Site Assessment Framework¶
Newfoundland & Labrador Ocean Cooling Site Selection¶
Document ID: CCNL-SAF-2024-01 | Version: 1.1 | Date: December 2025
1. Executive Summary¶
This document establishes the framework for evaluating potential sites for the Clean Compute NL ocean-cooled data center. The assessment considers oceanographic conditions, coastal infrastructure, grid connectivity, and environmental factors to identify optimal locations along the Newfoundland and Labrador coastline.
Priority Regions: 1. Avalon Peninsula (St. John's area) - Best grid/connectivity 2. Conception Bay - Sheltered, good access 3. Placentia Bay - Deep water access, industrial heritage 4. South Coast - Cold water proximity 5. Labrador Coast - Coldest water, remote
2. Oceanographic Assessment¶
2.1 Water Temperature Profiles¶
The Labrador Current brings Arctic water southward along the Newfoundland coast, maintaining cold temperatures year-round.
Temperature by Depth (Annual Average):
| Depth | Offshore NL | Grand Banks | Labrador Coast |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surface | 5-12°C (seasonal) | 3-15°C | 0-8°C |
| 50 m | 2-6°C | 2-8°C | 0-4°C |
| 100 m | 2-4°C | 2-5°C | 1-3°C |
| 200 m | 3-4°C | 3-4°C | 2-3°C |
| 400 m | 3-4°C | 3-4°C | 3°C |
| Design Basis | 3°C | 3°C | 2°C |
Seasonal Variation at 200m Depth: - Maximum variation: ±0.5°C - This stability is critical for consistent cooling performance
2.2 Bathymetry Requirements¶
| Parameter | Minimum | Optimal | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pipe corridor depth | 100 m | 200-400 m | Cold water access |
| Distance to 200m depth | <10 km | 3-5 km | Pipe length economy |
| Seabed gradient | <30° | <15° | Installation feasibility |
| Seabed type | Consolidated | Sand/gravel | Pipe stability |
2.3 Current and Wave Conditions¶
Labrador Current: - Speed: 0.1-0.5 m/s (10-50 cm/s) - Direction: Southward, parallel to coast - Depth: Extends to 500-600 m
Wave Climate (Offshore): - Significant wave height (annual avg): 2.5-3.5 m - Maximum recorded: 15+ m - Storm frequency: 20-30 days/year with Hs > 4 m
Ice Conditions: - Sea ice: December-May (variable) - Icebergs: March-July (200-800 per year in Iceberg Alley) - Design consideration: Pipes at >100 m depth avoid ice scour
2.4 Water Quality¶
| Parameter | Typical Value | Impact on Design |
|---|---|---|
| Salinity | 32-35 ppt | Standard marine materials |
| Dissolved O2 | 6-8 mg/L | Corrosion consideration |
| pH | 7.8-8.2 | Standard range |
| Turbidity | Low | Minimal fouling |
| Biofouling potential | Moderate | Closed loop eliminates |
3. Coastal Infrastructure Requirements¶
3.1 Land Requirements¶
| Component | Area Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Data center building | 50,000 m² | 500,000 sq ft whitespace |
| Power infrastructure | 10,000 m² | Substations, switchgear |
| Cooling plant | 5,000 m² | HX, pumps, controls |
| Admin/support | 3,000 m² | Offices, security |
| Parking/roads | 15,000 m² | Access and staging |
| Buffer zone | 20,000 m² | Setbacks, expansion |
| Total Site | ~100,000 m² | ~25 acres |
3.2 Shore Crossing Requirements¶
| Factor | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Beach type | Sand/gravel preferred (for HDD) |
| Cliff height | <20 m (manageable HDD) |
| Coastal erosion | Stable or accreting |
| Shore protection | Not in protected zone |
| Property access | Industrial zoning or available |
3.3 Construction Access¶
| Requirement | Specification |
|---|---|
| Road access | Paved highway within 5 km |
| Heavy transport | Capable of 50+ tonne loads |
| Marine access | Harbor within 20 km for pipe delivery |
| Laydown area | 20,000 m² for pipe storage |
4. Grid Connectivity¶
4.1 Transmission Infrastructure¶
NL Hydro Transmission System:
| Voltage | Capacity | Locations |
|---|---|---|
| 230 kV | 400+ MW | Avalon, Central, Western |
| 138 kV | 100-200 MW | Distributed |
