We do not want this

I am writing as a resident of the Sturgeon County area to formally object to the Beacon AI Centers Heartland Project as currently proposed a 920-megawatt natural gas power generation facility and AI data center complex located approximately 7 km east of Gibbons, Alberta, intended to operate continuously for 25 years.

I was not consulted during this process. The proponent suggested they notified only residents within 2 km of the project boundary, which is false because I know residents within that boundary and they where not notified. I live within 7 minutes of this site and was given no opportunity to participate in the open house held November 18, 2025, because I was never informed it was happening. This is a fundamental failure of the public consultation process. 

 I request that the Commission determine whether AUC Rule 007 consultation requirements were met for residents beyond the 2 km notification radius, given the scale and 25-year duration of this facility.

The Louisiana data showed infrasound from wind turbines detectable up to 15 km.

This facility will operate 200 large natural gas reciprocating engines continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 25 years. Peer-reviewed research published as recently as February 2026 confirms that low-frequency noise and infrasound from industrial engines can travel long distances, penetrate buildings, and cause documented health effects including cardiovascular stress, sleep disruption, hypertension, headaches, and neurological impacts.

AUC Rule 012 is the minimum noise standard this project must meet, but it is wholly inadequate for a facility of this scale. The rule measures only A-weighted decibels, a scale mathematically designed to filter out low-frequency sound. A facility operating 200 large reciprocating gas engines can pass Rule 012 on paper while still flooding surrounding neighbourhoods with infrasound and low-frequency noise that residents feel as pressure, sleep disruption, and physical symptoms, because the regulation was never designed for a facility of this type. Furthermore, Rule 012 uses existing background noise as its baseline, meaning the more industrially polluted an area already is, the more noise a new facility is permitted to add. The AUC has the power to impose stricter limits than the Rule 012 minimum when public evidence demands it. I am requesting exactly that.

This project proposes burning up to 218 terajoules of natural gas per day, generating continuous emissions of NO₂, PM2.5, and CO₂ into a region already carrying a significant industrial air quality burden. The proponent's own document acknowledges existing poor air quality in the area, yet dismisses the project's additional contribution by attributing increases to pre-existing industry. Adding a 920-megawatt fossil fuel facility on top of an already compromised airshed is not acceptable. I am requesting a full cumulative effects assessment of air quality, including independent health impact modelling for residents within a 25 km radius.

The project holds a permit for 1,500 cubic metres of treated municipal potable water per day, 1.5 million litres, drawn from the same water system that serves our community. This water runs through cooling systems for 200 engines operating at extreme heat. When discharged it is thermally and chemically altered, carrying heat, lubricant residues, glycol antifreeze compounds, and engine byproducts. The document provides almost no detail on where this changed water goes after use.

The proponent's own document includes a map titled 'Regional Topography Including Water Wells Within a 5 KM Radius of Project Footprint,' directly acknowledging that 212 domestic water wells exist in close proximity to this site. Yet there is no baseline groundwater assessment on record and no binding commitment to protect those wells. Residents on private well water have no municipal alternative if their supply is compromised.

The stormwater pond contents, including glycol from the closed-loop cooling system, lubricating oils from 200 continuously operating engines, urea and ammonia from selective catalytic reduction systems, and potential PFAS from fire suppression systems, have not been characterized in any filed document. The emergency overflow route from that pond drains directly into Wetland 19, confirmed breeding habitat for the federally listed western toad.

A recent case in another jurisdiction illustrates exactly what happens when discharge contents are not characterized before operations begin. In January 2025, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality issued Tesla's Robstown lithium refinery a wastewater discharge permit without notifying the local drainage district whose land the discharge ditch crossed. Drainage district workers discovered an unknown pipe expelling black liquid during routine maintenance in early 2026. When the state regulator investigated, it did not test for facility-specific contaminants. Independent testing commissioned by the drainage district found hexavalent chromium, a known human carcinogen and the substance at the centre of the Erin Brockovich case, along with arsenic, elevated lithium, vanadium, ammonia, manganese, and brackish conditions 10 to 20 times saltier than normal waterway conditions. None of these substances appeared in the state-issued permit. The state cleared Tesla of violations because the permit did not require monitoring for them. (Sources: Texas Tribune, April 21 2026; Inside Climate News, March 19 2026; Electrek, April 21 2026.)

The Heartland application has the same gap. The Commission should not approve a 25-year industrial operation without requiring full independent characterization of all stormwater and discharge contents, baseline testing of all 212 domestic wells within 5 km before construction begins, and a legally binding remediation commitment for any contamination that occurs during operations.

The project's alternatives analysis is superficial and self-serving. It does not meaningfully explore remote or northern siting, and the Commission should require that it does before any approval proceeds.

The Northwest Territories has vast areas of Crown land with no nearby residents, no private water wells at risk, no communities whose air quality would be degraded, and no families whose health and sleep would be disrupted by 200 engines running every night for 25 years. There is no legitimate reason this project must be built next to people.

Global precedent exists: Iceland, Norway, and northern Finland already host major data centers in cold, remote locations, precisely because it is better for operations and better for communities. Canada has every geographic and infrastructure advantage to do the same. The only reason this is not being proposed is that northern siting would cost the proponent more money and take more time. That is not a sufficient justification for placing this burden on the residents of Sturgeon County.

Similar gas-powered AI data center projects already under construction including Meta’s Hyperion campus in rural Louisiana have generated documented community harm including water disruption, infrasound-related health symptoms including nausea and dizziness, traffic fatalities during construction, and rising utility costs for surrounding ratepayers. Our community deserves to learn from those experiences before it is too late to act.
 

Expand the public consultation radius and reopen the comment period for all residents within 25 km

— Require independent baseline testing of all private water wells within 20 km before any construction begins, with a legally binding remediation commitment

— Require full public disclosure of all liquid discharge destinations, volumes, and chemical compositions 

— Require independent, continuous low-frequency noise monitoring with enforceable limits beyond AUC Rule 012

— Require a full cumulative air quality and health impact assessment for the surrounding region on going 

— Require a full independent alternatives analysis including Northwest Territories and other northern Canadian siting options, with transparent cost comparisons made publicly available 

— Do not approve this project until all of the above conditions are met and independently verified

This facility will operate for 25 years. The decisions made now will affect the health, property values, water security, and quality of life of thousands of Sturgeon County residents for a generation. I ask that our concerns be given the full weight they deserve under the Impact Assessment Act.
 

This project is not worth it!! You will deplete our beautiful country.. 

-Vanessa