Quick Answer

Nearly three kilometers beneath the surface at Kidd Creek Mine near Timmins, Ontario, geologists discovered water that may have been isolated in rock fractures for roughly two billion years, making it the oldest known water on Earth. The find, led by geochemist Barbara Sherwood Lollar and her team at the University of Toronto, offers scientists a rare window into ancient Earth chemistry and possible clues about how life might survive in similar underground environments on other planets.

Where Was the Water Found?

The water came from Kidd Creek Mine, a base-metal mine near Timmins, Ontario, operated by Glencore. Kidd Creek is widely described as the deepest base-metal mine in the world, with its lowest accessible point sitting roughly three kilometers, or about 9,900 feet, below the surface. That depth makes it one of the few places on land where researchers can directly access rock that old and that deep without drilling.

The mine sits within massive sulfide ore deposits formed in volcanic rock roughly 2.7 billion years ago, when the area was part of an ancient ocean floor. Because that rock has remained geologically undisturbed, not reheated by new volcanic activity and not badly deformed by tectonic movement, it created ideal conditions for water to stay sealed inside rock fractures for enormous stretches of time.

How Old Is the Water, Exactly?

Researchers have found multiple pockets of ancient water at Kidd Creek over the years, each dated using different sampling expeditions:

• In 2013, a team led by Sherwood Lollar reported in the journal Nature that water extracted from about 2.4 kilometers down had a minimum mean residence time of around 1.5 to 1.6 billion years, the oldest water dated at the time.
• Later sampling from an even deeper section, close to three kilometers down, pointed to water that may have been isolated for roughly two billion years, extending the record further.

Because these estimates rely on measuring trapped gases rather than a single definitive marker, scientists describe the ages as minimum residence times rather than exact figures. The Kidd Creek water is currently the oldest that has been dated using this method, though researchers say it’s probably not the oldest ancient water that exists on Earth. Similar isolated pools may be waiting to be found in deep rock elsewhere.

How Do Scientists Know the Water Is So Old?

Dating ancient trapped water isn’t as simple as checking a label. Researchers rely on a method involving noble gases, elements like helium, neon, and xenon that get trapped in water along with the surrounding rock.

Here’s a simplified version of how the process works:

1. Locate the water. Researchers follow cracks and fractures deep underground, sometimes literally by smell, since the ancient brine has a distinct sulfuric odor.
2. Extract a sample. Teams collect the fluid directly from fractures in the rock, often under difficult mining conditions.
3. Analyze trapped gases. Noble gases like helium and xenon accumulate in the water over time at measurable rates, similar to how carbon dating works for organic material.
4. Send samples for specialized testing. Because these measurements require extremely sensitive equipment, samples are often sent to specialized labs, in this case researchers worked with colleagues at the University of Oxford.
5. Calculate residence time. By measuring how much of these gases have built up, scientists can estimate how long the water has been isolated from the surface.

The full process, from first extracting a sample to confirming its age, took years of testing.

What Does the Water Actually Look and Taste Like?

The ancient water isn’t clear, and it definitely isn’t drinkable. It’s roughly ten times saltier than seawater and has a thick, syrupy consistency. When exposed to oxygen, it changes color from clear to a faint orange, likely due to iron dissolved from the surrounding rock reacting with air.

Sherwood Lollar has described tasting the water directly, calling it bitter and noting its strong sulfuric smell. Scientists caution that drinking this kind of ancient brine isn’t something to try casually. Its unusual chemistry, including high salinity and low oxygen, could potentially overwhelm a person’s system if consumed in any real quantity.

Why Does This Discovery Matter?

It offers a window into ancient Earth chemistry

The chemical makeup of the water resembles conditions found around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor today, environments some scientists consider strong candidates for where life on Earth may have originated. Studying water that’s been chemically isolated for two billion years gives researchers a rare, direct sample of a very different planetary environment.

It hints at how life might survive without sunlight

Researchers have found evidence of microbial life in some of these deep, ancient water pockets. Unlike surface organisms that depend on sunlight, these microbes appear to survive on limited chemical energy generated by reactions between water and rock, a process where hydrogen and sulfate compounds provide the energy that would otherwise come from photosynthesis.