| 69 kV | 50-100 MW | Local distribution |
Key Substations: 1. Holyrood (Avalon) - 230 kV, existing thermal plant site 2. Hardwoods (Avalon) - 230 kV, major node 3. Bay d'Espoir - 230 kV, hydro generation hub 4. Churchill Falls - 735 kV, major generation
4.2 Grid Connection Requirements¶
| Parameter | 100 MW Facility | 200 MW Facility |
|---|---|---|
| Voltage | 230 kV | 230 kV |
| Dedicated line | 5-20 km typical | 5-20 km |
| Substation upgrade | $15-30M | $25-50M |
| Lead time | 18-36 months | 24-48 months |
4.3 Power Quality¶
| Parameter | NL Grid | Data Center Need | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voltage regulation | ±5% | ±3% | May need conditioning |
| Frequency | 60 Hz ±0.5% | 60 Hz ±0.1% | Acceptable |
| Outage rate | 2-4 hrs/yr | <1 hr/yr | UPS/generator backup |
| Harmonic distortion | <5% THD | <5% THD | Acceptable |
5. Fiber Connectivity¶
5.1 Existing Infrastructure¶
Submarine Cables: - Hibernia Atlantic - Connects to Ireland/UK - ACORN - Atlantic Canada ring - Domestic backhaul - To Toronto/Montreal
Landing Points: - St. John's area - Limited alternative landing points
5.2 Connectivity Requirements¶
| Parameter | Minimum | Optimal |
|---|---|---|
| Latency to Toronto | <25 ms | <20 ms |
| Latency to New York | <30 ms | <25 ms |
| Latency to London | <50 ms | <40 ms |
| Diverse routes | 2 | 3+ |
| Capacity | 100 Gbps | 1 Tbps |
5.3 Connectivity Enhancement Options¶
- New submarine cable to US East Coast ($200-500M)
- Terrestrial backhaul upgrade through Quebec ($50-100M)
- Microwave backup for resilience ($10-20M)
6. Site Evaluation Criteria¶
6.1 Weighted Scoring Matrix¶
| Category | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Ocean Conditions | 30% | |
| Water temperature | 10% | Colder is better |
| Distance to deep water | 10% | Shorter is better |
| Seabed conditions | 5% | Stable, gradual slope |
| Ice/storm exposure | 5% | Less is better |
| Infrastructure | 35% | |
| Grid proximity | 15% | Closer to 230 kV |
| Grid capacity | 10% | Available headroom |
| Fiber connectivity | 10% | Existing or planned |
| Land & Access | 20% | |
| Land availability | 8% | Industrial zoned |
| Road access | 5% | Highway proximity |
| Marine access | 4% | Harbor nearby |
| Workforce | 3% | Population center |
| Environment | 15% | |
| Protected areas | 8% | Avoid conflicts |
| Community support | 5% | Local acceptance |
| Visual impact | 2% | Manageable |
6.2 Scoring Scale¶
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent - Ideal conditions |
| 4 | Good - Minor limitations |
| 3 | Acceptable - Manageable issues |
| 2 | Marginal - Significant challenges |
| 1 | Poor - Major obstacles |
| 0 | Unacceptable - Fatal flaw |
7. Candidate Site Analysis¶
7.1 Site A: Holyrood (Avalon Peninsula)¶
Location: Conception Bay South, former thermal plant site
| Factor | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Water temperature | 4 | 3-4°C at 200m |
| Distance to deep water | 3 | 8-10 km to 200m depth |
| Seabed conditions | 4 | Gradual slope, known |
| Ice exposure | 3 | Moderate ice season |
| Grid proximity | 5 | Existing 230 kV substation |
| Grid capacity | 5 | 400+ MW available |
| Fiber connectivity | 4 | 15 km to St. John's |
| Land availability | 5 | Industrial site available |
| Road access | 5 | Trans-Canada Highway |
| Marine access | 4 | Conception Bay |
| Workforce | 5 | St. John's metro |
| Protected areas | 4 | No major conflicts |
| Community support | 4 | Positive (job creation) |
| Weighted Score | 4.2 | Top candidate |
Advantages: - Existing industrial site with 230 kV power - Strong workforce availability - Good road and marine access - Established community relations
Challenges: - Moderate distance to cold deep water - May require pipe route optimization
7.2 Site B: Argentia (Placentia Bay)¶
Location: Former US Naval Base
