By Billie Powers Co-Founder, Toll and Roll™ www.tollandroll.com Investigative Reporter and Witness for the People October 30, 2026
America’s land has been contested for centuries, and Native tribes know what happens when powerful interests acquire control while local communities question the terms. Another land rush is unfolding through corporate deeds, foreign investment, artificial intelligence, and promises of billions in economic development.
In Indiana alone, six data center developments encompass 4,810 acres, nearly six New York City Central Parks or five San Francisco Golden Gate Parks. Who ultimately controls that land, who benefits from the agreements, and who will answer when the promised billions no longer cover the cost?
The reported developments include Digital Realty’s 476-acre proposal in Kokomo, DataOne’s 115 acres in Frankfort, Meta’s 1,500 acres in Lebanon, Google’s 900 acres in Fort Wayne, Amazon’s 1,200 acres in New Carlisle, and Meta’s 619 acres in Jeffersonville. These are development footprints, not completed construction, and represent only part of Indiana’s expanding data center industry. Data Center Record identifies 29 sites across 17 counties, including operating facilities and proposed projects.
Kokomo Mayor Tyler Moore projects $44 million to $55 million in annual property tax revenue at full development. Meta’s announced $10 billion Lebanon investment includes annual community payments of $1.5 million for each completed phase, up to six phases, while DataOne’s proposed $7.5 billion Frankfort project identifies $126.5 million in community enhancement payments through 2054, before inflation adjustments.
Projections are not payments received, and promised investments do not guarantee financial stability. What matters is who is legally obligated to pay, what the signed agreements require, and what security remains if the companies reorganize or fail.
Indiana allows qualifying data centers sales and use tax exemptions extending as long as 50 years, although the computers inside those facilities may require replacement repeatedly during that period. Epoch AI’s May 2026 model estimates that a hypothetical one-gigawatt AI data center could require $38 billion in initial capital, including $21.2 billion for servers, assuming a five-year equipment life. Although not an Indiana project budget, the model raises a financial question officials cannot afford to ignore: who finances replacement equipment, and what assets secure the public’s interests when those investments depreciate?
American history provides examples of what happens when environmental obligations outlive the corporations responsible for them, sometimes with consequences measured in children’s lives.
In Toms River, New Jersey, the former Ciba-Geigy chemical manufacturing operation, historically associated with Swiss corporate ownership, became a federal Superfund site. More than 47,000 buried chemical waste drums were removed, contaminated groundwater spread beyond the industrial property, and state investigators documented elevated childhood cancer rates, including associations between certain environmental exposures and childhood leukemia. The research did not attribute every cancer to the plant, but the contamination was established, cleanup costs exceeded $300 million, and remediation continued decades after manufacturing ended.
ASARCO, the American mining and smelting company formerly controlled by Mexico’s Grupo México, entered bankruptcy with environmental obligations across the country. A $1.79 billion settlement funded cleanup and restoration at more than 80 contaminated sites in 19 states, demonstrating the financial consequences of industrial operations whose liabilities survive bankruptcy.
The former Ponderay Newsprint mill in Usk, Washington, brings those concerns directly into the computing industry. The Kalispel Tribe began pursuing the property in August 2020, seeking to restore local employment after the mill’s bankruptcy. Its initial offer was rejected, but the tribe continued bidding until the April 23, 2021 auction, when it offered $17.5 million for the 927-acre property. Allrise Capital prevailed with $18.1 million, just $600,000 more.
What happened after the bidding deserves as much attention as the winning price. On April 27 and 28, while the bankruptcy trustee evaluated which offer represented the highest and best bid, endorsement letters supporting Allrise arrived from local government and economic development offices. Former economic development committee member Fred Willenbrock later reported that Pend Oreille County Commissioner John Gentle endorsed Allrise over the tribe without consulting the committee. Local reporting described communications involving Gentle, economic development officials, and Allrise representatives surrounding those endorsements.
Gentle subsequently supported Merkle Standard’s electricity interests while his wife, Kimberly Gentle, worked in the cryptocurrency industry. Mikhail Trubchik, identified in utility records as Allrise Capital’s chief operating officer, participated in the company’s local dealings. With a tribal bidder already pursuing the property, competing corporate interests, late-arriving official endorsements, and overlapping business relationships, the public deserves an independent forensic audit of the communications, disclosures, financial interests, and due diligence behind the sale. Judicial approval establishes that the sale was authorized, but it does not settle every question about the officials who supported the winning bidder.
Allrise subsequently established Bitcoin mining through affiliated companies, including Merkle Standard. Pend Oreille County Public Utility District records identify Cascade Digital Mining as a venture involving Merkle Standard Infrastructure and a subsidiary of Beijing-based Bitmain, the Chinese cryptocurrency mining equipment manufacturer. Merkle has described broader American expansion plans involving Bitmain, making the relationship relevant well beyond this single property.
