Data Center Site Qualification Program. Detailed Site Prospectus

Data Center Site Qualification Program Detailed Site Prospectus Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park Site #10 Tulsa, OK

Table of Contents About This Report... 4 Executive Summary... 5 Chapter 1 - Overview... 10 Data Center Options & Layouts... 10 Variables... 10 Enterprise User Model... 11 Co-Location Model... 12 Other Considerations... 14 Data Center Modeling Summary.... 18 Infrastructure Services... 19 Electrical... 19 Fiber and Telecommunications Infrastructure... 24 Gas... 27 Water... 28 Sewer... 28 Business Continuity Review... 30 Natural Disaster Risk... 30 Man-Made Disaster Risk... 33 Fire and Rescue Services... 35 Police and Crime Index... 35 Public Transportation... 36 2

Specific Mission Critical Support... 37 Demographic Benchmark Results... 39 Chapter 2 Site Details... 41 Site Location... 42 Current Utilization... 44 Surrounding Uses... 45 Field Survey... 47 Climate and Weather... 50 Chapter 3 Data Center Model Calculations... 52 Chapter 4 Fiber Carrier Details... 59 Chapter 5 Business Continuity Analysis... 63 Natural Disaster Risk Details... 64 Man-Made Disaster Risk Details... 69 Public Transportation... 74 Chapter 6 Demographic Details... 77 Background... 78 Demographic Details... 79 3

About This Report This feasibility report was prepared in conjunction with American Electric Power s (AEP s) Data Center Site Qualification Program. The program s objective is the proactive identification and analysis of sites that offer the unique combination of factors desired by today s mission critical and data center operations. These factors include highly reliable and redundant power and fiber infrastructures, competitive cost structures, and a location insulated from manmade and natural risks. Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Co., a location economics and site selection firm, has served as lead consultant for the program, together with its affiliated energy services company, Sugarloaf Associates. Engineering and site evaluation services were provided by Intelligent Building Solutions, LLC (IBS), a facilities consulting firm focusing on mission critical projects. This report was written by IBS using a culmination of their independent analysis of the Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park Site #10 (CEIP Site) in Tulsa, OK and its suitability for a mission critical facility. The review process included an initial site survey and an in-depth review of supporting documents to ascertain the feasibility to support a test model mission critical facility with 100,000 square feet of raised floor (computer room) designed to current industry specifications for power usage and redundancy. 4

Executive Summary This report examined the potential for mission critical development at the Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park Site #10 (CEIP Site) in Tulsa, OK. The site is part a 360- acre industrial / technology park located approximately 8 miles northeast of downtown Tulsa. The site is directly just off of State Route 75 and east of 66 th St. North. The analysis concludes the site is favorable for data center development and it offers strong utility infrastructure. The Tulsa area has witnessed substantial Mission Critical growth within the last few years. The rapid growth in this sector is partly due to regions extremely favorable power costs and strong economic incentives. Logistically, the Tulsa area offers a temperate climate but there are some concerns regarding the site s location when analyzing natural disaster occurrences. The site s location is appropriate for a stand-alone enterprise user or a colocation facility, and the site will physically accommodate either. For purposes of this analysis, the site was designed with 100,000 square feet of raised floor, also known as white space. Graphic 1.1 and 1.2 are maps showing Tulsa in relation to the state of Oklahoma. 5

CEIPS Dallas, TX 243 Miles Graphic 1.3 Map showing CEIPS relationship to major data center market hubs Graphic 1.4 Map showing lot layout for CEIP Site 6

SITE ATTRIBUTES Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park Site #10 A. General Information Location Type of Site Size Tulsa, OK Technology Park 58.65 Acres B. Electric Infrastructure Existing Service Voltage Mission Critical Facility Service Voltage Proposed In-Service Date Design Load Capacity Notes C. Fiber Infrastructure Providers in Vicinity High Bandwidth (Distance from Site) None present 138 kv 12-18 months from signed customer letter of intent Service in excess of 20MW AT&T, Verizon, Cox Communications, Level 3 Within close proximity D. Other Utilities Natural Gas Service 41/2 existing Natural Gas Provider Oklahoma Natural Gas Water 12 and 24 Available Water Capacity In excess of 300,000 GPD Water Provider City of Tulsa Sewer 12 Sewer Provider City of Tulsa Available Sewer Capacity In excess of 300,000 GPD E. Natural Disaster Risk Seismic Rating Low (See Chapter 5) Tornado Rating High (See Chapter 5) Other (Flooding) Portions of site in 100-year flood zone (11.57% in zone AE, 7.26% in zone X) F. Man-Made Disaster Risk Low to Moderately Low susceptibility to man-made disasters Nearby Airports Moderate concern Traffic Accident on Local Highways Concern in regards to site access Rail Line Accident Low concern of occurrence and impact Neighboring Company s Activities Low concern Military Bases in Close Proximity Moderate concern Presence of Gun Ranges Low concern 7

LOCATION EVALUATION Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park Site #10 A. Location a. Proximity to Major Highways Favorable b. Proximity to Public Transportation Mixed to Unfavorable c. Distance to Metropolitan Cities (<40 Miles) Mixed to Unfavorable d. Proximity to Major Financial Market Hubs (< 75 fiber km) Unfavorable e. Proximity to NYC 1,391 miles f. Proximity to Dallas 256 miles B. Available Utility Resources a. High Voltage Electrical Services Favorable b. Water Favorable c. Natural Gas Favorable d. Fiber Connectivity Favorable C. Site Logistics/Security a. Proximity to Adjoining Buildings/Property Mixed b. Ability to Fence/Secure Property Favorable c. Susceptibility to Natural Disasters Mixed d. Susceptibility to Man-Made Disasters Favorable to Mixed e. Distance from Building Structure to Street Favorable f. Distance from Building Structure to Railroads Favorable to Mixed g. Access to Public Transportation Mixed h. Access to Service Vendors (1 hour response time) Mixed i. Access to Fuel Favorable j. Weather Favorable k. Air Quality Favorable to Mixed D. Property a. Available Yard Space for Mission Critical Facility Equip. Very Favorable b. Paved Surfaces/Parking Very Favorable c. Provisions for Future Expansion Mixed E. Area Demographics a. Population Density Favorable b. Workforce and Talent Pool Mixed c. Housing Mixed d. Employment and Income Statistics Mixed to Unfavorable e. Local Government and Services Mixed f. School District and Higher Education Mixed to Unfavorable Very Favorable Favorable Mixed Unfavorable 8