| Factor | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Water temperature | 5 | 2-3°C, Grand Banks influence |
| Distance to deep water | 4 | 5-6 km to 200m depth |
| Seabed conditions | 4 | Well-surveyed |
| Ice exposure | 3 | Moderate |
| Grid proximity | 3 | 50 km to major substation |
| Grid capacity | 4 | Upgradable |
| Fiber connectivity | 3 | Requires extension |
| Land availability | 5 | Large industrial zone |
| Road access | 4 | Good highway |
| Marine access | 5 | Deep water port |
| Workforce | 3 | Smaller local population |
| Protected areas | 4 | Clear of protected areas |
| Community support | 4 | Economic development priority |
| Weighted Score | 3.9 | Strong candidate |
Advantages: - Excellent ocean conditions - Large available land - Deep water port access - Government development support
Challenges: - Grid connection requires investment - Fiber extension needed - Smaller local workforce
7.3 Site C: Come By Chance¶
Location: Industrial area, existing refinery infrastructure
| Factor | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Water temperature | 4 | 3-4°C |
| Distance to deep water | 3 | 10 km+ |
| Seabed conditions | 3 | Variable |
| Ice exposure | 3 | Moderate |
| Grid proximity | 4 | 138 kV available |
| Grid capacity | 3 | Upgrade needed |
| Fiber connectivity | 3 | Extension required |
| Land availability | 4 | Industrial zoning |
| Road access | 5 | Trans-Canada |
| Marine access | 4 | Existing terminal |
| Workforce | 3 | Local + commute |
| Protected areas | 4 | Industrial buffer |
| Community support | 4 | Diversification welcome |
| Weighted Score | 3.5 | Viable option |
7.4 Site D: Bay Bulls (South Avalon)¶
Location: Fishing community, offshore supply base
| Factor | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Water temperature | 5 | Cold current proximity |
| Distance to deep water | 5 | 3-4 km to 200m |
| Seabed conditions | 4 | Well-surveyed (oil/gas) |
| Ice exposure | 3 | Moderate |
| Grid proximity | 3 | 40 km to substation |
| Grid capacity | 3 | Requires upgrade |
| Fiber connectivity | 4 | Near St. John's |
| Land availability | 2 | Limited industrial land |
| Road access | 4 | Highway access |
| Marine access | 4 | Offshore supply base |
| Workforce | 4 | Commute from St. John's |
| Protected areas | 3 | Near Witless Bay reserve |
| Community support | 3 | Mixed (fishing interests) |
| Weighted Score | 3.5 | Good ocean, land limited |
7.5 Site Ranking Summary¶
| Rank | Site | Score | Primary Advantage | Key Challenge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Holyrood | 4.2 | Infrastructure ready | Ocean distance |
| 2 | Argentia | 3.9 | Ocean conditions | Grid extension |
| 3 | Bay Bulls | 3.5 | Cold water access | Land availability |
| 3 | Come By Chance | 3.5 | Industrial base | Grid capacity |
8. Environmental Considerations¶
8.1 Protected Areas to Avoid¶
| Area | Type | Location | Buffer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Witless Bay | Seabird Reserve | South Avalon | 5 km |
| Cape St. Mary's | Seabird Sanctuary | Placentia | 5 km |
| Terra Nova | National Park | Bonavista | 10 km |
| Eastport | Marine Protected | Bonavista | 5 km |
| Gilbert Bay | Marine Protected | Labrador | 10 km |
8.2 Species Considerations¶
| Species | Concern | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Atlantic Cod | Spawning areas | Avoid known grounds |
| Capelin | Beach spawning | Time construction |
| Seabirds | Nesting colonies | Maintain distance |
| Whales | Migration routes | Slow vessel speeds |
| Seals | Haul-out sites | Avoid disturbance |
8.3 Environmental Assessment Requirements¶
| Assessment | Trigger | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Provincial EA | >10 MW facility | 6-12 months |
| Federal EA (IAAC) | Marine component | 12-24 months |
| DFO Authorization | In-water work | 6-12 months |
| Species at Risk | If present | Concurrent |
9. Regulatory Framework¶
