Armada Nowlit Data Centre Southeast of Clive

Proposed generation: Approximately 19.8 MW. Nine proposed 2.2 MW MWM TCG3020-series natural-gas generator sets, subject to final equipment selection. This is gross installed generation capacity, not a verified compute load. The units would be enclosed. Final equipment remains subject to design and procurement. [2][4] Proponent statement

Grid export: None proposed. The developer says all electricity would be consumed by the co-located data-processing equipment, with no export to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System. [2][4] Proponent statement

Natural-gas supply: Existing distribution tie-in proposed. The developer proposes a pipeline tie-in to existing gas distribution infrastructure. The supplier, route, capacity, connection design, and approvals remain unconfirmed. [4] Proponent statement

Emissions controls: Selective catalytic reduction proposed. The current concept includes SCR systems. Final equipment, permit limits, monitoring, and operating conditions are not confirmed in the reviewed record. [2][4] Proponent statement

Short-term nitrogen dioxide: Below Alberta air-quality objective in model. The revised model predicts a maximum one-hour ground-level concentration of 183.7 µg/m³, including estimated background and nearby sources, compared with Alberta's 300 µg/m³ objective. Nitrogen dioxide comes from burning fuel and can increase the risk of breathing problems. This is a prediction, not measured emissions or a regulatory finding. [2][11] Proponent projection

Annual greenhouse-gas emissions: Not found. The developer publishes local air-dispersion results but not a project-specific annual CO₂e estimate in the sources reviewed by ADCW. [2][4] ADCW context

Cooling system: Closed-loop?Closed-loop cooling×Cooling fluid circulates repeatedly through a contained loop instead of being routinely discharged after one pass.That describes the loop, not the whole site's water use. A separate heat-rejection system can still use water, and filling, maintenance, and leaks also matter.Learn more → dry cooling proposed. The developer proposes a sealed water-glycol loop with dry coolers that recirculates cooling fluid. Final equipment and operating performance are not independently verified. [2][4] Proponent statement

Initial coolant fill: 250–300 L per unit. The developer says the initial water-glycol fill would be trucked to site. The package does not define the unit clearly enough to calculate a reliable project total. [2][4] Proponent statement

Municipal water connection: Not proposed. The developer says the current design would not connect to municipal water. [2][4] Proponent statement

Groundwater well: Not proposed. The developer says the current design would not use an on-site groundwater well. [2][4] Proponent statement

Routine top-up demand: Minor trucked top-ups claimed. The package describes occasional maintenance top-ups but does not quantify their expected frequency, annual volume, leakage, or replacement demand. [2] Proponent statement

Service water and wastewater: Tank and off-site servicing proposed. The developer describes a roughly 1,500 L service-water tank and separate holding tank. It says wastewater would be removed off site with no discharge?Withdrawal, consumption, and discharge×Withdrawal is water taken from a source. Consumption is the portion not returned to the same water system. Discharge is water released after use or treatment.These are different quantities. Check which one a water figure describes before comparing projects.Learn more → to land. Tank capacity is not annual water use; a complete operating water balance and final approvals remain unpublished. [4] Proponent statement

Sound at nearby communities: 36.0 dBA predicted at closest assessed home. The developer's current page reports a 36.0 dBA modelled?Modelled versus measured×A modelled result is a prediction based on inputs and assumptions. A measured result comes from observations or instruments under particular conditions.A prediction is not verified operating performance. Check the location, period, operating scenario, and what the reported number actually represents.Learn more → nighttime total at the closest assessed residence, about 970 m north, against a stated 40 dBA limit. The earlier application-case assessment reports 35.3–35.9 dBA across receptors with assumed ambient sound; its cumulative case reports 35.4–36.2 dBA. These are different model summaries, not operating measurements. The consultant identified possible low-frequency tonal characteristics but concluded they were unlikely to be an issue because predicted project levels excluding ambient sound were 30 dBA or lower. [4][2] Proponent projection

Rezoning area: 4.40 acres. The application seeks to redesignate 4.40 acres of SE-16-40-24 W4M from Agricultural to Heavy Industrial. The package describes a 4.28-acre facility area and a 0.12-acre access area, leaving approximately 155.60 acres agricultural. [2] Public record

Treaty geography: Treaty 6 territory. The federal historical treaty-boundary dataset places the project area within Treaty 6. This is geographic context, not evidence of project-specific consultation. [12] ADCW context