Chapter 1 - Overview Data Center Options & Layouts For illustrative and analytical purposes, a feasibility test was conducted to assess and model the site s capacity to accommodate a prototypical data center with these attributes: Total building size - approximately 188,122 gross square feet (GSF) Building dimensions - 900 by 207.5 Tilt-up construction with pre-cast concrete walls Slab to beam clear height - 36 Column spacing - 52 on center longitudinally by 50 laterally Two analyses were performed to maximize the building s white space yield: 1. Enterprise model - In an enterprise model, the objective is to achieve the most amount of power with the highest redundancy. 2. Co-location model - In a co-location model, the objective is to get the most amount of white space at moderate densities. Redundancy is a secondary function. The layouts illustrated are diagrammatic and are used for graphical representation to show the inherent differences between the enterprise and colocation scenarios. They are not intended to be precise representations. For example, the layouts do not take into account egress and minor inefficient space. However, they do demonstrate a fairly accurate estimate for potential yields and, experience has shown, are accurate to within five percent. Variables A number of variables have been factored into the feasibility analysis. Explanations of the key variables follow, while the assumptions used by the models are documented later in this section and Chapter 3. Density - the amount of power (expressed in watts) used per square foot. Density is calculated by configuring a cabinet layout/count and multiplying it by the cabinet load then dividing by the amount of white space. Cabinet Load - the amount of power used by the equipment (servers, storage arrays, or communication equipment) contained in a given cabinet. Cabinet load is typically calculated using a weighted average. Today s cabinet average loads run between 2.5 to 7 watts per cabinet. 10

Critical Load (also called IT Load) - The amount of power needed to operate the computing equipment. The total critical load is used to calculate the mechanical requirements, or essential load. Redundancy - System redundancy is expressed in Tier levels: Tier I - No redundancy on the critical (IT) load or the essential load. The uninterruptible power supply (UPS) is sized for the IT load (N load). There is no redundancy in the mechanical plant. The emergency power system (EPS) -- i.e., the generator -- is sized for the IT and mechanical loads. This system is 99.671% reliable, with 28.84 hours (1,730.41 minutes) of expected downtime per year. Tier II - N+1 redundancy on the critical load, N+1 redundancy on the essential load. Single generator EPS plant for full critical and essential load. 99.741% reliable, with 22.70 hours (1362.20 minutes) expected downtime per year. Tier III - 2N redundancy on the critical load, N+1 redundancy on the essential load. 2N redundancy on the EPS plant. The plant is sized for full critical and essential loads. 99.982% reliable, with 1.57 hours (94.68 minutes) expected downtime per year. Tier IV - 2N+1 redundancy on the critical load, 2N redundancy on the essential load. 2N+1 redundancy on the EPS plant. The plant is sized for full critical and essential loads. 99.995% reliable, with 26.30 minutes expected downtime per year. There are several variations that can be applied to these tiers. Financial services facilities are most often modeled with Tier III redundancies. Co-location models are usually based somewhere between Tier I plus and Tier II plus. Enterprise User Model As mentioned, the first model used by this analysis was based on a design for a typical enterprise end user. 2N resiliency was assumed throughout the design for critical and essential loads. Models were based on 100W, 120W and 150W per square foot of white space. These variables were then used to calculate the parameters for a sweet spot design. There are two options for the placement of equipment: 1. Contain the majority of the mission critical equipment within the facility. 2. Place the large mission critical equipment, such as generators and the mechanical plant, outside of the building envelope. In both versions, the best design parameters were at 125W per square foot with 2N resiliency. The indoor option yielded approximately 75,000 square feet of white space 11

and the outdoor option yielded approximately 100,000 square feet. The total calculated electrical load was 16,615 kw for the indoor option and 23,171 kw for the outdoor option. (Calculations did not take into account inefficient space and support space such as offices. However, calculations for equipment spacing and rack layouts are rather conservative. Estimates are believed to be within +/- 5%.) Co-Location Model The co-location model assumes multiple data halls at approximately 9,900 square feet of white space. The model is based on N+1 redundancy on critical loads and N+1 redundancy on essential loads. Major mission critical equipment is placed outside of the building envelope. Results of the analysis indicate ten data halls plus additional space for back-of-house program and administrative offices can be arranged to fit inside the current spec build program. This data hall model will result in approximately 18,000 kw of total electrical load. Mission Critical Equipment 109,340 GSF 75,000 GSF White Space Graphic 1.5 Enterprise Solution 1 75,000 GSF white space - 109,340 GSF mission critical equipment 12

Mission Critical Equipment Outdoor Space 64,658 GSF Mission Critical Equipment 86,240 GSF 100,000 GSF White Space Graphic 1.6 Enterprise Solution 2 100,000 GSF white space - 86,240 GSF mission critical equipment 64,658 GSF reserved for outdoor equipment space Mission Critical Equipment Yard 10ea Co-location Data Halls Approx. 9,900 GSF White Space Each. 99,000 GSF White Space Total. Graphic 1.7 Co-location model with 10ea data halls approx. 9,900 GSF white space each. 99,000 GSF white space total. Program includes provisions for mission critical equipment inside and mission critical equipment yard outside. Item Enterprise Indoor Option Enterprise Outdoor Option Co-Location Model Total White Space (SF) 75,000 100,000 99,000 Total IT Load (kw) 10,395 14,850 10,968 Total N Mechanical 3,740 5,005 3,920 Plant (Tons Cooling) Total Electrical Load 16,615 23,171 17,487 (kw) Redundancy Criteria 2N 2N 2N Table 1.3 Data center design options 13

Other Considerations Several scenarios and types of mission critical facilities were analyzed in an attempt to maximize the site s fullest potential and greatest raised floor (white space) yield. Note, however, that the three biggest upfront hurdles/costs associated with data center development are: 1. The electrical service delivery, 2. The Fat Pipe fiber delivery, and 3. Planning permission for the required specialty equipment. These items must be taken into consideration and incorporated into the site s pro forma. Free Cooling Although not considered in the modeling, the weather, climate and air quality in the Tulsa area are conducive to the possibility of using free cooling for a Mission Critical facility. Temperatures and climate are rather mild. Tulsa s Air Quality Index (as given by the U.S. EPA) is 42 (Good), slightly worse than the national average of 40. (Lower numbers indicate less pollution.) Chapter 2 includes additional details. Co-Generation It is estimated that a mission critical facility designed at 100W per square foot would require an electrical service in excess of 20 mw. Co-generation is an entirely plausible alternative for power and cooling at this location. A Combined Heat and Power cogeneration system (CHP) could be an alternative technology to augment the power requirements for the development. In a CHP system, electricity is generated by a primary fuel source such as oil, natural gas, methane, refuse, pellets, etc. The byproduct of this process is heat. The exhaust heat is captured through a series of heat exchangers which can be used to produce steam, hot water, or the hot gas which can be used directly for cooling. A combination of all three can also be incorporated where portions of the waste heat are directed to manufacture multiple byproducts for different applications. The characteristics of this site would allow for co-generation. 14

Graphic 1.8 Aerial view of data center on site Graphic 1.9 Rendering of data center at CEIPS 15

Graphic 1.10 Cut away rendering of data center Graphic 1.11 Cut away view of data center 16

Graphic 1.12 Birds eye view of data center Graphic 1.13 Cut sections of data center 17

Data Center Modeling Summary Ultimately, the initial modeling estimates for the CEIPS location project a potential 75,000 SF to 100,000 SF white space build-out. The major upfront cost and shell provisions that must be incorporated into either an enterprise or co-location model are: A. Electrical Service i. Initial utility cost and time of delivery ii. Cost of the 138 kv or 69kV switchgear and substations iii. Operational cost 1. Maintenance 2. Utility usage rates B. Fiber Provisions i. Cost of the future point of presence (POP) room ii. Empty raceways and points of entry (POE) iii. Service providers C. Master Plan Provisions i. Future provisions for multiple data center development ii. Empty raceways iii. Support space iv. Additional building hardening required for mission critical development See Chapter 3 for design calculations. 18

