Field results and independent review.

Thunderstorms naturally build and redistribute electrical charge. When that charge is discharged, some lightning remains within the cloud and some reaches the ground.

In selected developing thunderstorms, Skyward introduces conductive mineral fibres intended to help electrical charge redistribute within the cloud.

The objective is to reduce the amount of lightning that reaches the ground. It is not to eliminate lightning or suppress the thunderstorm itself.

No. Both technologies involve introducing material into clouds, but they are designed to affect different processes.

Traditional precipitation-focused cloud seeding aims to influence rain or snow, commonly by introducing particles that encourage ice-crystal formation.

Skyward’s lightning abatement instead targets the electrical processes inside selected thunderstorms. Its objective is to reduce cloud-to-ground lightning, not to increase precipitation.

Skyward does not impact rainfall. Lightning is part of the weather, and it is the specific process our technology is designed to influence.

We help reduce cloud-to-ground lightning in a very small number of high risk thunderstorms.

Available assessments and expert review have found no evidence to suggest that the technology affects precipitation.

No. Skyward deliberately introduces a known mineral-based material into selected storm clouds for a specific operational purpose: reducing cloud-to-ground lightning.

That is different from ordinary contrails, which are ice-crystal clouds that can form behind aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.

No. Skyward is not developing a climate geoengineering technology.

Lightning abatement acts on electrical activity within individual thunderstorms. It is not intended to cool the planet, remove carbon dioxide, alter incoming sunlight, or produce broader changes to the climate.

The objective is much narrower: reduce cloud-to-ground lightning during a defined time window in high risk storms where new wildfire ignitions could have serious consequences.

The mineral fibres disperse after release and eventually settle to the ground, in a similar way to wildfire retardants. The quantities involved are very small.

Independent assessments have considered potential exposure through air, soil, and water, as well as potential effects on people, wildlife, and ecosystems. Findings indicate low concern, with no measurable adverse effects expected under the operating conditions evaluated.

No. Fire is an important natural process in ecosystems, and most ignitions do not need to be prevented. Most thunderstorms are not candidates for lightning abatement. Skyward's technologies predict and target the storms that carry the highest risk of igniting catastrophic wildfires.

The technology is intended for a very small share of storms wthat have the potential to create many new ignitions that could have particularly serious consequences for communities, infrastructure, natural resources, or wildfire-response capacity.

The question is not simply whether a storm will produce lightning. Operations focus on situations where cloud-to-ground strikes could create consequential wildfire risk and where an aerial operation is safe and appropriate.

Considerations include wildfire conditions, storm development, flight safety, regulatory requirements, and the priorities of the government agencies involved.

Yes. Vista and lightning abatement are separate capabilities.

Skyward’s Vista platform provides forecasts of lightning and lightning-ignited wildfire risk that agencies can use for preparedness and operational planning. Using Vista does not require an agency to use lightning abatement, and a Vista forecast does not automatically lead to an aerial operation.

Use our briefing form to tell us what you’d like to understand.

You can ask about the field results, environmental and health findings, Vista, lightning abatement, or another aspect of our work. We’ll answer as fully as we can while respecting proprietary, regulatory, and partner information.