to the Bitfarms presentation. Before we begin, I just want to remind everybody that we will be making references to forward-looking statements that might differ from actual results. We also refer to non-IFRS measures. If you're looking for definitions of both of them, please make sure to look at our MD&A on our website. Additionally, all financial figures are in U.S. dollars unless we state otherwise. And with that.
Perfect.
No worries.
Liam.
Okay.
All yours.
Thanks. Does this work, guys? This work? Okay, this clearly does work. Okay, welcome everyone. My name is Liam Wilson. I'm the COO of Bitfarms. Today I'll walk through our investment thesis, value proposition, and key developments, including updates on our energy portfolio and site-specific advancements, all of which give Bitfarms a competitive advantage to capitalize on the surging demand for HPC and AI infrastructure. I would like to kick off today's call by outlining our market thesis, one that we believe differentiates us from our peers in our transition to HPC and AI, and that is that infrastructure is not a bubble. Since the invention of modern compute, the supply of compute has increased exponentially. As compute grows, so too does the data center industry that powers it.
This is a trend that has a trajectory of over 20 years of exponential growth and an annualized growth rate of 8.8% behind it. This isn't a bubble. It's a reflection of a new paradigm that showed no signs of slowing down before AI. Now, as AI rewrites the rules of how humans interact with computers, the demand for data center capacity is accelerating, but the demand for compute and infrastructure has reached an impasse. The exponential increase in demand for power can no longer be met at the pace the market demands. As a result, the lease rates for data center infrastructure, which have grown at an average rate of 3% over the last 20 years, are now growing at an average rate of 12% since 2022. We expect this trend to continue. Turning to slide four, infrastructure is a bottleneck.
As manufacturers continually introduce more efficient chips and increase production every year, this trend continues to accelerate. Next year, NVIDIA alone is expected to be shipping between 10-15 GWs of GPUs. That doesn't include AMD, Intel, Qualcomm, and others who are also producing their own hardware with over 100 GWs of chips expected to be produced by 2030. While the supply of compute chips continues to increase, the growth in data center infrastructure is happening at a much slower pace. It is not silicon nor capital that will be the real bottleneck for continued growth in HPC and AI, but power and infrastructure. Over the next few years, the gap between the amount of chips that are being produced and the MWs and the racks available to plug them in and operate them will continue to widen.
We strongly believe that as this dynamic continues to play out, the value and the economics will continue to move in favor of those who own the energy and data center infrastructure. We've watched this play out in the market with the contracts that have been announced in the industry to date. As we've moved further along this curve that's shown on the slide, those rates have continued to trend upward. Most of the contracts over the past few months have been sitting near $150 per kW per month. As time goes on, this trend is expected to continue, with analysts predicting a massive shortfall of nearly 45 GWs of power for data centers by 2030. Just recently, the CEO of Microsoft confirmed this shortfall when he publicly stated that they have GPUs they cannot deploy.
We believe that over time, the companies who have allocated and will continue to allocate billions of dollars into compute will be increasingly economically incentivized to pay rising prices in order to deploy their compute faster and with greater certainty. Every day they do not deploy is a day of lost revenue. Their customers will simply move on to a competitor. Our investment thesis is clear and backed by decades of data. Our conviction is high, backed by consistent incoming demand. We don't want to cap our upside by signing leases prematurely. Instead, Bitfarms plans to optimize and achieve higher lease rates and margins through the following three strategic actions. Number one, prioritize infrastructure development first. By minimizing the time between signing a lease and generating revenue for a customer, we will minimize the discounts that would otherwise be applied to the lease rates and locked into multi-year contracts.
Number two, take advantage of the widening gap between supply of data center infrastructure and data center demand to lock in higher rates and greater margins under multi-year agreements. And three, while the industry is focused on NVIDIA GB200 and GB300s, Bitfarms plans to leapfrog NVIDIA's Blackwell architecture and lead the industry in developing infrastructure for NVIDIA's next-generation Vera Rubin GPUs across 99% of our 2026 and 2027 development portfolio. With Vera Rubin GPUs expected to begin shipping in Q4 of 2026 and the infrastructure requirements to support them largely incompatible with facilities designed for Blackwell GPUs, we believe Vera Rubin infrastructure will be in the greatest demand and shortest supply in 2027 and will command significantly greater economics. Turning to slide five, we are able to take this approach because we have a robust balance sheet to fund development and know the value of what we own.