Infrastructure Services Electrical There is an existing 13.2kV, three-phase aerial service that is distributed along North Yale Ave., which runs along the eastern side of the property. In addition, there is 138kV service that traverses along North Yale Ave. This is AEP s Tulsa North American Airlines 138kV circuit route. There are three substations just north of the CEIP Site. One of the substations serves the requirements of the Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park. The other substations are for individual private operators. One substation is a single contingency / transformer substation which specifically serves the Whirlpool facility. The other substation is a second contingency dual transformer substation specifically for the HP / EDS datacenter facility. It appears the two substations, the CEIP substation and the HP / EDS substation, are served by two 138kV circuits. These circuits originate from the Tusla North substation and the Cartoosa substation. The Whirlpool substation is fed by an in and out radial feed from the Tulsa North / American Airlines circuit. AEP, the local electric utility, can deliver a single contingency or dual circuit 138kV service to the CEIP Site. The proposed, dual circuit, 138kV service will be taped from the existing circuits feeding the three existing substations, One circuit will originate from the Tulsa North substation off of the Tulsa North - American Airlines circuit. The other would originate at Cartoosa via the Cartoosa Tulsa North circuit Photo 1.1 and 1.2 View of AEP s 138kV transmission network along North Yale Ave. 19

Graphic 1.14 Map of AEP s transmission network Graphic 1.15 Close up of AEP s transmission network 20

Graphic 1.16 Map showing substation locations Graphic 1.17 Showing AEP CEIP Substation and HP / EDS Substation 21

Graphic 1.18 Showing AEP American Airlines Substation Graphic 1.19 Showing AEP Tulsa North Substation 22

Graphic 1.20 Showing AEP Cartoosa Substation Graphic 1.21 Diagram of proposed AEP primary utility service 23

Fiber and Telecommunications Infrastructure There are several long haul fiber carriers within close proximity to the Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park. These carriers would be able to provide adequate bandwidth to satisfy the communications requirements of a data center or other mission critical facility. The area s robust fiber infrastructure is evidenced by the presence of several mission critical facilities within the area. One of the facilities is the HP EDS Cherokee Facility. Another is a Capital One Call Center. Verizon has a central office nearby. There is also a fiber Point-of- Presence (POP) / Regeneration facility within the Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park. During the site survey, several fiber provider manholes were identified. AT&T, Level 3, Verizon Business, and Cox Communications were identified with fiber infrastructure within the CEIP and general vicinity. See Chapter 4 for additional information. Fiber POP/Regeneration site HP/EDS Data Center CEIP Site Verizon Central Office/Capital One Call Center Graphic 1.22 Map showing POP and Regeneration sites 24

Graphic 1.23 Fiber map of area Graphic 1.24 Fiber map of area 25

Type III POP with Generator backup Fiber Type I POP w / passive equipment Graphic 1.25 Fiber POP locations Photo 1.3 Fiber POP location 26

Photo 1.4 Level 3 underground fiber mark out Photo 1.5 AT&T fiber manhole Photo 1.6 AT&T underground fiber mark out Photo 1.7 Communications manhole Photo 1.8 Cox fiber manhole Photo 1.9 AT&T fiber manhole 27

Natural Gas Oklahoma Natural Gas is the service provider for natural gas service in the general area. Coincidentally, there is a Oklahoma Natural Gas service center directly adjacent to the site. The ONG service center is also a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) vehicle refueling station. There are two 41/2 medium pressure lines that could possibly feed the CEIP site. Both lines are fed from an 8 medium pressure gas main that is located in close proximity to the site. Water Water service is provided by the City of Tulsa. There are two reservoirs serving the greater Tulsa area, Yahola Lake Reservoir and Lynn Lane Reservoir. The main source of water serving the CEIP and the surrounding area is the Yahola Lake Reservoir. Yahola Lake has a capacity of 2 billion gallons. In addition, water is pumped from Spavinaw and Eucha Lakes, which are approximately 50 miles to the west. The Spavinaw Lake and Eucha Lakes were formed by the damming of the Spavinaw Creek. Combined, the two lakes have an area of over 8.45 square miles and have an average depth of 75. The City of Tulsa has two main water treatment facilities, the Mohawk Water treatment Facility and the AB Jewl Water Treatment Facility. The entire system is able to treat 220 million gallons of water per day. The Mohawak Water Treatment plant has a 100 million GPD capacity and the AB Jewel Water Treatment Plant has a 120 million GPD capacity. Primarily, the Mohawk Water Treatment Plant serves the CEIP. The plant is less than 3 miles directly to the south of the CEIP. According to the City of Tulsa s water maps there is a 24 water main that runs down 66th St. North. This line was installed in 1975 specifically to meet the requirements of the CEIP. There is also a 12 water main that is tied into the 24 main that runs down North Yale Ave. Exact current usage and capacities of the water system serving the CEIP was not available at the time of this report s writing. However, it was indicated by the utility, the City of Tulsa, that a service in excess of 300,000 gallons per day can be delivered to the site Sewer There are 4 wastewater treatment plants within the Tulsa wastewater treatment system. Northside, Southside, Haikey Creek, and Lower Bird Creek facilities are all part of this system. Combined, the system can treat 103 million gallons of wastewater per day. The Lower Bird Creek facility is located 3 miles directly to the west. This facility was constructed in 1996 and can treat 2 million gallons of wastewater per day. There is a 12 sewer main that traverses from 66th St. North down North Yale Ave. Exact current usage and capacities of the wastewater system serving the CEIP was not 28

available at the time of this report s writing. However, it was indicated by the utility, the City of Tulsa, that the existing system can accommodate discharges in excess of 300,000 gallons per day. 29

Business Continuity Review Natural Disaster Risk The site has moderate exposure to natural disasters that could affect the continuous operation of a mission critical facility. Tornado activity and flooding are the two main risks from natural disasters. Drought and wildfires could also present a risk at this site. Data center operators must consider the potential for natural disasters to impact aerial distribution infrastructure and modes of transportation, as well as the site itself. Seismic Tulsa has a 0.39 index rating for earthquakes. This information is from algorithms calculated by the USGS. The U.S. average, in comparison, is 1.8, and the state of Oklahoma has a rating of 0.31. The site s rating is extremely low and favorable to the placement of a mission critical facility. Recent seismic activity was recorded on April 27, 2007 which occurred 68 miles from the city center, with a magnitude of 3.2 on the Richter Scale. There was no recorded seismic activity within a 50-miles radius of the site in the past 50 years. See Chapter 5 for additional information. Tornados Tulsa has a tornado index rating of 429.88, compared with a U.S. average of 136.45 and 363.83 for the state of Oklahoma. These ratings are from algorithms calculated by the USGS. Compared to the rest of the country, this site has a very high risk of tornado activity. Within the statistical data set of a 50-year period within a 50-mile radius of the site, there have been a total of 143 tornado events, all with a magnitude rating of 2 or above on the Fujita scale. Recent tornado activity was recorded on May 13, 2010 which occurred 2 miles away in Tulsa County. The event was 16 miles wide and caused an estimated $500,000 worth of damage. 30