Project-specific consultation: Not found. The reviewed public sources do not identify potentially affected First Nations or Métis communities, engagement completed, concerns raised, or accommodation measures for the Clive proposal. [4][2] ADCW context

AUC status conflict: No active Clive application identified. The Council presentation says an AUC application is submitted and under review. The AUC's current application list identifies Armada Nowlit's Proceeding 30983 for a separate 4.88 MW Red Deer County facility, not Clive. Proceedings 30385, 30476, and 30709 are tied to Gayford in Rocky View County and are now tracked separately. [2][7] ADCW context

Power-plant regulator: Alberta Utilities Commission. The AUC reviews power generation, transmission, and grid connections. Lacombe County says the AUC is the primary approval authority for a natural-gas power plant. [8] Public record

Rezoning before permit: 4.40 acres to Heavy Industrial. Lacombe County says Armada Nowlit Energy Ltd. seeks redesignation on behalf of landowner Arkham Estates Corporation and Iceline Energy Inc. The data processing centre would be a discretionary use in a later development-permit application, possible only after successful rezoning. Rezoning itself would not authorize construction. [3] Public record

AEPA approval claim: Draft approval claimed; instrument not identified. The presentation lists Alberta Environment and Protected Areas at 'Draft Approval' but provides no approval number, authorization type, conditions, or copy. ADCW did not identify a project-specific approval in the reviewed official record. [2][8] ADCW context

Developer meeting: September 30, 2026, 6–8 p.m.. Tees Community Hall. Lacombe County confirms this developer-hosted public information meeting. [1] Public record

Developer feedback survey: October 1–15, 2026. The developer says its survey opens October 1 and closes October 15, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. This is separate from the County's required public hearing. [4] Proponent statement

Separate County engagement: Late 2026 or early 2027. County-led public engagement is separate from the developer meeting and from a formal rezoning hearing. A specific date has not been announced. [1] Public record

Estimated public hearing: December 10, 2026. The date appears in the developer's proposed schedule. It is not a final hearing notice or evidence that Council has advanced the application. [2] Proponent projection

Data-processing buildings: Nine miner containers. The revised July 20, 2026 air-dispersion model labels the nine data buildings as miner containers MC1 to MC9. The package does not identify a customer, installed computing hardware, a specific cryptocurrency, or the share of capacity intended for mining. [2] Proponent statement

Workload evidence: Digital-asset mining and AI marketed. Armada Nowlit says its data centres support digital-asset and AI computing, and Nowlit markets ASIC and GPU infrastructure, blockchain, and mining services. Together with the miner-container description, this is direct evidence of mining-oriented infrastructure, but it does not confirm a specific coin or workload split at Clive. [2][5][6][9] ADCW context

Construction period: Approximately one month. The developer targets a March 2027 start and April 2027 completion, subject to approvals. The traffic assessment estimates 250–450 loaded truck events, or 500–900 one-way heavy-vehicle movements, with no night hauling proposed. [2] Proponent projection

On-site workforce: Proponent documents conflict. The presentation projects 20–50 temporary construction jobs and 10–20 ongoing operations and service roles. The submitted traffic assessment instead assumes about 10 people on site on a typical construction day, no more than 15 at peak, and a normally unstaffed operating facility with one to three maintenance or service visits per month. [2] ADCW context

Clive investment: Approximately US$2 million claimed. The developer's presentation describes private infrastructure investment at Clive. ADCW did not independently verify the estimate, and it should not be confused with broader company-wide investment claims. [2] Proponent projection

Foreign investment record: Hong Kong new-business notification. The federal Investment Canada Act index records an April 2025 new-business notification by Armada Nowlit HK Limited, Central, Hong Kong SAR, China, associated with Armada Nowlit Power Ltd., Armada Nowlit Energy Ltd., and Armada Nowlit Canada Holding Limited. The index lists the ultimate controller's country of origin as Hong Kong SAR, China. It does not disclose an ownership percentage, investment amount, Chinese state ownership, or ownership of the Clive land. [10] Public record

Target operation: April–May 2027. A developer schedule subject to engineering, approvals, and construction. It is not a regulatory deadline or confirmed in-service date. [2][4] Proponent projection

Who pays for cleanup?: C$1.96 million estimated; no security confirmed. The developer estimates cleanup at about C$1.96 million and proposes arranging a bond or similar guarantee later. The package does not show that this money is secured, who could access it if the company failed to clean up, or whether the estimate would keep pace with rising costs over the project's life. [2] ADCW context