We have the largest portfolio of power in each of the regions in which we operate, none of which are in Texas and all of which are existing or emerging data center hubs. With consistent inbound demand for our sites, we have high conviction in the value of our unique energy portfolio, the demand for our power, and our ability to develop next-generation HPC and AI infrastructure. We believe that not all MWs are created equal. Our MWs are strategically located in high-value areas that have multi-year waitlists to secure the power we have secured today. Our campuses are close to major metros, and existing data center clusters have ample access to major fiber trunk lines and undersea fiber optic cables and temperate mild climates.
While Texas is indisputably a great energy market and arguably the easiest market to grow and develop MWs in the US, there are, of course, trade-offs. The trade-off to short-term development efficiencies is long-term operating inefficiencies. It is no secret that besides power, the primary challenge with data centers is cooling, and cooling is becoming an increasingly more difficult problem to solve as energy density continues to increase with every generation of new hardware. Building and operating data centers in a hot, arid climate like Texas, as opposed to cooler northern climates like Pennsylvania, Washington, and Quebec, means more CapEx and OpEx for cooling. This isn't an opinion; it's just math and engineering.
If we built our exact same data center for Panther Creek with the same design, equipment, and materials in Texas, it would have a PUE of about 1.4-1.5, whereas in Pennsylvania, Quebec, or Washington, it would be about 1.2-1.3. That means for every MW we are converting, more of those electrons are going to compute, which is the revenue-generating activity for customers, as opposed to supporting revenue generation through cooling. Simply put, our MWs are harder to get in higher demand areas, produce more value for customers, and are worth more per MW. In Pennsylvania, we had the strategic foresight to acquire our three campuses and submit our energy applications in 2024 before the HPC and AI demand really came into play in the state earlier this year.
This has positioned us with secured power at Panther Creek and Sharon, and at the front of the queue with very well-advanced power applications at Scrubgrass. In Quebec, new power allocations are near impossible to get, with numerous data center applications denied by the province in the last year. Bitfarms has 170 MWs operating with some of the cheapest power rates for data centers in North America, and they are 100% renewable. 100% of these MWs are currently being utilized for Bitcoin mining, and in the last month, we confirmed that we will be able to convert our Bitcoin mining MWs for HPC and AI.
This means our Quebec portfolio represents a unique and strategic opportunity to increase total data center MWs in the province by 25% from about 700 MWs today, while also fulfilling two strategic national and provincial objectives: the scaling back of Bitcoin mining MWs while increasing HPC and AI infrastructure and data sovereignty. In Washington, we have 18 MWs of secured power in the largest data center cluster on the West Coast, with the cheapest power in the United States for data centers, which also happens to be 100% renewable. Because of this, the area has a 10-year waitlist for power. Everybody is looking to grow here, and it is nearly impossible to do so outside of secured MWs like ours. This means that despite the relatively smaller scale of Washington, sites in the area are in high demand by both enterprise and hyperscalers alike. Turning to slide six.
Now we'll go through our sites one by one and discuss the key developments at each of them. As we mentioned, Washington has a 10-year wait time for new power and the cheapest power in the United States for data centers. We are actively pursuing co-location for both hyperscalers and enterprise, where we can capitalize on the long wait times as previously discussed. While our focus is on developing next-generation Vera Rubin infrastructure across most of our portfolio, we believe there are some compelling reasons to keep our options open with cloud as a potential monetization strategy at Moses Lake specifically. Number one, GPU as a service would enable us to capture the benefit of the lowest cost power for data centers in the United States for ourselves and generate what we expect to be above market margins and returns for cloud.