See Chapter 5 for additional information. Flooding According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), portions of the site area, specifically the site s southerly end are in the 1% flood zone AE (100-year flood) and portions of the site are in the 0.2% flood zone X. Of the 58.76 acres of the site, 6.8 acres are in flood zone AE and 4.27 acres are in flood zone X. Approximately 20% of the site is either within the flood zone or impacted by a water feature. Graphic 1.26 FEMA s FIRM map showing approximately 18.8% of the CEIPS in 1% and 0.2% annual flood zone (100-year & 500-year flood event) 31

CEIP Site Water Feature Flood Zone X Approx. 4.27 Acres Flood Zone AE Approx. 6.8 Acres Graphic 1.27 FEMA s FIRM map showing the sections of CEIPS in 1% annual flood zone (100-year flood event) and the.02% annual flood zone (500 year flood event) In addition, several of the main thoroughfares that lead to the site are in the 100 year flood zone. It has been documented the main artery to the CEIP, Rt. 75, has been closed due to flooding. Extreme Weather Events Events such as hurricanes, wildfires, drought and floods pose the greatest risk to the continual operation of a data center operation and, therefore, are of the greatest concern. Based on the evaluation of the site in regards to these risks, the site is susceptible to some extreme weather events. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed listing of the history of extreme weather events in Tulsa. 32

Man-Made Disaster Risk The CEIP Site s susceptibility to man-made disasters is relatively low. The only areas of concern discovered during this review are discussed in the following sections. See Chapter 5 for additional information. Superfund Sites Superfund Sites is the United States Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA s) environmental program for addressing abandoned hazardous waste sites. A search on the EPA s database for superfund sites within the state of Oklahoma resulted in 8 sites within Tulsa County. Both Superfund Sites detailed below pose either no risk or very low risk to CEIPS. S&K Industries, which is the closest site to CEIPS, was an abandoned electroplating facility that specialized in nickel and chrome plating. The owner/operator died leaving chemical wastes remaining in the plating vats and drums within the building. The heirs did not have the money necessary to conduct a cleanup of the property. The site was located near an elementary school and had a history of break-ins, so the DEQ requested federal Superfund Removal assistance at the site. Investigation showed that the south wall of the sandstone structure was permeated with hexavalent chromium. DEQ, EPA, and the City of Tulsa began exploring the best way to clean up the property. However, the situation became an emergency when a stolen pickup truck crashed into the front of the building, undermining the structure. An emergency response was conducted to remove the chemicals, demolish and properly dispose of the building, and test the soil under the foundation for contamination. The property was cleaned up and seeded with grass. The Tire Disposal and Recycling Inc. Site is a current tire waste disposal facility. The site is monitored but it must abide by the Oklahoma Waste Tire Recycling Act. See Chapter 5 for additional information. 33

Neighboring Activities A search on the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Facility Registration System (FRS) database listed several facilities in the immediate area that currently -- or have previously -- housed, stored, or manufactured substances that may be hazardous to health or affect the environment. These facilities could pose a low to moderate risk to a data center at the site. From the information stored within the EPA s FRS database, no major facilities were found that could potentially have an immediate man-made risk to a mission critical facility at the CEIP Site. See Chapter 5 for additional information. Other Man-Made Risks Additional man-made risks that could potentially impact the continuous operation of a data center are: A) Tulsa International Airport The airport is located less than 3 miles away. B) Major traffic accident or an incident that could close Rt. 75 -- A large accident or the closure of Rt. 75 could have a potential impact of the operation of a facility at the CEIP Site. The effects of such an event could range from not being able to access the site because of extended road closures, to potential critical infrastructure damage. C) A rail accident Although the risk of a rail accident affecting a mission critical facility at the CEIP Site is very remote, it should be mentioned that the rail line exists directly 3 miles to the east. In addition, there is a rail spur that enters directly into the CEIP. D) Military Bases The 138 th Fighter Wing of the Oklahoma Air National Guard is stationed at the Tulsa International Airport. They occupy approximately 81 acres on the northeastern end of the airport. In addition to the 138 th Fighter Wing, there is an Army Aviation Support Facility on premises. The army facility is home to approximately 20 helicopters. Although the close proximity of this military facility base is of relatively low risk to the CEIP, there have been recently recorded incidents. On March 14, 2008 a 138th Fighter Wing-assigned fighter aircraft en route to the Smokey Hill Gunnery Range in Salina, Kansas accidentally dropped a 22-pound, non-explosive practice bomb on an apartment complex in Tulsa. E) Nearby gun ranges Although the risk is subjective, the US Shooting Academy is located within the CEIP and the Tulsa Gun Club is located within close proximity to the CEIP. Ultimately, these facilities pose a low risk to mission critical facility operation at the CEIP. F) Neighboring company activities. As with all mission critical facilities, an 34

industrial accident or fire at a neighboring facility can pose additional risks. Of greatest concern is the Hesselbien Tire facility. The facility is a warehouse for auto parts and primarily tires. A large fire in this facility could pose a risk to the operation of a mission critical facility. See Chapter 5 for additional information. Fire and Rescue Services Tulsa Fire Department provides fire prevention, suppression and emergency medical services to the residents of Tulsa, OK. There are 14 stations with a total of 724 employees. This includes a civilian staff of 26 people and 694 uniformed employees. The Turley, OK fire department is approximately 3 miles away which does serve this location. The next closest fire department or rescue squad is Tulsa Fire Station 10, approximately 5 miles away. Graphic 1.28 Map of fire and rescue resources Police and Crime Index There are 808 full-time law enforcement employees which include 105 civilians in Tulsa. This is broken down into three bureaus: the Operations Bureau, the Investigations Bureau and the Administrative Bureau. Based on a set of complex algorithms calculated by the FBI, Tulsa, OK s Crime Index Rating is 3,982.50. This is compared to the state of Oklahoma s Crime Index Rating of 2,021.78. While the state has a higher rating than the nation (1,809.24), the city of Tulsa 35

has a rating that is well above both. Historically, the city of Tulsa s Crime Index Rating has been substantially higher than the national and state averages. It should be noted the Tulsa Police Department has facilities located within the Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park. The Tulsa Police Academy is located within the Tulsa Police Department Facility. The US Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has operations at this facility. Public Transportation In general, public transportation to the site is somewhat limited. This may have a bearing on business continuity due to access for employees and the service vendors needed to maintain a mission critical facility. The nearest airport is in Tulsa, OK and is approximately a 15-minute drive. Tulsa International Airport has service to the major cities, including Houston, Chicago, Memphis, Detroit, Atlanta, Washington D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas and Newark. Rail service is very limited in that the nearest station with service to Fort Worth, TX is at least 90 miles away in Oklahoma City, OK. As far as public transportation within and around the immediate area is concerned, Tulsa Transit has bus service present. It offers bus service throughout the city of Tulsa. The purple line or Route 105 bus offers service closest to the CEIPS. This route provides access to downtown Tulsa and has access to other routes which connect to almost anywhere in the area. There is also service to Tulsa International Airport with a connection. Greyhound runs regular bus service from the airport to Dallas, TX. The routes take over 7 hours. See Chapter 5 for additional information. 36