It has implications for the search for life beyond Earth

NASA researchers have visited Kidd Creek specifically because environments like it can act as a stand-in for conditions that might exist underground on Mars or other planets and moons. If microbial life can survive for billions of years in isolated, sunless, mineral-rich water on Earth, similar mechanisms could theoretically support life in comparable underground environments elsewhere in the solar system.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception: This water is safe to drink or scientifically similar to normal groundwater. The water’s extreme salinity, sulfuric chemistry, and total isolation from surface systems make it fundamentally different from any water found in aquifers or wells used for human consumption.

Misconception: The two-billion-year figure is a precise, confirmed number. Scientists describe these ages as minimum residence time estimates based on gas accumulation, not exact measurements. The real age could be similar or potentially even older, and researchers continue refining their methods.

Misconception: This is definitely the oldest water anywhere on Earth. It’s the oldest water that has been dated and confirmed so far, but researchers say other deep, isolated water systems may exist elsewhere that simply haven’t been found or tested yet.

Misconception: The microbes found nearby prove ancient life existed in the water itself. Researchers have found evidence of microbial activity in some ancient water systems at the site, but confirming whether organisms have truly lived in isolation for the full residence time of the water, rather than migrating in more recently, remains an open area of research.

Key Facts

• The water was found at Kidd Creek Mine near Timmins, Ontario, the world’s deepest base-metal mine.
• Some water samples have a minimum estimated residence time of roughly 1.5 to 2 billion years.
• The mine’s rock formed around 2.7 billion years ago on what was once ancient ocean floor.
• The water is about ten times saltier than seawater and has a syrupy texture.
• Its chemistry resembles that of deep-sea hydrothermal vents, considered a possible environment for the origin of life.
• NASA has studied the site as a model for how life might survive underground on Mars.

FAQ

What is the oldest water ever found on Earth?

Water discovered at Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario, Canada, with an estimated minimum residence time of roughly two billion years, is currently considered the oldest known water on Earth.

How was the ancient water discovered?

Geochemist Barbara Sherwood Lollar and her team tracked fractures deep inside the mine, extracted fluid samples, and used noble gas analysis to estimate how long the water had been isolated from the surface.

Can you drink the ancient water?

No. It’s extremely salty, low in oxygen, and chemically unlike any water people normally consume. It isn’t intended or safe for drinking.

Does the water contain life?

Researchers have found evidence of microbial life in some deep, ancient water systems at the site, organisms that appear to survive on chemical energy from water-rock reactions rather than sunlight.

Why is this discovery important for space exploration?

Because the water and its surrounding chemistry resemble environments that might exist underground on Mars or other planetary bodies, studying it helps scientists understand how life could potentially survive in similarly isolated, sunless conditions elsewhere in the solar system.

Key Takeaways

• Water isolated for up to roughly two billion years was discovered nearly three kilometers underground at Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario.
• It’s the oldest confirmed water on Earth, dated using noble gas analysis.
• The water is extremely salty, sulfuric-smelling, and unlike any water found near the surface.
• Its chemistry resembles deep-sea hydrothermal vents, a leading candidate environment for the origin of life.
• The discovery has implications for understanding how life might survive in isolated underground environments on other planets.

Conclusion

The ancient water trapped deep inside Kidd Creek Mine offers a rare, direct sample of a world that existed long before plants, animals, or anything resembling familiar life had appeared on Earth. Beyond the record itself, the discovery continues to shape how scientists think about the chemistry that may have supported early life, and how similar processes might be happening right now in isolated, sunless environments elsewhere in the solar system.

Quick Answer

Despite tariffs designed to push automakers toward building vehicles in the United States, most automakers have chosen to keep paying tariffs rather than relocate production. Toyota is a notable exception, moving some Tacoma pickup production from Mexico to an expanded San Antonio plant, while BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan have expanded certain US operations. But industry-wide, large-scale relocation has been limited because building new factories takes years, costs billions, and carries risk if trade policy shifts again.