Number two, the relatively small scale makes cloud at this site easier to execute and finance. We have more than enough liquidity to consider this site and strategy fully funded today and are in active discussions with leading GPU manufacturers on GPU sourcing and financing, which we believe could be done on very attractive terms. GPU financing could materially reduce CapEx requirements and enhance expected returns. Number three, we expect that by demonstrating our ability to execute across the entire stack, we will also be better able to understand customer needs, provide better quality service, and negotiate better leases at our other facilities.
Lastly, but most importantly, despite being less than 1% of our total development portfolio, we believe that the conversion of just our Moses Lake site to GPU as a service could produce more net operating income per year than we have ever generated with Bitcoin mining, providing the company with a strong cash flow foundation that would fund OpEx, G&A, debt service, and contribute to CapEx as we wind down our Bitcoin mining business. I will now walk through the rest of our sites in a little bit more detail starting with Panther Creek. Panther Creek is our flagship HPC AI campus in eastern Pennsylvania. As we have discussed previously, we have 350 MWs of secured power with PPL. This power is contractually obligated to be delivered with 50 MWs at the end of 2026 and 300 megs at the end of 2027.
The site has sufficient acreage for the development of the entire 350 MWs with capacity to go beyond that. Additionally, we have $200 million remaining on our project facility with Macquarie that is intended to finance phase one of the project as well as long lead expenses for phase two. There is also the potential for expansion. Recently, there have been a number of developments that have given us line of sight to expand beyond the existing 350 MWs of secured power capacity. We have received positive indication on converting our existing 60 MWs, our existing ISA of 60 MWs to a firm ESA of 60 MWs to expand power to 410 MWs total and on a recent load study to expand power capacity to over 500 MWs of gross capacity. Turning to slide eight, please.
Moving on to Sharon, where we have 110 MWs of power secured by an ESA with FirstEnergy and PJM under development. We are currently operating 30 MWs of Bitcoin mining on site but have started development on an additional 80 MW substation, bringing the total available for HPC and AI use to 110 MWs. We expect to have the full 110 MW substation online by year-end 2026. Similarly to Panther Creek, we'll be working to develop the campus for Vera Rubin GPUs, targeting site completion and revenue in the first half of 2027 for the full 110 MWs of gross capacity. Turning to slide nine. In Quebec, we have 170 MWs of low-cost hydropower currently operating across multiple Bitcoin mining sites, almost all of which is within a 90-minute drive of Montreal. This is an incredibly attractive opportunity for hyperscalers who are following what's called a regional campus strategy.
This is something that was pioneered by Amazon, where smaller sites can be directly connected with a direct fiber infrastructure in order to reduce the latency between sites below two milliseconds, enabling many small sites to be connected together to function as one larger site. As I mentioned, it's almost impossible to grow organically in the province, and in October, we confirmed the ability to convert our Bitcoin mining infrastructure to HPC and AI with regulators and utilities in the region. With that pathway clear, we are accelerating our plans in Quebec. We will focus our development efforts on the city of Sherbrooke, where we have 96 MWs robust fiber connectivity, a strong and developed local labor force, and ample support from the local energy utility and municipality.
We will be applying some of the standardized engineering and design plans completed for our Washington site to Sherbrooke in order to convert these facilities from Bitcoin mining into next-generation HPC and AI infrastructure adapted for Vera Rubin GPUs. Similarly to Washington, Quebec has a cool climate and some of the lowest cost energy in North America for data centers. With strong unmet demand for GPU cloud in Montreal, Sherbrooke also represents a potential opportunity to scale up a cloud business in 2027 with VR200s, a strategy that we will evaluate as we work through the engineering and development plans for Sherbrooke. The remaining 74 MWs of Bitcoin mining in province are earmarked for potential expansion in 2028, and we look forward to providing more detailed plans for Quebec in 2026. Turning to slide 10. Last but certainly not least, we have our Scrubgrass campus in Pennsylvania.
This is about 30 minutes away from Sharon, Pennsylvania, on the western side of the state. With the exception of the new Panther Creek phase three and phase four, which I spoke to a minute ago, this is the only power in our portfolio that is not 100% fully secured today, but this is a very, very exciting development opportunity for Bitfarms. We believe that this is the only campus outside of Texas for public miners converting to HPC and AI that has over one GW of potential capacity, and while we have made great progress on developing the power story for this gigacampus, there are still quite a few steps to be taken in order to contractually secure the power, which falls into two buckets. First, we have completed three conceptual load studies with FirstEnergy, starting with 250 MWs, then 500, then 750.