Specific Mission Critical Support Normally, mission critical facilities require a 4-hour response time for support services. Since there is a small concentration of mission critical facilities in Tulsa, OK, the vendors that provide support services are within a 4-hour radius. Spare parts and equipment stock are readily available, which is a key component when locating a mission critical facility. The following list of companies and services is intended only to illustrate their proximity to the proposed site and should not be interpreted as an endorsement. Fuel Oil Delivery Companies Clark Gas and Oil Dewey Ave, Sapulpa, OK Mechanical Contractors Palmer Mechanical Charles Page Blvd, Tulsa, OK McIntosh Services, Inc. East 48th St, Tulsa, OK Soder Mechanical Inc. East 54th St, Tulsa, OK Electrical Contractors Besco Inc. West 46th St, Tulsa, OK Wiley Davis Electrical, Inc. East 76th Ave, Tulsa, OK Electrical Works, LLC. Mingo Rd, Tulsa, OK Generator Providers Warren CAT (Caterpillar) Tacoma Ave, Tulsa, OK Cummins Southern Plains, LLC Skelly Dr, Tulsa, OK 37

United Engines, LLC. (MTU Detroit Diesel) East 41st St, Tulsa, OK HVAC Providers Trane Sales Office North Willow Ave, Broken Arrow, OK Hambrick-Ferguson, Inc. (Baltimore Air Coil) East 46th St, Tulsa, OK Harp Services (York) West 62nd St, Tulsa, OK Critical Equipment Emerson (Liebert) Accu Tech Corp (Distributor) East 60th Pl, Tulsa, OK Alexander Open Systems (Solutions Provider) East 61st St, Tulsa, OK Eaton Corp Hudson Ave, Oklahoma City, OK Stulz Nolte, Inc. (Sales Rep) Yellowwood Ave, Broken Arrow, OK Schneider Electric (APC) Coleman Technologies (Elite Partner) East 63rd Pl, Tulsa, OK 38

Demographic Benchmark Results As part of the site analysis, the host community s demographics were benchmarked against the demographics of other U.S. locations that host a concentration of data centers and other mission critical facilities. Generally speaking, data centers tend to locate in areas with a high concentration of working couples without children, a strong economy and a vast talent pool. In almost all categories, the area surrounding CEIPS was found to have similar, or more advantageous, indicators. The following table highlights some of the characteristics considered. Note: Deviations from the benchmark are not necessarily an indication that the area is unable to support a data center, nor is alignment with the benchmark a guarantee of success. Rather, the benchmarking exercise is intended to serve as a guide in understanding how CEIPS differs from other data center locations. These differences may or may not be relevant depending on the labor needs of the potential user. Prospective data center operators are encouraged to speak with local utility and economic development officials to gain greater insight into the local labor force dynamics, including commute tolerances, detailed occupational profiles, and current hiring conditions. See Chapter 6 for additional information regarding the Tulsa area demographics. 39

Select Demographic Benchmarks Characteristic Benchmark Average Tulsa Average population 70,321 391,906 Average density (people per square mile) 3,933.35 1,949.89 Population growth rate 5.10% -0.29% Percentage female/male 48.94%/51.06% 51.28%/48.72% Average median income $46,915 $25,021 Male $58,744 $30,062 Female $39,507 $21,055 Median age 36 34.70 Racial diversity (non-white population) 42.73% 37.41% Place of birth In-state 47.46% 56.20% Out-of-state 28.83% 33.27% Foreign country 24.21% 9.74% Primary language spoken at home English 64.23% 87.66% Other (includes Spanish, Indo- 35.77% 12.34% European, Asian and Pacific Islander languages and Other) Average household size 2.63 2.34 Marital status Currently married (over age 15) 55% 45.42% Never married (over age 15) 31% 33.21% Housing Owner occupied 62.34% 88.57% Current mortgage 81.65% 62.88% Median value, owner occupied $412,375 $125,300 Rental as percentage of total units 33.69% 41.15% Average rental price $1,000-$1,499 $500-$699 Population below poverty level 7.25% 20.09% Student to teacher ratio 16:1 15:1 Table 1.4 Demographics comparison Population growth in Tulsa is a negative value which indicates either a decrease in the birth rate or that more people are leaving than moving into Tulsa. Diversity in the area is less than the benchmark. There are a number of other areas in which Tulsa s statistics vary from those of the benchmark. While not all of these can be assumed to have a direct impact on the suitability of the location for a data center, it can be asserted that Tulsa s demographics are substantially different than those of other well-known data center locations. 40

Chapter 2 Site Details Site Location Current Utilization Surrounding Uses Field Survey Climate and Weather 41

Site Location The Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park is located in the northern section of Tulsa, OK. It is approximately 7 miles from the center of downtown Tulsa. The other nearest major neighboring cities are Dallas, TX, which is 243 miles away, and Kansas City, MO, which is approximately 270 miles away. Tulsa and the CEIP are approximately the midpoint between Dallas and Kansas City. Both Dallas and Kansas City are major hubs for mission critical facilities. Logistically, the CEIP is in the direct path of the central fiber corridor which connects Houston, TX to Chicago, IL and major points in between. The CEIP is approximately 1,346 miles away from NYC and the major financial hubs. City Distance (Miles) Dallas, TX 243 Atlanta, GA 675 Kansas City, MO 270 St. Louis, MO 355 Houston, TX 446 Wichita, KA 125 Denver, CO 550 Little Rock, AR 230 Chicago, IL 590 Table 1.5 Distances to Major Cities from the CEIPS Graphic 1.29 and 1.30 Maps showing CEIPS location 42

CEIPS Graphic 1.31 Map showing location of CEIPS CEIPS Graphic 1.32 Aerial map view of CEIPS 43

Photo 1.10 View of Rt.75 Current Utilization Of the 360 acres within the industrial park, most of the sites are developed. Site #10 is one of the few large parcels of land that remain available for development. Graphic 1.33 Showing current usage 44