9.1 Jurisdictional Overview¶
Important: This project involves non-petroleum offshore infrastructure. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) does not have jurisdiction. Key regulators are:
| Agency | Jurisdiction | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) | Federal EA | Lead federal reviewer for major projects |
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) | Marine habitat | Fisheries Act, Oceans Act, SARA |
| Transport Canada | Navigation | Navigation Protection Act |
| NL Dept. of Environment | Provincial EA | Environmental Protection Act |
| NL Dept. of Industry, Energy & Technology | Energy projects | Electricity generation/transmission |
| Crown Lands (NL) | Seabed tenure | Subsea lease/license |
9.2 Key Permits Required¶
| Permit | Agency | Purpose | Timeline | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Impact Assessment | IAAC | Major project review | 12-24 months | High |
| Fisheries Act Authorization | DFO | Fish habitat alteration | 6-12 months | Medium |
| Navigation Protection Act | Transport Canada | Marine safety | 6 months | Low |
| Provincial EA Registration | NL Environment | Project screening | 6-12 months | Medium |
| Development Permit | Municipal | Land use approval | 3-6 months | Low |
| Crown Land Lease | NL Lands | Seabed access | 6-12 months | Medium |
| Electrical Permit | NL IET | Grid connection | 3-6 months | Low |
9.3 Federal Impact Assessment Process¶
Under the Impact Assessment Act (2019), the project may trigger federal review based on: - Marine component (subsea pipeline >10 km) - Fish habitat interaction - Federal lands or funding involvement
IAAC Process (if designated):
PHASE 1: Planning (180 days)
├── Initial project description submitted
├── IAAC determines if assessment required
├── Indigenous engagement begins
├── Public comment period
└── Tailored guidelines issued
PHASE 2: Assessment (300 days, extendable)
├── Proponent prepares Impact Statement
├── Technical review by federal authorities
├── DFO, Transport Canada, Environment Canada input
├── Indigenous consultation
└── Public hearings (if required)
PHASE 3: Decision (30 days)
├── IAAC recommendation to Minister
├── Ministerial decision
└── Conditions of approval
TOTAL: 18-24 months typical
9.4 Provincial EA Process¶
NL Environmental Assessment Regulations require registration for: - Electrical generating facilities >10 MW - Industrial facilities with marine components
Provincial EA (concurrent with federal):
Registration → Public review (35 days) → Decision
↓
If concerns: Environmental Preview Report
↓
If significant: Full EIS
9.5 DFO Considerations¶
Fisheries Act (Section 35): Authorization required for work causing "death of fish" or "harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD)."
| Activity | Potential Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Pipe installation | Temporary seabed disturbance | Timing windows, silt curtains |
| Pipe burial | Habitat alteration | Restoration, offsetting |
| Heat discharge | Localized warming | Minimal (closed loop, diffuse) |
| Vessel traffic | Marine mammal disturbance | MMO, slow-down protocols |
Species at Risk Act (SARA): Screening required for: - North Atlantic Right Whale (critical habitat nearby) - Atlantic Cod (COSEWIC assessed) - Leatherback Sea Turtle (seasonal)
9.6 Indigenous Consultation¶
Duty to Consult: Federal projects require meaningful consultation with Indigenous groups whose rights may be affected.
| Group | Territory | Engagement Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Qalipu First Nation | Island of Newfoundland | High |
| Miawpukek First Nation | South coast NL | Medium |
| NunatuKavut Community Council | Southern Labrador | Site-dependent |
| Nunatsiavut Government | Northern Labrador | Site-dependent |
Best practice: Engage early (pre-application), provide capacity funding, incorporate traditional knowledge.