That's moving over to what's called a detailed load study with FirstEnergy, which would eventually be converted over to firm service in an ESA. Second, we have made substantial progress on evaluating the potential to add additional generating capacity on site. This could be accomplished by building a three- to four-mile pipeline from our campus to the second largest natural gas pipeline in the United States, the Tennessee Gas Pipeline, which we have confirmed could supply up to 550 MWs of natural gas, multiplying our generation capacity on site. While we're still in the early stages of evaluating how we would expand the generating capacity, we will provide more details as we progress. Combined, the two buckets could potentially provide 1.3 GWs of gross capacity.
Additionally, there is very good fiber infrastructure in the area with over eight fiber infrastructure networks nearby, and it is in close proximity to Pittsburgh and Cleveland, as well as the other data centers, which are starting to pop up throughout the state. The earliest time that we anticipate we could have additional power at this kind of scale implemented at Scrubgrass is around 2028. Though this is a longer lead time campus for us, we believe that with the forecast on power and demand for HPC and AI infrastructure, the timing for our gigacampus will play in well with this cycle and our investment thesis, as well as our continued other development plans. Turning to slide 11 and to sum it up, we believe that we are incredibly well positioned to execute against our investment thesis in 2026 and 2027 and maximize long-term shareholder value.
Number one, we have a very unique portfolio of energy assets that we aim to fully convert to HPC and AI infrastructure. Number two, we are exploring converting our Washington site to HPC and AI workloads and lead the industry in the development of next-generation data centers for NVIDIA's Vera Rubin GPUs. Number three, we are actively evaluating a potential cloud monetization strategy for our Washington site, which we believe would be a meaningful driver of cash flows and could eclipse any BTC mining cash flows we have ever generated.
Number four, we are well capitalized to make our currently planned investments with financial flexibility that exceeds $1 billion across cash, Bitcoin, and our Panther Creek project facility with Macquarie, all of which are going to fund CapEx as we continue to produce strong free cash flows from our Bitcoin mining operations that fund OpEx, G&A, debt service, and contribute to CapEx with no planned minor CapEx. And lastly, we continue to execute on our U.S. pivot with the recent sale of our Paso Pe facility, marking our full LATAM exit, our transition to U.S. GAAP for 2024-2025 results, and the establishment of our New York City office and working towards a U.S. redomiciliation in 2026. We believe this would give us significantly greater index inclusion and meaningfully improve the institutional composition of our cap table.
I now have the pleasure to hand the presentation over to our CFO, Jonathan Merne.
Can you flip forward one page? So I'll stand. So I'm all right. So just by necessity, this is essentially our Q3 presentation. I'm going to finish this really fast so we can do Q&A, which will be more interesting. But Q3, we did our convert that raised $590 million in proceeds. The pricing was really just terrific. We were the beneficiaries of great execution. We've got $200 million remaining on the project development facility at Panther Creek, and we're generating about $8 million a month from our Bitcoin operations. So the Bitcoin operations, if you think about Bitcoin as a company, it's, let's say, 200 employees pro forma for being solely North America, about 50 of which are what you could call corporate. So that $8 million a month pays for all of those people. And then it's creating the capital to fund needed investment.
The point is, right now, we've got $750 million of unencumbered liquidity and $200 million available on the Macquarie facility, and this is important because if we are good custodians of the capital, it enables us to push Washington, Sharon, and Panther Creek through to NTP. Certainly, whichever one gets done first opens up borrowing capacity to us for construction finance that lets us recycle our equity so that we have that available for whichever one is going to come online last. So we have a balance sheet right now, and we view having a strong balance sheet as a benefit to customers and shareholders. We know we can finance the development of the first three projects right off our balance sheet without external capital. Do we have the flicker? Or is he doing it for us? So you can flip forward. Flip?
I don't want to go through all this with everyone.
