

Charging

This is difficult. Your options are charging the proprietary batteries from custom-12V AA powerpacks and DC car chargers or using the same charger with a solar panel and a reservoir intermediate battery. Which of these you use depends largely on the terrain you're travelling over and the relability of light-levels. Early-season North Pole expeditions will favour AAs and mid-summer icecap expeditions will favour solar.

Formats

Storage is cheap and so if you want plenty of opportunity to edit, shoot RAW, not jpeg. In the unreliable and pressured shooting conditions of an icecap, you often won't get the exposure perfect in camera and so flexibility of RAW after the fact is very welcome. Even cheaper compacts have RAW now, but expect to spend time in the edit suite once home. If this is too much hassle and you just want snaps for sponsors or blogs, stick with the smaller and better 'out of the box' results of the jpeg format.

Weather-sealing

In conditions where humidity changes a lot from a steamy tent to a dry icecap, a camera with weather-sealing is very useful. Canon 1D, 5D, 7D and pro-compacts are sealed with O-rings to various extents and other competitors have their equivalents.

Video

A few years ago if you wanted to shoot stills and video, you needed a stills camera and a video camera. Then, compact cameras developed basic filming ability. Now, both compacts and SLRs have video capability, often up to 720p or 1080p High Definition. Excellent news for weight conscious expeditions. Remember though, don't just go for the biggest and the shiniest. Think about the end use of the video and buy accordingly.

Exposure and Autofocus

These concepts, which are the true photographer's bread and butter in the warmth of home or a studio, take on a lesser role at the Poles. With the flexibility of RAW formats, slow-moving simple subjects, excellent modern autofocus systems and difficult shooting conditions, I tend to use one-shot centre point autofocus and evaluative metering for the vast majority of situations.

I hope these tips help those who wish to photograph their cold-weather expeditions, whether for 1 inch wide blog photos or boutique agency promotion globally. It's an endless subject and so please do ask other questions in the comments section!

Whilst the normal habitats for shoes from Cushe are the beach or urban locations, the Tammarack is a crossover. Form is clearly high on the priority list, as with their entire range, but would the functionality match their looks? They don't pretend to be highly technical outdoor boots for snow or hiking use and therein lies their strength - as a crossover shoe/boot. As long as you don't overstretch them, they won't disappoint as approach shoes or for 'around basecamp' during time off.

The quality of materials, stitching and waterproofing (didn't leak with my use even with high level immersion) are very good. Another use of these might be for foot recovery when bare-feet aren't an option - perhaps after a long insertion hike or between climbs and reconnaissance trips. They really are comfortable, very comfortable. The sole tread isn't too heavy-duty - fine for gravel and paths but not up to heavily broken ground or ice/snow.

Verdict - excellent quality and fine for use within its limitations as a lightweight waterproof outdoor boot/shoe.