Atlas / Oklahoma / Piedmont Oklahoma · City edition Piedmont data center record . Explore documented data center records linked to Piedmont.
About map locations Records retain this city or place label in the Atlas sources. The map keeps each record's own location limits. A shared city label does not establish a municipal boundary, parcel jurisdiction or a complete list of operating buildings.
Open the full Oklahoma map · State source notes
Compilation dated October 24, 2026: 2 Atlas records linked to Piedmont, Oklahoma, drawing on 4 public source links. Records can describe sites, campuses, buildings or proposals. Records and source links . Download this data: CSV / JSON .
2 research records
2 status supported
0 status still open
0 mapped references
Reset filters
2 records Status
0 reviewed map references:
Beltline Energy Piedmont Site Piedmont · Kingfisher · Source context reviewed Agency listed proposal Cloverleaf Project Open Sky Piedmont · Canadian · Source context reviewed Agency listed proposal No records match these filters. Use Reset filters to start again.
Concerns and records. 3 documented items. Counts describe documentation, not harm or severity. One item can have more than one category.
Land use and zoning: 2 · Power and electric rates: 2 · Water use: 3
This is a bounded source collection. Missing items do not establish that no concern was raised. A case disposition does not establish facility operating status or resolve the underlying allegations.
View 3 documented items News report Water use · Land use and zoning
Oklahoma Public Media Exchange reported Osage tribal officials' questions about water and consultation for Google's proposed Project Spring in Sand Springs. An October follow-up reported that a separate tribal-approval bill did not become law. These are outlet accounts; that legislative outcome does not establish project approval or resolution of the water questions.
Record status: Unknown. The present mineral-lease and project disposition and outcome of the documented water questions are unknown in this bounded review. OPMX reported that a separate approval-authority bill did not become law. That report is not a verified project approval, denial, final lease decision or resolution of every concern.
Event date Not established
Source publication date October 16, 2026
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The reports describe several interviews, council discussions and legislative actions without one independently inspected exact concern-event day for this item. Event date remains unknown; neither an interview nor a source-check day is substituted. The original OPMX follow-up was published October 16, 2026; its earlier water and consultation report was published June 25. The project page displays a January 14 update, but its exact first publication date is unknown.
Raised or recorded by Oklahoma Public Media Exchange.
Company-published statement. White Rose Partners stated on the Project Spring page that initial phases would use non-evaporative cooling and that later water decisions would be coordinated with Sand Springs. These are developer plans, not measured water use, permanent whole-campus commitments or verified approvals.
The original developer page explicitly identifies the same Sand Springs proposal. Its plans relate to the reported water questions, but it is not a verified Google-authored statement or an express answer to the later tribal bill. First publication date is unknown.
Response publication: Not established. Response sources checked: October 18, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
News report Water use · Power and electric rates · Land use and zoning
Tulsa Flyer reported water and electricity concerns about Coweta's Project Atlas and Beale Infrastructure's March 30, 2026 announcement that it was withdrawing the proposal. The report attributes the withdrawal to company statements and a city account. It does not establish measured environmental conditions or that every underlying concern was resolved.
Record status: Withdrawn. Tulsa Flyer reported that Beale announced withdrawal of the Coweta proposal on March 30, 2026, with the city separately acknowledging notification that day. Withdrawn applies only to that reported proposal; it is not a water-quality finding, resolution of every concern or a permanent ban on future projects.
Event date March 30, 2026
Source publication date March 30, 2026
Disposition date March 30, 2026
Concern sources checked October 18, 2026 The March 30, 2026 original report records the company withdrawal announcement and the city's same-day account of notification. This is a reported announcement date, not an independently inspected signed zoning-withdrawal instrument. The original Tulsa Flyer report displays March 30, 2026 publication and same-day update. That is outlet publication, not a separately verified company-original statement publication day.
Raised or recorded by Tulsa Flyer.