I think that's it.
That's it? All right, so let's have a real conversation, so I came to Bitfarms to focus on three things. It's capital allocation, capital formation, raising the money, and then capital structure, ensuring that we've got a capital structure that maximizes return on equity without creating risk around over-leverage. And again, one of the strengths of the company beyond its sites is we have a balance sheet right now that lets us continue developing through Notice to Proceed (NTP), the day you can turn shovels and all of your approvals and permits are available on the three sites. We'll raise capital before we get to NTP on all three sites, I'm certain, but that's a very comfortable place to be in as a developer. Generally speaking, we expect to be at NTP for Washington, Sharon, and Panther Creek sometime in the second half of 2026.
So that'll be an important catalyst for us economically. Once we're at NTP, then you're on the best terms possible to negotiate a lease and then finance against that lease. And those projects would produce revenue late 2027. But once you have a signed lease, it's basically an NPV into the stock for the value of that asset. And then we'll continue to develop Scrubgrass and opportunistically other sites if they are at least as good as our existing sites in the same market. So we're not going to enter new markets. We're not going to deal with modest quality sites. But we will be aggressive if we think we have the opportunity to find a good asset for a modest amount of our liquidity.
In terms of how we plan on financing the business, debt, and equity, so to start, pretty conventional for energy infrastructure finance, you'd use basically project finance down at the asset level to get the assets built and borrow maybe 60%-65% LTV. That's downstairs, each individual silo. You'd start out borrowing some modest amount of development capital. As you get pretty close to being ready to go, that's available in the bank market. That lets us recycle equity for the next project. That's great, and then once you are at NTP with a signed lease, you enter into construction capital. So you don't have to do that off your own balance sheet. Every project, let's just say, and then we can put some debt maybe upstairs at the public company bank loan or something like that and run it 70% debt to cap-ish.
We're going to figure out what the right number is as we go along. But that's fairly conventional for an infrastructure company with contracts that are 15 years long as opposed to having an enduring monopoly or 30-year contracts. So the next question is, well, where do we get the equity? If we spend $1 billion on a project, it is a mathematical certainty that we need $333 million of equity. So that's either coming off our balance sheet. It's coming from the sale of minority interest equity downstairs at a project, sell 30% of a project to an infrastructure fund, or it comes upstairs with common equity at the Holdco, use some gentle amount of ATM. That's completely unattractive to us right now, I can assure you. And we'll probably do some converts over there. I happen to think of converts as just being debt.
So there's a limit to how far I'm going to push that. But just to be clear, I want to always make sure we're transparent with investors so that they understand how much equity needs to accompany every project. And we're going to look to find ways to reduce that. The more we can lever, as long as we feel comfortable with our ability to repay it, the higher the returns to equity. Maybe we decide 70 could be 75% or a little bit higher. But fundamentally, creating risk from financial leverage is not what our investors will pay us for. Investors are going to pay us from being good owners and operators of infrastructure assets and delivering infrastructure-like returns. And then if we are able to continue developing beyond this enormous pipeline, perhaps they'll pay for some growth as well.
But we have a lot of growth to finance to start. So that's the basic financing strategy. I mentioned the equity point just so no one yells at me when we start selling equity because I've told everyone that we're going to do that. But that should be obvious to anyone who's an infrastructure investor. By the way, that's a good sign if you own an infrastructure company because it means you're growing. And the three risks that we really think of, what are the three ways to break a developer? One, run out of money during the development process right before you get to NTP. So you really got to be careful with your capital and recycling it before that time. Two, over-leverage yourself, get to a point where you can't manage through variations or just surprises on the rest of the business. That breaks a lot of developers.
And three is building on spec, building on spec being the greatest sin in the developer space. And that's just not part of our business plan. By definition, you're developing on spec, but you don't start spending real money on spec. And that's fine because once you have a lease, all the financing you need becomes available to you. So that's it. Just quick financial overview and turn it over to Q&A.