The neighboring facilities are the Crow Hill Cemetery to the north and Arvest Bank, Laufen (a Swiss bathroom fixture manufacturer) and Hesselbien Tire (a local auto repair and tire service chain) directly to the east of the property. Other companies in the Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park are listed below. Company Description Oklahoma Natural Gas Payment service center and compressed liquid natural gas service station Whirlpool Manufacturer of home appliances Da/Pro Rubber Inc. Manufacturer of custom molded rubber products Ryerson Inc. Manufacturer of metal products, valves and pipe fittings, metal finishing, and specialty metal products, and specialty metal fabrication. Nordam Bama Foods Inc. Hyspan Honeywell Hewlett Packard Verizon Capital One Manufacturer of aerospace and aviation composite structures Bakery and baking products Designers and manufacturers of flexible metal tubing products Fortune 100 company that manufactures products across diverse industry sectors A multi-national information technology corporation A broadband and telecommunications company U.S.-based bank holding company specializing in credit cards, home loans, auto loans, banking and savings products US Shooting Academy A shooting range that also provides training, gun smithing service, and gun sales Table 1.6 CEIPS current companies There is an impressive assortment of Fortune 500 and Fortune 100 companies within the CEIP. Most notable is the HP EDS facility. This facility is a state of the art datacenter that underwent a major expansion in 2009. The facility is approximately 440,000 gross square feet and has 35mW of emergency power generation. The facility uses a unique water cooling system to maintain set point temperature within the facility. This is promising for mission critical development at the CEIP site because it can be inferred that most of the infrastructure required for such development is already in place. There is also a call center for Capital One located within the CEIP. The Capital One call center is connected to Verizon s central office facility located next door. The function of the Verizon facility is unknown; however, the number of generators observed at the two facilities would indicate the presence of mission critical operations. Again, this is promising for mission critical development at the CEIP site. 45

Surrounding Uses The Cherokee Expressway Industrial Park Site #10 is bordered by several diverse elements. Some of these elements are conducive to mission critical development and some are not. The property is semi-irregular shaped, resembling two rectangles joined together. The property consists of 5 individual parcels of land sprawled across approximately 58.65 acres. Subsequent to the production of Graphic 1.31, North Yale Ave., which lies on the site s eastern border, was extended north to 66 th St. North. It is possible some acreage was lost due to this expansion. Graphic 1.34 Current site acreages Directly adjoining the park on the eastern border are two residential parcels. The northeastern parcel has two residential homes on the land. The south-eastern parcel has several homes on it. One of the homes on this parcel is set back and physically butts up against the park. To the south and extending around to the site s western border is a large wetlands and wooded, undeveloped area. The Bird Creek runs through this area. To the northwest is an abandoned race track, the former Tulsa Speedway. Research has indicated the last race was held at this facility in late 2005. Directly to the north is 66 th St. North. On the opposite side of 66 th St. North is the Crown Hill Cemetery. There is also a service center for Oklahoma Natural Gas. The Oklahoma Natural Gas facility 46

has a liquid natural gas refueling center for LNG powered vehicles. As mentioned previously, to the east is north Yale Street. Across North Yale St. is a processing center for Arvest Bank. Laufen and Hesselbien Tires are two other neighboring companies on the other side of North Yale St. Former Tulsa Speedway Crown Hill Cemetery Oklahoma Natural Gas Arvest Bank Bird Creek CEIP Laufen Hesselbien Tires Wooded and Wetlands Area Graphic 1.35 Current surrounding activities Field Survey The condition of the site varies. The front eastern portion of the site is a large, semicleared pasture. Uniquely, there is an area directly in the middle of the field that was not cleared. This is indicative of a natural or man-made feature in the lot that couldn t be cleared. Site surveys, documentation, and aerial photographs did not determine or identify what this feature is. The western portion of the site is a large un-cleared wooded area. Within this area there are two identifiable water features. There is a possibility of three additional water features in this area. It is unknown if these areas are natural features or man-made. It is also unknown if these water features are classified as wetland preserves. As mentioned previously, the southern end of the site is in a flood zone (approximately 18.8%). It has been documented that Bird Creek, which is near the site, has reached flood stage 20 times within the last 20 years. Records indicate the last event happened as early as 3/20/2012. Prior to mission critical facility development, the following determinations would need to be made: 1. The extent of any wetlands and protected areas; 2. Whether or not water features can be removed or utilized for mission critical 47

development; 3. The nature of the feature in the middle of the eastern half of the site and why it wasn t previously cleared; and 4. The need for preventive measures to mitigate potential flood issues. Photos 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 Panoramic views showing entrance and north/ northwest Photos 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12 Panoramic views scanning west to north Photos 1.13, 1.14 and 1.15 Panoramic views scanning south to south west 48

Graphic 1.36 Aerial view showing photo locations 49

Climate and Weather Average Annual Weather Statistics Tulsa OK U.S. Average Temp (Deg. F). 60.00 60.10 54.50 Precipitation (%) 41.35 37.62 38.67 Average Number Days with.1 or More Inches of Precipitation 58.63 53.42 66.51 Snow (Inches) 6.26 5.88 23.27 Average Number Days with.1 or More Inches of Snow 2.52 3.02 27.17 Humidity (%) 76.58 76.76 77.52 Wind Speed (MPH) 15.08 16.46 16.93 *Source USGS Table 1.7 Average annual weather statistics from historical weather data The weather and climate for Tulsa is rather temperate which lends itself to the possibility of using free cooling for a mission critical facility. Free cooling is the use of the ambient outdoor temperature to cool the facility s critical load. Air quality is another factor to consider when attempting to design a facility to use a free cooling mode. Air Quality The USEPA uses the following index to assess the air quality of a particular locality. The index is a culmination of several aspects and variables of the quality of air. For each aspect and variable, the higher number will reflect in an increased rating on the Air Quality Index. Below is chart identifying the USEPA Air Quality Index. Some of the variables and aspects that are reflected in the AQI are Total Suspended Particulates, Amount of Lead, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone, Particulate Matter (PM10), and Particulate Matter (PM2.5). 50

Air Quality Index (AQI) Values Levels of Health Concern Colors 0 to 50 Good Green 51 to 100 Moderate Yellow 101 to 150 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Orange 151 to 200 Unhealthy Red 201 to 300 Very Unhealthy Purple 301 to 500 Hazardous Maroon Table 1.8 AQI Index Levels, Source USEPA The higher rating on the index, the more likely adverse health effects will affect the general local population. The air quality for the community of Tulsa has improved over history, as have state and national conditions. In 1999 the general area had an AQI rating of 47 which was the same for the state of Oklahoma whereas the National Mean average AQI rating was 45. Today Tulsa has an average AQI rating above both the state and national averages. The AQI average for the area resides 42 while the state is at 41 and the national average is at approximately 40. This data is relevant for the fresh air intake mission critical facilities require as well as the option for free cooling. Not only is this to be considered when cooling a facility, but also how it will affect servers operation or fiber optic connectivity. The amount of pollutants in the air will also affect the usable life of the cooling equipment. The filters and coils would be greatly degraded if the air quality is poor. 51

Chapter 3 Data Center Model Calculations Prototypical Enterprise Data Center Design Prototypical Colocation Data Center Design 52