Company statement reported by an outlet. Beale Infrastructure stated, according to Tulsa Flyer, that it was withdrawing its Coweta proposal while continuing other Oklahoma investments. The statement does not give a specific reason or establish an environmental outcome.
The original report quotes Beale about this same Coweta proposal. This is a news-quoted statement, not an independently inspected company-original release or signed withdrawal instrument. March 30 is the outlet publication date.
Response publication: March 30, 2026. Response sources checked: October 18, 2026.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Public concern on the record Water use · Power and electric rates
City of Coweta reported in its original December 2025 City Manager newsletter that environmental impact and energy use concerns about Project Atlas were being considered. This is an attributed City account of concerns rather than measured environmental harm, a quantified resource finding or an adopted project decision. Forecast benefits in the same account remain prospective.
Record status: Unknown. The selected original record documents an attributed concern or resource review, without independently establishing the complete disposition, measured harm or present compliance.
Event date Not established
Source publication date Not established
Disposition date Not established
Concern sources checked October 24, 2026 The original newsletter is labeled December 2025, without an independently established exact publication day or first concern day. No day within that month is invented. The selected original body does not independently establish the exact web publication day of the complete concern record. Retrieval is not publication.
Raised or recorded by City of Coweta.
No item-specific published company response was verified in the bounded source review. This does not establish that a company declined to respond.
Report a correction · Link to this item
Community concerns tracker
Companies and counties. Company names and sourced roles keep their separate labels in each record.
No company page is linked to these records yet.
No published county page is linked to these records yet.
Rules and source checks. These are county source reviews linked to the retained records. They do not establish municipal boundaries, city zoning, parcel permission or current compliance.
Power and water. Each figure keeps its measure, basis, date and sources. Forecasts, utility requests, generation and IT capacity are different. These figures are not added into a county total.
No separately typed power or water fact is retained for this county cohort yet. That means unknown, not zero use.
The dated record. The retained event log distinguishes announcements, scheduled dates and status-source checks. A review date is not an opening day. A target never becomes a completed event merely because time passes.
View 2 status source checks Status source checks. Source checked: October 24, 2026 Cloverleaf Project Open Sky The complete original City transparency portal separately lists the named computing project and its revised planned unit development documents. This supports an agency listed proposal without an independently read completed approval vote, construction or computing service. The posted six page Industrial Technology ordinance copy requires special use review for computing and excludes cryptocurrency mining in that district, but its adoption day and signatures are blank. Physical page 6 was actually viewed. This unsigned copy does not independently establish enactment or present legal force. The October 22 Cloverleaf document exceeded the bounded capture limit and was not read or obtained through an alternate copy. Portal update labels do not certify completed votes, permit eligibility or physical stage.
Source checked: October 24, 2026 Beltline Energy Piedmont Site The complete original City transparency portal separately lists the named computing project and its revised planned unit development documents. This supports an agency listed proposal without an independently read completed approval vote, construction or computing service. The posted six page Industrial Technology ordinance copy requires special use review for computing and excludes cryptocurrency mining in that district, but its adoption day and signatures are blank. Physical page 6 was actually viewed. This unsigned copy does not independently establish enactment or present legal force. The October 22 Cloverleaf document exceeded the bounded capture limit and was not read or obtained through an alternate copy. Portal update labels do not certify completed votes, permit eligibility or physical stage.
Questions about these records How many records are listed for Piedmont, Oklahoma? In the October 24, 2026 compilation, 2 research records are linked to Piedmont, Oklahoma. This count is not a count of distinct operating buildings. Records and source links .
How many records have an unclear status? In the October 24, 2026 compilation, 0 of 2 records retain an unclear status. Each record links to the evidence for its own stage. Records and source links .
How many records have a reviewed map reference? In the October 24, 2026 compilation, 0 records have a reviewed map reference, 2 show only a county area and 0 have no map point. Street references and approximate areas do not certify a roof or parcel. Records and source links .