Sure. Yes, sir. Thanks so much for coming. Can you just talk about where you are in the process of commercializing your sites, talking to tenants, HPC, potential tenants, kind of whether you've gotten inbound after your pivot? You've clearly done a lot of work on kind of deciding to make this the pivot. But for each one of these sites, can you just talk through interest levels, whether you're talking to Neocloud, IB HyperScale, or?
So firstly, thanks for your question. I think the inbound that we've received, certainly over the last three months, is inbound that we did not foresee coming our way, particularly around the Sharon facility and also Moses Lake. Moses Lake is this 18 MW facility that kind of people scoffed at, and frankly, we did internally as well when we thought about it. But the reality is that that 18 MWs sits in the West Coast's version of Data Center Alley. And a lot of the hyperscalers up there seem to be quite keen on our facility in Washington as essentially excess power. And it's 18 megs, they can pick it up, why wouldn't they? So we're seeing some inbound there. The same, I could probably say for Sharon too. Sharon was 110 MWs. Initially, we were told that there was no way that any hyperscaler would look at Sharon.
Now Sharon seems to be quite attractive in the market. The facilities outside of Sharon and Washington are not at a point yet where I think we could actively market those facilities. We need to get closer to what Jonathan refers to as the NTP, notice to proceed. Once we do get closer to that NTP date, I think the turnaround would be quite quick. But I would say that at the moment, certainly Sharon, certainly Washington, Quebec is becoming more and more attractive to some of our Canadian counterparts up there that are looking for power.
PC.
I'm sorry.
PC as it gets closer.
Panther Creek as it gets closer as well. That's starting to heat up at the moment.
Just to amplify Liam's comments, so we are encouraged by the nature and number of inbounds we received. As a practical matter, one would not want to enter into a lease negotiation until you are ready to proceed with a project at NTP because the customer is going to heavily discount you over execution risk of actually being able to start turning shovels, and so then the question becomes, how deep into the phase between being ready to go and being ready to energize do you want to go? What's the optimal time to sign a lease? If capital weren't a concern, you get the highest pricing the closer you were to the date of energization. That's just because whoever's in the market at that time will pick the project that could deliver tomorrow as opposed to the one that could deliver in 18 months.
What we need to do is balance maximizing lease value, where our thesis is it will increase over time because of demand and increase by site as you get closer to a tangible completion date. That gets balanced against, one, our balance sheet because you can only build so far off your own balance sheet because the financing isn't available for a full build until one has a lease, and then two, our shareholder expectations. Shareholders are looking to see us get things moving and developed with good customers. This is what we spend and will spend a lot of our time on is constantly evaluating where are we on lease pricing versus our balance sheet and shareholder expectations and other factors. We're not going to let the perfect get in the way of the good, but we think patience will let us do well.
And if you look at, we think patience will let us do well and help us maximize the value of the lease. And this is one of the reasons we put so much value on the balance sheet is because we are not under pressure to market a lease early. And the general expectation is that Washington, Sharon, and Panther Creek should all be at NTP, notice to proceed, by the end of 2026, which means you can start marketing certainly proximate to that date. And then it's a question of how do you see, where do you see the most value.
Thank you. You mentioned kind of gearing more towards groupings. Is there going to be a big CapEx difference to build sites specifically for that versus maybe what some peers are doing and they're kind of benchmarking like $9-$11 million per MW?
9 to 11 sounds optimistic, I would say. I haven't seen 9 to 11. We're not budgeting 9 to 11. We're not far off there. But if your question is, will it cost more than 9 to 11?
You're talking about for colocation too, not for GPUs and servers.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, but only slightly.
Yeah. So we wouldn't underrate 9-11, nor would we guide investors to that. If we can, we will. We just wouldn't do it now. So what's interesting, and I think answers your question, is Nvidia. The reason Nvidia creates a new chip architecture is because the value of the increased compute is more than the incremental cost versus their prior generation chip. So in the HPC market, where a dollar of compute is compute, it's pure commodity. Whoever has the lowest marginal cost will sell all their capacity first, and then you'll have the next participant, and the next participant looks like a generation stack in an ISO. And so productivity is just the inverse of marginal cost. That is to say, with every successive generation of Nvidia chip, you can produce more revenue at a given site.