Why Are Automakers Facing Pressure to Move Production to the US?

The Trump administration introduced sweeping tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts, aiming to encourage automakers to build more cars domestically rather than import them from Mexico, Canada, and other countries. The policy goal was straightforward: make it more expensive to import vehicles so that building in the US becomes the more cost-effective choice.

More than a year after those tariffs took effect, though, the response from the industry has been more cautious than the policy’s supporters expected.

Which Automakers Have Actually Moved Production?

Toyota is the most prominent example. The company announced it will build half of its best-selling midsize Tacoma pickup at an expanded plant in San Antonio, Texas, where it already produces the Tundra full-size pickup and Sequoia SUV. Importantly, Toyota will continue building Tacomas in Mexico as well, meaning this is a partial shift rather than a full relocation. Toyota also told reporters that its investment decisions reflect long-term strategic planning rather than a direct response to tariff policy.

BMW has expanded SUV production in the US, adding electric versions of the X5, X6, and X7 models to its American manufacturing lineup.

Mercedes-Benz and other automakers have made similar moves, including plans to bring additional SUV production, such as the XC60 model line, to US facilities.

Nissan has also been part of the broader shift of some assembly work toward US plants as automakers try to reduce exposure to tariffs on cross-border shipments.

Even with these moves, industry analysts note that few automakers have committed to large, new-from-the-ground-up US factories. Much of what has shifted involves adding production lines to plants that already exist, not building entirely new manufacturing infrastructure.

Why Aren’t More Automakers Relocating Production?

Several factors are keeping most automakers from making bigger moves:

The Cost and Time of Building New Plants

Constructing a new auto plant, or substantially expanding an existing one, takes years and costs billions of dollars. Automakers have to weigh that investment against the possibility that tariff policy could change again before construction is even finished.

Policy Uncertainty

Tariffs are set through executive and legislative action, which means they can shift with a change in administration or policy priorities. Industry analysts have pointed out that betting billions of dollars on today’s tariff rates is risky when future leadership could reverse course. As one industry analyst put it, making a snap decision to build a new factory would be a reckless gamble given how much uncertainty surrounds trade policy.

Higher US Labor Costs

Labor costs in the United States are generally higher than in Mexico and some other manufacturing countries. For automakers, this cost difference partially offsets the savings from avoiding tariffs, making the math less clear-cut than it might first appear.

The Future of USMCA

The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade deal from Trump’s first term that governs how automakers can move parts and vehicles across North American borders with reduced tariffs, is now up for renegotiation. Trump has suggested he could walk away from the deal if it isn’t revised in ways he considers favorable to American companies. That uncertainty makes automakers even more cautious about committing to a particular manufacturing footprint, since the rules governing cross-border trade could look very different in the near future.

Strong Demand Despite Higher Prices

Vehicle sales have continued rising even as tariffs have pushed prices higher, which reduces the pressure on automakers to make disruptive changes to their supply chains. If consumers keep buying at current prices, automakers have less financial incentive to overhaul how and where they build cars.

How Automakers Are Responding Instead

Rather than relocating production wholesale, most automakers are absorbing tariff costs and continuing to import vehicles as before. For many companies, paying the tariff is simply cheaper and less risky than building new US capacity that might not be needed if trade policy changes again.

Where relocation does happen, it tends to be targeted: shifting one model line to an existing plant, rather than opening a brand-new factory or fully exiting production in Mexico or Canada.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception: Tariffs have caused a wave of new US auto factories. In reality, few automakers have announced plans for entirely new US factories. Most of the production that has shifted has moved into existing plants that already had capacity to expand.

Misconception: Automakers that add US production are doing it purely because of tariffs. Some companies, including Toyota, have said their investment decisions are based on long-term strategic planning rather than being a direct reaction to tariff policy, even when the timing lines up with tariff pressure.

Misconception: Moving production to the US is a quick fix. Building or expanding a factory takes years. Even automakers that want to shift production can’t do so overnight, which is part of why the industry’s overall response has been slower than tariff policy intended.