Prototypical Enterprise Data Center Design Options Prototypical Data Center Options Traditional A/C System Cabinet Densities IT Load Calculations 90,000 90,000 90,000 Design Sweet Spot Design Sweet Spot Notes & Comments White Space White Space White Space Interior Option Exterior Option 100w per SF 120w per SF 150w per SF 75,000 SF White 100,000 SF White Number of Active Racks EA 200.00 200.00 200.00 180.00 200.00 Average Power Consumption per Rack KW 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Total Connected Power for Active Racks KW 500.00 500.00 500.00 450.00 500.00 Number of Misc. Equipment Cabinets EA 200.00 200.00 200.00 180.00 200.00 Average Power Consumption per Misc. Equipment Cab KW 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 Total Connected Power for Misc. Equip. Cabs KW 600.00 800.00 1,000.00 720.00 1,000.00 Number of Server Cabinets EA 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,600.00 2,200.00 Average Power Consumption per Server Cab KW 4.00 5.00 6.00 5.50 5.00 Total Connected Power for Server Cabs KW 8,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 8,800.00 11,000.00 TOTAL IT LOAD KW 9,100.00 11,300.00 13,500.00 9,970.00 12,500.00 Gross Raised Floor Area SF 90,000.00 90,000.00 90,000.00 80,000.00 100,000.00 Watts per SF (N Load) W 101.11 125.56 150.00 124.63 125.00 Head Room 5% 5.06 6.28 7.50 6.23 6.25 Total Design KW 106.17 131.83 157.50 130.86 131.25 Total amount of Cabinets / Racks EA 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 1,960.00 2,600.00 Average SF per Cabinet SF 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 Includes Isles and support space Square Foot of White Space SF 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 49,000.00 65,000.00 Items in Data Center Space Allocation for CRACs SF 12,800.00 15,400.00 19,200.00 13,300.00 17,800.00 Space Allocation for PDUs SF 9,000.00 10,800.00 13,500.00 9,300.00 12,600.00 Total used White Space SF 81,800.00 86,200.00 92,700.00 71,600.00 95,400.00 Average White SF per Cab SF 34.08 35.92 38.63 36.53 36.69 Data Center Day 1 Data Center Day 1 Data Center Day 1 Data Center Day 1 Data Center Day 1 90,000 SF White 90,000 SF White 90,000 SF White 75,000 SF White 100,000 SF White Notes & Comments Area and Footprint Units 100W / SF 2N 120W / SF 2N 150W / SF 2N 125W / SF 2N 125W / SF 2N Gross Square Foot Whole Building SF 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 Gross Raised Floor Area SF 90,000.00 90,000.00 90,000.00 75,000.00 100,000.00 Design Computer Equip. Load Density W/SF 100.00 120.00 150.00 125.00 125.00 UPS Minimum Usable Capacity KW 9,000.00 10,800.00 13,500.00 9,375.00 12,500.00 Interior Space Required for an Indoor Equipment Option SF 104,380.00 122,090.00 153,340.00 109,340.00 150,040.00 Total Interior Space Required for an Indoor Option SF 194,380.00 212,090.00 243,340.00 184,340.00 250,040.00 Delta to Building Footprint SF -6,380.00-24,090.00-55,340.00 3,660.00-62,040.00 Indoor options would require a Interior Space Required for an Outdoor Equipment Option SF 60,980.00 70,090.00 86,940.00 61,740.00 86,240.00 reduction of program or redundcy Total Interior Space Required for an Outdoor Option SF 150,980.00 160,090.00 176,940.00 136,740.00 186,240.00 Delta to Building Footprint (Calcs do not include inefficient space). SF 37,020.00 27,910.00 11,060.00 51,260.00 1,760.00 Calcs do not take into consideration inefficient space or support space Primary Power Gross SF of "White" space * Design Load W 9,000,000.00 10,800,000.00 13,500,000.00 9,375,000.00 12,500,000.00 Total Critical Load KW 10,023.75 11,880.00 14,850.00 10,395.00 14,850.00 Total Essential Load KW 5,974.13 7,161.84 8,951.29 6,219.62 8,321.70 Total Required Load KW 15,997.88 19,041.84 23,801.29 16,614.62 23,171.70 Total Required Load KVA 19,197.46 22,850.20 28,561.54 19,937.54 27,806.04 Nominal Transformer Rating KVA 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Number of Transformers EA 8.00 10.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 Space Allocation Indoor Transformer Footprint (Includes Walkway) SF 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Total Required Space SF 8,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 8,000.00 12,000.00 Outdoor Transformer Footprint (Includes Walkway) SF 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 Total Required Space SF 3,200.00 4,000.00 4,800.00 3,200.00 4,800.00 Allowance for Supplementary Equipment SF 2,400.00 3,000.00 3,600.00 2,400.00 3,600.00 UPS System - A System Static Minimum Usable UPS Capacity "N" KW 9,000.00 10,800.00 13,500.00 9,375.00 12,500.00 UPS Redundancy KW 2N 18,000.00 21,600.00 27,000.00 18,750.00 25,000.00 Module Rating KVA 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 Module Rating KW 675.00 675.00 675.00 675.00 675.00 Total Number of Modules Required EA 27.00 32.00 40.00 28.00 38.00 Modules per System EA 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Total Number of Systems EA 9.00 8.00 10.00 7.00 10.00 Total Capacity per System KVA 2,250.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Total Capacity per System KW 2,025.00 2,700.00 2,700.00 2,700.00 2,700.00 Total Capacity KVA 20,250.00 24,000.00 30,000.00 21,000.00 30,000.00 Total Capacity KW 18,225.00 21,600.00 27,000.00 18,900.00 27,000.00 Total Spare Capacity KW 225.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 2,000.00 12/6/2012 Page 1 of 3