And the chip, by definition, will generate more benefit and increased revenue than the increase in cost from buying the new chip and constructing it. Because if it didn't, NVIDIA wouldn't have any customers.
And maybe last one for me. How do you think about the strategy for GPU as a service versus colocation kind of shape up for that?
Yeah. If one is focused on maintaining a strong balance sheet that gives you great line of sight to getting through development on a portfolio like ours, that's pretty valuable. I think that the bar would have to be very, very high to invest a healthy chunk of our liquidity in chips, which even if you can finance, have only so much life in them. And I think with a plan, I'd say under all circumstances, we're going to be an infrastructure company. Full stop. So the question is, we have the option to do something a little bit different in Washington, but that's 1% of our portfolio. So then we start thinking about how much liquidity that would take, financing available. And it feels like I'd say it's more likely than not that Washington becomes a standard colocation HPC data center.
There are a lot of other data centers in the region. They'd grab up the incremental MWs quickly. But we're keeping the option open. We might find economic circumstances and say, you know what, it actually makes sense to do this. But for us, this is all measured by, are we creating shareholder value? So if you are in the GPU as a service, the returns expected on that by definition, your cost of capital has got to be higher. It's a riskier business. So are you actually getting the returns commensurate with the higher risk if you enter into that position? So we're not going to do things unless they are accretive to shareholders. That is to say, the use of our equity, the returns on our equity are always going to be designed to better the cost of our equity. That's accretive value.
Any other questions? Yes, sir.
It sounds like you're in the process now of looking at your existing portfolio. Have you started to look at additional sites and how is that process going? How have you stacked up internally to be able to potentially provide a continual source of additional power for all the players?
We have, and Jonathan has underneath him, an incredibly strong corporate development team, same Corp Dev team that I believe has been at Bitfarms for the last three or four years. They have not slowed down even through the acquisition of Stronghold. They were looking probably at more sites around that period than they have in their entire career as a Bitfarms, and that hasn't slowed down. We just need to find what's exactly right for us as well. We have a very sweet spot. We love that our facilities are on the eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada. We think that that's incredibly advantageous, and these sites over here don't pop up every now and again. We could go down to Texas and go and grab two GWs of promised capacity. We could do that tomorrow.
But for us to get stuff in Pennsylvania or Ohio, PJM, where we like to see our facilities, it's a little bit more complicated, but the team's seizing opportunities daily. Yep.
Are you seeing others look at this market? Because to your point, I'm sure others are looking, but it seems like there's a lot of activity in Texas right now, so eyes seem to be somewhere else.
The first.
That point, or am I correctly assessing what might be?
I'll let Jonathan.
Yeah, I take it. So we're constantly getting inquiries around pieces of land. Here are the circumstances. We want to be aggressive, and we want to earn excellent returns for our shareholders. If someone came to us with a site that was in our desired location, Pennsylvania being simplest, and whose quality was at least as good as our existing sites, that is to say, time from ownership to getting it online was at least as good as, we would allocate some amount, five, maybe 10% of our liquidity to that site. Because why not? What we won't do is start spending more than that on sort of real speculative land or other enterprises. And what I always find so interesting about this industry is people, okay, you got the three sites, it's $10 billion of CapEx. What are you going to do next?
$10 billion, you can build an entire LNG export terminal. The largest single project in the United States in 2020, which is not the Dark Ages, was $5 billion. The amounts of capital that need to get spent in the space are just astonishing. So the casual nature of a $10 billion pipeline and, well, what are you doing for me today? I find it interesting. Look, that's market expectations, but I think people should, and I think this is a risk issue that is not talked enough about by participants in this space. You take on a $10 billion project or $20 billion project, that's the largest thing that's ever been built in the United States except for the Vogtle Nuclear Plant down in Georgia. You can build an entire chip fab for $20 billion, and there are people trying to build those.
There are going to be some painful lessons learned about how to deliver projects on time and on budget at the scale of CapEx. We intend to learn as many as we can and think really hard about risk mitigants at every stage.
That makes sense. Thank you.
No worries, guys. We actually have to run. We've got another.