Key Facts

• Toyota is expanding Tacoma pickup production in San Antonio, Texas, while continuing to build Tacomas in Mexico as well.
• BMW has added US production of electric X5, X6, and X7 SUVs.
• Most automakers have chosen to keep paying tariffs rather than build new US factories.
• Building a new auto plant typically takes years and costs billions of dollars.
• The USMCA trade agreement, which affects cross-border auto manufacturing costs, is currently up for renegotiation.
• US vehicle sales rose even as tariffs pushed prices higher, reducing pressure on automakers to relocate production quickly.

FAQ

Are automakers moving car production to the United States?

Some are, but only in limited ways. Toyota, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan have each expanded certain US production lines, but most of this involves adding to existing plants rather than building new ones, and most automakers overall have not made major relocation moves.

Why haven’t more automakers moved production to the US despite tariffs?

Building new factories is expensive and slow, US labor costs are higher than in some other countries, and trade policy, including tariffs and the future of USMCA, remains uncertain enough that many automakers see relocation as too risky right now.

Is Toyota moving all of its Tacoma production to the US?

No. Toyota will build about half of its Tacoma production in San Antonio, Texas, while continuing to manufacture Tacomas in Mexico as well.

What is USMCA and why does it matter for automakers?

USMCA is the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that governs how vehicles and parts move across North American borders with reduced tariffs. It’s currently being renegotiated, and changes to the deal could significantly affect how automakers plan their manufacturing footprint.

Will car prices keep rising because of tariffs?

Tariffs have already contributed to higher vehicle prices, and since most automakers are continuing to import vehicles rather than relocate production, tariff costs are likely to remain a factor in pricing for the foreseeable future.

Key Takeaways

• Most automakers have chosen to pay tariffs rather than relocate production to the US.
• Toyota, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan are among the automakers that have expanded some US production, though usually within existing plants.
• High costs, long construction timelines, and policy uncertainty are the main reasons more automakers haven’t relocated production.
• The ongoing renegotiation of USMCA adds further uncertainty to automakers’ manufacturing decisions.
• Strong vehicle demand, even at higher prices, has reduced the urgency for automakers to overhaul their supply chains.

Conclusion

Tariffs were designed to push automakers toward building more vehicles on US soil, but the industry’s response so far has been measured rather than sweeping. A handful of companies have expanded US production for specific models, while most have continued importing and absorbing the added tariff costs instead. With trade policy, including the future of USMCA, still unsettled, automakers appear to be taking a wait-and-see approach rather than committing to the kind of large-scale manufacturing shift the tariffs were meant to encourage.

Meta Description: Zero, the UK sustainable money app, has closed. Here’s what happened, whether your money was protected, and what to do if you had an account.

If you had money in Zero, the UK’s sustainability-focused money app, or you’ve simply seen the news and want to understand what happened, you’re likely asking two things: is my money safe, and what should I do now? This kind of news causes real anxiety, especially for anyone who isn’t sure whether their savings are protected or how quickly they need to act.

This article lays out exactly what happened to Zero, why it closed, whether customer funds were covered by deposit protection, and what steps affected customers were told to take. It also covers the broader picture of what happens when a fintech app or challenger bank shuts down, since Zero’s closure isn’t the first case like this and won’t be the last.

Direct Answer: What Happened to the Zero Banking App?

Zero Banking App Closing a UK-based sustainability-focused money app founded in Cardiff, ceased trading on 18 March 2026 after failing to secure further investment. The company wound down its personal accounts, debit cards, and Planet Safe Saver savings product by 31 March 2026. Zero said all customer funds remained safe throughout, with money safeguarded separately from the company’s own funds, and unclaimed balances held for up to six years for customers to reclaim.

Who Was Zero?

Zero launched its app in January 2025, positioning itself as an ethical alternative to mainstream banking. Rather than being a licensed bank, Zero operated as a money app built on an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) model, meaning it worked with regulated partners to hold and move customer funds rather than holding a full banking licence itself.