The same utility filed an unsecured claim exceeding $22 million against the bankrupt former paper mill operator but recovered approximately $4.8 million through reported distributions before the estate closed in September 2024. Roughly $17.46 million of that claim remained unrecovered through those distributions, an important reminder that industrial bankruptcy can leave substantial financial losses behind.
Although paper manufacturing ended, the wastewater infrastructure remained. A local resident has reported potentially hazardous wastewater still held in pools at the property, while Washington Department of Ecology records confirm that approximately 1,000 to 1,500 gallons of untreated industrial wastewater escaped onto the property in December 2025, followed by another release in February 2026. Both incidents occurred after Allrise acquired the site and Bitcoin mining began. What remains in those lagoons, where are the independent laboratory results, and who has secured the money for any necessary cleanup?
The Kalispel Tribe has also questioned the environmental implications of the proposed development, including wastewater and chemical management, while reporting that it received no formal consultation about the data center plans. Merkle Standard has discussed an expansion requiring as much as 225 megawatts of electricity, reportedly more than seven times the combined consumption of the county’s other residents and small businesses.
The timing of the competing bids and official endorsements, the foreign-linked computing venture, and the unresolved wastewater questions demand examination of the ownership instruments, environmental obligations, utility agreements, and public decisions that made the arrangement possible. The question is whose interests were considered, what due diligence was performed, and whether the public received the protections it deserved.
Ponderay demonstrates why a corporate name on a deed tells only part of the story. One company may own the land, another operate the facility, a third provide equipment, and additional investors hold financial interests outside the recorded chain of title. Determining who controls the operation requires examining the entire structure.
Indiana faces similar questions. DataOne identifies BSO Group as its 80% owner, with the remaining 20% privately held, and has indicated that its proposed Frankfort tenant will be announced later. Who holds those remaining interests, who finances the equipment, and which legally responsible entity guarantees the project’s obligations if the operator becomes insolvent?
Foreign investment is lawful, but lawful investment does not eliminate the need to verify beneficial ownership, related-party transactions, financing arrangements, and enforceable financial guarantees.
The computing industry has already experienced significant bankruptcies. Compute North, a cryptocurrency mining and data center hosting company, filed Chapter 11 in 2022. Core Scientific, another major mining and hosting operator, entered Chapter 11 that December before emerging from restructuring in 2024. Neither bankruptcy proves that an Indiana AI development will fail, but both demonstrate that sophisticated computing facilities are subject to the same financial risks as other businesses.
Indiana’s electricity agreements deserve equally close examination. State regulators approved a $737.3 million plan associated with supplying Google’s proposed Monrovia development. AES Indiana maintains that Google will cover incremental costs through financial commitments and protections against stranded expenses, while consumer advocates questioned whether approximately $74 million in transmission upgrades could affect existing ratepayers. Residents should be able to examine how those protections work and whether they remain enforceable if the project’s ownership or financial condition changes.
Public resistance is already substantial. By October 21, reporting based on Indiana University’s Environmental Resilience Institute found that at least 50 Indiana counties had adopted restrictions on data center development, including moratoriums, ordinances, and prohibitions. Electricity, water, farmland, infrastructure, and local control have become central concerns for communities facing these proposals.
Financial and environmental safeguards belong in enforceable agreements before construction begins. Indiana’s Shelby County considered independent decommissioning estimates, bonds, and periodic financial reviews in a June 2026 draft ordinance. Every jurisdiction approving these developments should be able to demonstrate that adequate financial assurance exists for equipment removal, property restoration, and remediation of contamination for which the operator is responsible.
My attention to ownership records and concealed financial interests comes from experience. I remain involved in a disputed property-title matter concerning my former ranch and Mikhail Trubchik, who acquired the property through a February 2023 special warranty deed despite what I contend was prior notice of the disputed title. My allegations are separate from Indiana’s developments, but the importance of examining the instruments, relationships, and financial interests behind a recorded deed is not.
Through Toll and Roll™, we investigate land records, court filings, corporate instruments, and financial transactions for evidence of forged documents, false representations, counterfeit instruments, and concealed interests. Those same forensic standards should apply whenever developers seek public incentives, infrastructure commitments, and long-term control over American land.
Indiana’s public officials should audit records before they cause the damage. Disclose development agreements, recorded deeds, available beneficial ownership information, financing arrangements, tax incentive terms, utility contracts, environmental assessments, and funded decommissioning guarantees to the fullest extent permitted by law. Independent examination should establish whether promised benefits are enforceable, whether material conflicts of interest were properly disclosed, and whether the public is protected against financial and environmental losses.
Public officials have no immunity for knowingly falsifying records, accepting bribes, participating in fraud, or concealing corrupt arrangements. Such misconduct must be established through evidence, which is precisely why independent auditing matters more than assurances from the people who approved the transactions.
