Fact Check — Callaway Data Watch

Crusoe AI: 22 Discrepancies

Their official water diagram shows a closed loop system where wastewater is treated on site and returned, with the tagline "nothing wasted." But the cooling rep at the booth told us directly that their wastewater is trucked off site to a certified destruction facility in St. Louis, not treated on site at all. These are two completely different processes.
The electricity rep told us flat out they do not use air cooling. But the water and cooling booth specifically said they do use air cooling, and another rep admitted the closed loop claim is only partially true because of how much they rely on air cooling.
Crusoe's own energy rep told us twice, directly, that no electricity contract had been signed yet. But Alina said Jungerman confirmed to the developer that a contract with the electric company had already been signed, and the developer agreed when she said it.
The construction site guy said they can only use so much electricity at this location and have no plans to expand. But when pressed on whether they could add their own power generation like a small reactor, he admitted, well technically yes, we could.
The developer said other Crusoe locations use nuclear reactors and other power generation methods, but they don't anticipate doing that here. That is not a real answer, that is a maybe.
Their official uninterruptible power supply board says no on-site power generation during normal operations. This does not match the admission that other sites do generate their own power and that it is technically possible here too.
Reps kept saying the water usage will be small, comparable to the Mokane elderly home or about 16 homes. But their plan includes digging a new well, building an actual water tower, and still pulling from our county water supply. That is a lot of infrastructure for something they say is minor.
Water District 2 told us the new well would be owned and maintained by the county. The Crusoe rep was certain they'd be digging a well but was not certain that they wouldn't own it themselves. That is a direct conflict on who controls it.
When asked who pays if infrastructure costs go over the stated 9 million, the Crusoe rep said ask water district 2, and the water district 2 rep said that depends on the contract with Crusoe. There is no contract yet, so nobody answered the question.
The water guy eventually admitted that typically the developer covers cost overruns, but only after a lot of avoiding the question and pointing to a developer agreement that does not exist yet.
Reps at the booth said they are not planning noise canceling devices because there is hardly any noise and claimed the site sounds about the same now as it will later, even without construction equipment there yet. That does not hold up on its own.
The independent noise study itself, done by Kimley Horn, shows a noise contour map with levels between 55 and 65 decibels extending past the 100-foot property setback into surrounding areas. Their own study contradicts its basically silent messaging.
Their official board says Crusoe is a quiet neighbor and that the main sound is cooling, kept within the site. Their own noise contour map shows sound extending beyond the site boundary.
The Kimley-Horn noise study only measured standard decibel levels, dB(A), which is what their contour map and "levels in dB(A)" legend show. That measurement is weighted to how the human ear perceives everyday sound. It does not capture low frequency noise, which is the type of noise that travels farther, penetrates buildings and walls more easily, and is what's most linked to health effects on people and disruption to wildlife. So, when they say there are no studies showing health or wildlife impact, that's partly because their own study wasn't even designed to measure the kind of noise most likely to cause that impact in the first place. Standard dB(A) readings can look low while the low frequency noise underneath is still a real problem. This is a gap in their methodology and doesn't provide any proof that there's no impact.
The rep who did the independent study said the site is very far from the school (which we believe may be closer than we were told) and that the nearest homes are about half a mile away. He also admitted there are no studies at all on how data center noise or pollution affects wildlife or people with health conditions. So, the very far away reassurance is not backed by any actual health impact research, just distance.
The developer said the goal is not to get as much as we can out of Callaway County. In the same conversation he was asking for an 85 percent personal property tax abatement. He also admitted that when companies don't get the abatement, they choose not to build there at all. That sounds like leverage, and not generosity.
When questioned on the Hatton Hills trailer park purchase, the developer walked back his denial and said he only deals with this contract, so it's very likely he just doesn't know about that purchase. That's worth noting because we were also told construction crews will come from Missouri unions generally, not necessarily local ones, meaning out of town workers from places like Springfield, St. Louis, or Kansas City will need somewhere to stay. That raises the real question of whether the Hatton Hills property, now converted into an RV park, is meant to house incoming crews, something he may simply not have visibility into given how compartmentalized these contracts seem to be.
A local rep gave us a specific number of 70 permanent jobs for this project. Their corporate responsible development board advertises 13,000 plus jobs supported, which is a companywide number across all their sites, not specific to us, and it lumps in temporary construction jobs and skilled trades jobs alongside actual permanent positions. Most jobs tied to this specific project will be temporary construction work that ends once the buildings are finished, not long term jobs for our community. If that 13,000 plus figure gets used locally without explaining it's company wide and mostly temporary construction labor, that's misleading.
The site plan board shows one fixed two building layout at 800,000 square feet each. But the water infrastructure rep admitted there is wiggle room, it could end up being two bigger buildings or three smaller ones using the same amount of water. That means the plan being presented as final is not actually final.
The contracts guy said probably not when asked if they'd expand construction plans to more buildings. Probably not is not a real commitment.
Their Missouri protects ratepayers board leans on SB4 from 2025, saying large energy consumers must pay for infrastructure upgrades before costs are incurred, to protect ratepayers. But that protection is built around investor-owned utilities like Ameren. Callaway Electric Cooperative is not Ameren, so that protection likely does not cover us the same way. They are using state law as reassurance that will not actually apply to our specific electric provider. When asked, Commissioner Scott said there is no protection at our level and they were not planning to implement one. This leaves us wide open to large rate hikes.
Both the AECI and Callaway Electric boards say zero dollars will be added to local bills and that large loads benefit everyone by spreading out fixed costs. But the electric booth rep told a resident that rates will go up with Ameren regardless, they'll just try to keep it steady for the co-op. That is a much less certain answer than the flat zero dollar claim on their boards.