The company’s main feature was a “GreenScore,” a rating that estimated the carbon footprint of a customer’s spending using technology developed with Swedish fintech Doconomy. Zero also achieved B Corp certification, a credential often used by companies to signal social and environmental accountability. At the time it ceased trading, Zero had around 15,000 to 21,500 registered users, though only a smaller portion, roughly 7,500, were regularly active.

Zero’s core products were:

• Zero Personal Account, an everyday e-money account
• Zero Debit Mastercard, a card made from recycled plastic, usable fee-free overseas
• Planet Safe Saver, an easy-access savings account launched in late 2025, offered through a partnership with Bondsmith and held with Griffin Bank

Why Did Zero Close?

Zero’s leadership stated the closure came down to an inability to raise further funding. Like many early-stage fintech companies, Zero relied on investment capital to operate and grow before reaching profitability. When that funding wasn’t secured, the company had no path to keep running and chose to wind down in an orderly way rather than continue trading while insolvent.

This pattern isn’t unique to Zero. Other UK fintech firms in similar niches, including green banking app Tred and buy-now-pay-later tracker Cushion, have shut down over the past year for comparable reasons. Early-stage financial technology companies often operate on thin margins while scaling, which leaves them vulnerable if fresh capital doesn’t arrive on schedule.

Was Customer Money Protected?

This is the part that matters most to anyone who had funds with Zero, and the answer depends on which product is being discussed.

The Zero Personal Account

Money held in the standard Zero Personal Account was e-money, not a bank deposit. E-money accounts are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), the UK’s deposit protection scheme that typically protects up to £85,000 per person per institution in the event a bank fails. Instead, e-money providers are required to safeguard customer funds separately from company money, which is what Zero said it had done, working with a regulated partner, ClearBank, to ring-fence customer balances.

Safeguarding and FSCS protection are not the same thing. Safeguarding means the money is kept apart from the company’s operating funds so it can’t be used to pay business debts, but it doesn’t carry the same formal government-backed compensation guarantee that FSCS protection does.

The Planet Safe Saver Account

The Planet Safe Saver product worked differently. It was provided through Bondsmith and held with Griffin Bank, a fully licensed bank, which meant eligible deposits were protected by the FSCS up to £120,000 while held there. However, once the account closed, remaining balances and accrued interest were transferred automatically into the Zero Personal Account, meaning they moved from FSCS-protected status into the e-money safeguarding arrangement described above.

Timeline of the Closure

1. January 2025 — Zero launches its app to the public.
2. November 2025 — Planet Safe Saver launches, attracting around £3 million in deposits.
3. 18 March 2026 — Zero ceases trading after failing to secure additional investment.
4. 25 March 2026 — Any Planet Safe Saver accounts not already emptied by customers are closed, with balances and interest transferred to Zero Personal Accounts.
5. 31 March 2026 — Zero’s app completes its wind-down and stops operating.
6. After closure — Any remaining customer balances are held for up to six years, accessible by contacting Zero’s parent company directly.

What Zero Told Customers to Do

Affected customers received direct communication from Zero with instructions. The core guidance was straightforward:

• Withdraw all funds from the Zero Personal Account and Planet Safe Saver as soon as possible, ideally well before the 31 March deadline
• Move Planet Safe Saver balances into the Zero Personal Account first, since transfers could take up to a day to process, then withdraw from there
• Expect debit cards linked to the app to stop working before the final shutdown, meaning in-app withdrawal was the main way to access remaining funds
• Contact Zero directly if funds were still unclaimed after the app closed, since balances remained accessible for up to six years afterward

Common Mistakes and Misunderstandings

Assuming “Zero” refers to one single company. Several unrelated companies use “Zero” or similar branding in banking and fintech, including Bank Zero, a separate app-only bank based in South Africa, and various “zero-fee” or “zero-balance” account products marketed by other banks. These have no connection to the UK’s Zero Sustainable Money App and were not affected by its closure.

Assuming all money app balances carry FSCS protection. Not every account labeled as a “bank account” from a fintech company is provided by a licensed bank. Many operate as e-money accounts through an EMI, which use safeguarding rather than FSCS deposit insurance. It’s worth checking which model applies before relying on an app for large balances.