Corporations can transfer assets, restructure their holdings, and seek bankruptcy protection, but the land remains, along with the water, infrastructure, and financial obligations that may survive them. Before another generation of American property is committed to these ventures, residents deserve more than projections, promises, and explanations delivered after the contracts are signed.
If the ownership has not been independently verified, the financial obligations have not been secured, and the environmental risks have not been examined, whose interests were public officials protecting when they approved these deals? Whose interests are currently on the negotiation table?
Follow the land, follow the money, and audit the documents.
Billie Further information provided below for the readers own investigative work, if they are inclined to dig further. Be prepared to find possible connections in your own back yard, your own town and possibly your own health.
Research for this article include, but are not limited to, the following investigative reports, court proceedings, and federal enforcement records provide additional documentation concerning the Ponderay Newsprint acquisition, foreign linked computing investments, financial fraud, money laundering allegations, and national security concerns involving American property.
Investigative News Reports:
1. Elissa Ball, RANGE Media, March 18, 2022
“Gold Rush to Usk”
An investigation into Allrise Capital, the former Ponderay Newsprint mill, Chinese cryptocurrency mining equipment interests, and the promises surrounding the property’s redevelopment. https://www.rangemedia.co/usk-wa-bitmain-ponderay-newsprint-mill-gonzaga-allrise/
2. Zachariah Bryan, InvestigateWest / Cascade PBS, November 16, 2022
“This tiny Eastern WA town could become a bitcoin mining hub”
Examines Merkle Standard, Bitmain, electricity demands, and the concerns of residents surrounding the former mill. https://www.cascadepbs.org/news/2022/11/tiny-eastern-wa-town-could-become-bitcoin-mining-hub/
3. Thomas Clouse, The Spokesman-Review, August 19, 2020
“Kalispel Tribe submits bid to purchase Ponderay Newsprint in Usk”
Documents the Kalispel Tribe’s early attempt to acquire the property before Allrise prevailed at the bankruptcy auction. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/aug/19/kalispel-tribe-submits-bid-to-purchase-ponderay-ne/
4. Thomas Clouse, The Spokesman-Review, April 29, 2021
“Pend Oreille PUD officials raise concerns about Ponderay Newsprint sale”
Contemporaneous reporting on the bankruptcy hearing, competing bids, and the utility’s concerns about the proposed cryptocurrency operations. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pend-oreille-pud-officials-raise-020000110.html
5. Thomas Clouse, The Spokesman-Review, September 25, 2026
“A large data center is proposed for the former papermill in Usk”
Follow-up reporting on the proposed expansion, the property’s changing industrial use, and community concerns. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/sep/25/large-data-center-proposed-for-former-papermill-in/
Additional Local Reporting and Public Commentary:
The Newport Miner, July 26, 2023
Includes a letter by Ben Richards concerning the Allrise endorsement process, Commissioner John Gentle, and questions involving local economic development relationships. The letter presents allegations and commentary that warrant examination against the underlying public records. https://fliphtml5.com/ericw/pqqw/072623NewportMiner/
Federal Cases and Enforcement Records – Examples:
1. United States v. Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Case No. 2:22-cr-00185-RSLFederal prosecution involving a fraudulent cryptocurrency mining investment scheme that raised approximately $577 million. Both defendants pleaded guilty. The proceedings provide documented evidence of financial fraud involving purported cryptocurrency mining investments. Official case information: https://www.justice.gov/
2. United States v. BIT Mining Ltd.
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Case No. 2:24-cr-00744-EP Federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement involving a China-based cryptocurrency mining company, foreign bribery, and falsified corporate records. The company entered a deferred prosecution agreement. This proceeding concerned a Japanese resort project rather than a U.S. data center. Official records: https://www.justice.gov/
3. Federal Prosecution of Daren Li and Yicheng Zhang
U.S. District Court, Central District of California Federal proceedings involving allegations that more than $73 million was laundered through U.S. shell companies and international cryptocurrency transactions. The 2024 indictment documents allegations, not a conviction of every charged offense. Official records: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca
4. MineOne Cloud Computing Real Estate Divestment Order
U.S. Department of the Treasury / Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
May 13, 2024 A presidential order required divestment of cryptocurrency mining-related real estate near a Wyoming military installation because of national security concerns involving Chinese-majority ownership. This was a federal national security action, not a money-laundering conviction. Official Treasury announcement: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2335
These sources document the importance of examining corporate ownership, financial representations, foreign investment structures, public endorsements, utility obligations, and environmental responsibilities before committing American land and public resources to large computing developments.
The cited criminal proceedings and enforcement actions concern their respective defendants and transactions. They do not establish criminal wrongdoing by Allrise Capital, Merkle Standard, Bitmain, or the Indiana developers discussed in this article. They give rise to why we must be more diligent in auditing the records before the records and developments audit our America any further!
Readers are encouraged to examine the original reporting, court records, and government documents, follow the ownership and financial relationships, and demand independent audits wherever public interests may be exposed.
Original article
Comments