9.7 Regulatory Timeline (Optimistic)¶
Month 0-3: Pre-consultation meetings (IAAC, DFO, Province)
Month 3-6: Initial project description filed
Month 6-9: IAAC planning phase, guidelines issued
Month 9-15: Impact statement preparation
Month 15-21: Technical review period
Month 21-24: Decision and conditions
Month 24-30: Detailed permits (TC, Crown Lands, Municipal)
Month 30+: Construction start
Total regulatory timeline: 24-30 months (can run concurrent with engineering)
9.8 Regulatory Risk Mitigation¶
| Risk | Mitigation Strategy |
|---|---|
| IAAC designation uncertainty | Early engagement, request guidance |
| Indigenous opposition | Early partnership approach, benefits agreements |
| Fishing industry concerns | Stakeholder committee, compensation framework |
| SARA species presence | Baseline surveys, seasonal restrictions |
| Timeline extensions | Submit complete applications, dedicated regulatory lead |
| Cumulative effects | Address in regional context |
9.9 Regulatory Advantages¶
- Novel technology - No direct regulatory precedent, but closest analogues (submarine cables, SWAC systems) have been permitted
- Closed loop - No water intake/discharge = simplified DFO review
- Minimal thermal impact - Heat diffuses over 10 km, no plume
- Economic benefits - Government motivated to facilitate job creation
- Clean energy alignment - Supports federal/provincial climate goals
10. Site Development Sequence¶
Phase 1: Site Confirmation (6 months)¶
| Activity | Duration | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Geophysical survey | 2 months | Seabed mapping |
| Oceanographic study | 3 months | Temperature profiles |
| Geotechnical investigation | 2 months | Soil conditions |
| Environmental baseline | 4 months | Species survey |
| Grid study | 3 months | Connection plan |
| Decision gate | Site selection |
Phase 2: Permitting (18 months)¶
| Activity | Duration | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| EA preparation | 4 months | Registration document |
| EA review | 6 months | Decision |
| Permit applications | 6 months | All permits submitted |
| Permit decisions | 6 months | Approvals received |
Phase 3: Detailed Engineering (12 months)¶
| Activity | Duration | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| FEED study | 6 months | Preliminary design |
| Detailed design | 6 months | Construction drawings |
| Procurement | 6 months | Major equipment orders |
| Contractor selection | 3 months | Construction contracts |
11. Recommendations¶
11.1 Recommended Primary Site: Holyrood¶
Rationale: - Best overall infrastructure readiness - Existing 230 kV grid connection - Strong workforce availability - Industrial zoning in place - Community familiar with large industry - Manageable ocean access with engineering
11.2 Recommended Backup Site: Argentia¶
Rationale: - Superior ocean conditions - Large land availability - Government development priority - Deep water port access - Grid and fiber can be extended
11.3 Next Steps¶
- Immediate: Commission oceanographic survey at Holyrood
- 30 days: Initiate pre-consultation with regulators
- 60 days: Engage NL Hydro on connection study
- 90 days: Complete site option report
- 120 days: Government briefing on site selection
12. Appendices¶
Appendix A: Bathymetric Data Sources¶
- Canadian Hydrographic Service charts
- Offshore petroleum survey data
- Research vessel multibeam surveys
Appendix B: Climate Data¶
- Environment Canada weather stations
- Ocean Networks Canada buoys
- Fisheries and Oceans temperature profiles
Appendix C: Grid Maps¶
- NL Hydro transmission system map
- Substation capacity data
- Planned infrastructure upgrades
CCNL-SAF-2024-01 v1.1