Waiting too long to withdraw after a closure announcement. Debit cards and app functionality can stop working before the official shutdown date, which is exactly what happened with Zero. Waiting until the last day to move money out increases the risk of running into access problems.

Believing money is automatically lost when a fintech shuts down. Safeguarding rules mean customer funds are usually recoverable even after a company ceases trading, though the process can take longer and require more effort than a straightforward bank transfer.

Real-World Example

Consider a Zero customer who had £2,000 in a Planet Safe Saver account and £150 in their Zero Personal Account when the closure was announced. If they withdrew both balances before 25 March, the money simply landed in their linked external bank account, with no protection issue at all. If they missed that window, the £2,000 in savings would have automatically moved into the Zero Personal Account, losing its FSCS-protected status and becoming subject to the same safeguarding arrangement as the rest of their balance, still recoverable, but through a different process and without the same formal compensation backing.

What This Means If You Use Other Fintech Apps

Zero’s closure is a useful case study for anyone holding money in newer banking apps, whether or not they were a Zero customer.

• Check whether the provider is a licensed bank or an e-money institution. This affects whether FSCS protection applies. Most apps disclose this in their terms or FAQ section.
• Don’t treat all “banking apps” as equivalent. A polished app interface doesn’t indicate the underlying protection level for your money.
• Keep an eye on company news for providers you use. Funding difficulties or executive departures at a fintech firm can be early signals worth paying attention to.
• Diversify large balances across providers with clear deposit protection if you’re holding significant savings, rather than keeping everything with a single early-stage company.

Key Facts About the Zero App Closure

• Zero ceased trading on 18 March 2026 after failing to secure further investment
• The app completed its wind-down by 31 March 2026
• Zero Personal Account funds were e-money, safeguarded but not FSCS-protected
• Planet Safe Saver funds, while held with Griffin Bank, were FSCS-protected up to £120,000
• Around 15,000–21,500 users were registered with Zero at closure
• Unclaimed balances are held for up to six years after closure and can be reclaimed by contacting the company

FAQ

Is the Zero banking app still open?

No. Zero ceased trading on 18 March 2026 and completed closing its app and accounts by 31 March 2026.

Did Zero customers lose their money?

Zero stated that all customer funds were safeguarded and remained recoverable, either through withdrawal before closure or by contacting the company afterward, since balances are held for up to six years.

Was Zero a real bank?

No. Zero operated as a money app using an Electronic Money Institution model rather than holding a full banking licence, though its Planet Safe Saver savings product was provided through a licensed bank partner.

Is Zero the same as Bank Zero?

No. Bank Zero is a separate, unrelated app-only bank based in South Africa. The UK’s Zero Sustainable Money App has no connection to it.

What should I do if I still have money with Zero?

Contact the company directly using the details it provided to registered customers, since remaining balances are held and recoverable for up to six years after the closure.

Why do fintech apps like Zero shut down?

Most early-stage fintech companies rely on investor funding to operate before becoming profitable. When further investment isn’t secured, closure or acquisition are usually the only options, which is what led to Zero’s shutdown.

Key Takeaways

• Zero, the UK sustainable money app, ceased trading on 18 March 2026 and finished winding down by 31 March 2026, citing an inability to raise further investment.
• Zero Personal Account balances were e-money, safeguarded but not covered by the FSCS.
• Planet Safe Saver balances were FSCS-protected while held with Griffin Bank, but lost that status once automatically transferred into the Zero Personal Account.
• Customers were told to withdraw funds before the closure date, with unclaimed money remaining accessible for up to six years afterward.
• Zero is unrelated to other similarly named companies, including South Africa’s Bank Zero.

Conclusion

Zero’s closure reflects a broader reality in fintech: not every banking app carries the same protections as a traditional bank account, and it’s worth understanding the difference before relying on one for significant savings. For former Zero customers, the practical steps were clear, withdraw promptly or contact the company later, and the company’s own communications indicated that funds remained safe and recoverable throughout the process.