Objection to the Beacon AI Indus and Heartland projects as currently proposed

On behalf of CyberCloud-AI Ltd, an Indigenous technology company and an approved AI supplier to the Canadian Federal Government, we formally object to the Beacon AI Indus and Heartland projects as currently proposed.

These hyperscale developments present unacceptable environmental, cultural, jurisdictional, and governance risks, including:

1. Water Use & Carbon Emissions

These projects propose an extraordinary combined draw of approximately 3,000 m³/day of potable water, alongside massive long-term natural gas combustion (over 503 TJ/day total fuel burn). This scale of extraction threatens Alberta’s watershed systems, including downstream impacts to Indigenous harvesting, ecological integrity, and provincial climate commitments.

2. Crown Consultation Failure

The proponent relies on an Aboriginal Consultation Office (ACO) determination suggesting that formal consultation is not required because the projects are located on private land. This position is fundamentally flawed.

The Crown Duty to Consult is triggered by potential impacts on Treaty and Section 35 rights, regardless of land ownership. Projects of this magnitude cannot proceed without meaningful consultation with affected Nations and communities.

3. Digital Sovereignty & Foreign Jurisdiction Risk

These facilities are designed as foreign-controlled hyperscale infrastructure, raising serious concerns regarding Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Canadian jurisdiction.

Under the U.S. CLOUD Act, American courts can compel disclosure of data stored on Canadian soil if the operator is a U.S.-linked entity. Approving projects of this scale without legally binding sovereign safeguards is unacceptable.

4. The “Wild West” of Bring-Your-Own-Power

Alberta is rapidly moving into a regulatory “Wild West” where hyperscale developers bypass traditional grid planning by building private gas-fired generation under so-called “Bring Your Own Power” models.

This creates a loophole-driven system where massive industrial campuses lock Alberta into decades of carbon dependency, strain shared infrastructure, and privatize benefits while socializing long-term risks.

5. Secrecy and Lack of Transparency: Who Is the Real Client?

CyberCloud-AI also objects to the proponent’s lack of disclosure around who the ultimate end-user or data-controlling client will be.

The data centre industry has a growing practice of “silent client” arrangements, where land and permits are acquired without revealing who the infrastructure ultimately serves.

No project should be approved where the identity of the data controller is unknown, as regulators cannot assess:

• National security implications
• Foreign legal overreach
• Community accountability
• Treaty-level impacts

Transparency is a minimum requirement.

6. Cultural Protection and Heritage Monitoring

Project documentation admits the likelihood of “chance discovery” of archaeological and cultural resources. There is no enforceable requirement for Indigenous cultural monitoring.

Any construction on or near traditional territory must require fully funded Indigenous Cultural Monitors throughout the full construction period.

Formal Request

CyberCloud-AI Ltd calls for a proponent-funded, independent Feasibility and Risk Mitigation Study before any approvals proceed. This study must assess:

• Water and energy neutrality alternatives
• Digital sovereignty and CLOUD Act exposure
• Grid infrastructure stress and equity outcomes
• Cultural and environmental risk mitigation
• Community Benefit Agreements prior to development

Conclusion

Consent is withheld unless and until this independent study is fully funded, completed, and reviewed and approved by affected Indigenous Nations and local communities.

CyberCloud-AI Ltd
Submitted by: Josephine Naicker