Prototypical Enterprise Data Center Design Options Data Center Day 1 90,000 SF White Data Center Day 1 90,000 SF White Data Center Day 1 90,000 SF White Data Center Day 1 75,000 SF White Area and Footprint Units 100W / SF 2N 120W / SF 2N 150W / SF 2N 125W / SF 2N 125W / SF 2N Total Spare Capacity per system KW 25.00 0.00 0.00 21.43 200.00 Number of Batteries EA 4,327.00 5,129.00 6,411.00 4,488.00 6,411.00 Batteries per String EA 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Number of Strings EA 109.00 129.00 161.00 113.00 161.00 Number of Strings per System Space Allocation Module Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 13.00 300.00 17.00 300.00 17.00 300.00 17.00 300.00 17.00 300.00 Number of Mods per system EA 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 System Control Cabinet Footprint (Includes Walkway) SF 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 Total Required Space per System SF 1,200.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 Number of Systems EA 9.00 8.00 10.00 7.00 10.00 Total Required Equipment Space SF 10,800.00 12,000.00 15,000.00 10,500.00 15,000.00 Footprint of Battery Strings SF 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Total required Battery Space per System SF 2,600.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 Total Required Battery Space SF 23,400.00 27,200.00 34,000.00 23,800.00 34,000.00 Total required UPS Space SF 34,200.00 39,200.00 49,000.00 34,300.00 49,000.00 Allowance for Supplementary Equipment SF 10,260.00 11,760.00 14,700.00 10,290.00 14,700.00 PDU(s) PDU nominal Rating KVA 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 PDU(s) N EA 60.00 72.00 90.00 62.00 84.00 Total PDU(s) at 2N Space Allocation PDU Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 120.00 75.00 144.00 75.00 180.00 75.00 124.00 75.00 168.00 75.00 Number of PDU Units for Data Center EA 120.00 144.00 180.00 124.00 168.00 Space Required for PDUs in Data Center SF 9,000.00 10,800.00 13,500.00 9,300.00 12,600.00 Allowance for Supplementary Equipment SF 4,500.00 5,400.00 6,750.00 4,650.00 6,300.00 Data Center Day 1 100,000 SF White Notes & Comments Generator Plant Total Critical Load KW 10,023.75 11,880.00 14,850.00 10,395.00 14,850.00 Total Essential Load KW 5,974.13 7,161.84 8,951.29 6,219.62 8,321.70 Unit Rating KW 2,250.00 2,250.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Total Load KW 15,997.88 19,041.84 23,801.29 16,614.62 23,171.70 Number of N units KW 8.00 9.00 12.00 9.00 12.00 System Capacity KW 18,000.00 20,250.00 24,000.00 18,000.00 24,000.00 Spare Capacity on "N" KW 2,002.12 1,208.17 198.71 1,385.38 828.30 Configuration 2N 8.00 9.00 12.00 9.00 12.00 Total # of Generators EA 16.00 18.00 24.00 18.00 24.00 Generator Paralleling Switchgear EA 4.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Number of Gennies per Paralleling Switchgear Space Allocation Generator Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 4.00 800.00 4.00 800.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 800.00 Number of Generators EA 16.00 18.00 24.00 18.00 24.00 Total Footprint of Generator SF 12,800.00 14,400.00 19,200.00 14,400.00 19,200.00 Allow for Supplementary Equipment SF 640.00 720.00 960.00 720.00 960.00 Paralleling Switchgear Footprint SF 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 Number of Paralleling Switchgear lineups EA 4.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 Total Required Space SF 2,400.00 3,000.00 3,600.00 3,000.00 3,600.00 Allowance for Supplementary Equipment Diesel Fuel Storage Requirement Consumption Rate per Generator per HR SF Gal 1,200.00 126.00 1,500.00 126.00 1,800.00 126.00 1,500.00 126.00 1,800.00 126.00 Storage Interval Hrs 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 Total Generators EA 8.00 10.00 28.00 10.00 14.00 Required Fuel Storage Gal 46,384.00 57,980.00 162,344.00 57,980.00 81,172.00 Calculation includes Day Tank Volume Day Tank Volume Gal 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 Day Tank Volume Total Gal 2,000.00 2,500.00 7,000.00 2,500.00 3,500.00 Required Fuel Storage Tank (Day Tank - Total Required Fuel Gal 45,000.00 56,000.00 156,000.00 56,000.00 78,000.00 Air Conditioning (Air Cooled Solution) Configuration 2N Computer Equipment Tons 3,183.75 3,820.50 4,775.63 3,316.41 4,421.88 Pressurization units Tonns UPS Equipment Cooling Tonns 407.25 486.00 607.50 423.38 582.50 Envelope & Office Area Cooling Tonns Substation T/F Tonns Misc. Cooling Tonns Total A/C Load "N" Load Tonns 3,591.00 4,306.50 5,383.13 3,739.78 5,004.38 Chiller Nominal Tonnage Tonns 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 Number of Chillers Required for Load EA 9.00 11.00 14.00 10.00 13.00 Number of Redundant Chillers EA 9.00 11.00 14.00 10.00 13.00 Total Number of Chillers EA 18.00 22.00 28.00 20.00 26.00 Total System Tonns 7,200.00 8,800.00 11,200.00 8,000.00 10,400.00 12/6/2012 Page 2 of 3

Prototypical Enterprise Data Center Design Options Area and Footprint Space Allocation Chiller Footprint (Includes Walkway) Units Data Center Day 1 90,000 SF White 100W / SF 2N Data Center Day 1 90,000 SF White 120W / SF 2N Data Center Day 1 90,000 SF White 150W / SF 2N Data Center Day 1 75,000 SF White 125W / SF 2N Data Center Day 1 100,000 SF White 125W / SF 2N SF 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Number of Chillers EA 18.00 22.00 28.00 20.00 26.00 Total Required Space for Chillers SF 18,000.00 22,000.00 28,000.00 20,000.00 26,000.00 Allowance for Supplementary Cooling Equipment SF 5,400.00 6,600.00 8,400.00 6,000.00 7,800.00 Notes & Comments CRAC Units CRAC nominal Capacity Tonns 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 number of CRAC for Computer Rm Load EA 107.00 128.00 160.00 111.00 148.00 Number of Redundant CRAC at 1 per 5 EA 21.00 26.00 32.00 22.00 30.00 number of CRAC for Equipment Rooms EA 14.00 17.00 21.00 15.00 20.00 Number of Redundant CRAC at 2N for Equipment Rooms EA 16.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Total Number of CRAC(s) Space Allocation CRAC Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 158.00 100.00 181.00 100.00 223.00 100.00 158.00 100.00 208.00 100.00 Number of CRAC Units for Data Center EA 128.00 154.00 192.00 133.00 178.00 Space Required for CRACS Data Center SF 12,800.00 15,400.00 19,200.00 13,300.00 17,800.00 Number of CRAC Units for Equipment SF 30.00 27.00 31.00 25.00 30.00 Space Required for CRACS Equipment Rooms SF 3,000.00 2,700.00 3,100.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 Allowance for Supplementary Equipment SF 1,580.00 1,810.00 2,230.00 1,580.00 2,080.00 Cooling Tower Make Up Water Requirements Cooling Towers Capacity Tonns 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 Number of Cooling Towers EA 9.00 11.00 14.00 10.00 13.00 Total CT Capacity Tonns 3,600.00 4,400.00 5,600.00 4,000.00 5,200.00 Design Criteria Hrs 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 Cooling Tower Make Up Water per Hr. Gal per T 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 Cooling Tower Make Up Water Requirements Gal 190,080.00 232,320.00 295,680.00 211,200.00 274,560.00 Proposed Tank Space Allocation Cooling Tower Footprint (Includes Walkway) Gal SF 60,000.00 2,000.00 75,000.00 2,000.00 75,000.00 2,000.00 75,000.00 2,000.00 75,000.00 2,000.00 Number of Cooling Towers EA 9.00 11.00 14.00 10.00 13.00 Total Required Space for Cooling Towers SF 18,000.00 22,000.00 28,000.00 20,000.00 26,000.00 Allowance for Supplementary Equipment SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Summary for Space Allocation Primary Power Allocated Space Indoor Option SF 10,400.00 13,000.00 15,600.00 10,400.00 15,600.00 Outdoor Option Indoor SF 3,200.00 4,000.00 4,800.00 3,200.00 4,800.00 Outdoor SF 2,400.00 3,000.00 3,600.00 2,400.00 3,600.00 UPS Allocated Space (Indoor) Generator Allocated Space Indoor Option SF SF 44,460.00 17,040.00 50,960.00 19,620.00 63,700.00 25,560.00 44,590.00 19,620.00 63,700.00 25,560.00 Outdoor Option Indoor SF 4,240.00 5,220.00 6,360.00 5,220.00 6,360.00 Outdoor SF 12,800.00 14,400.00 19,200.00 14,400.00 19,200.00 Fuel Oil Storage Allocated Space SF 2,319.20 2,899.00 8,117.20 2,899.00 4,058.60 Chiller Space Allocation SF 23,400.00 28,600.00 36,400.00 26,000.00 33,800.00 Cooling Tower Space Allocation Indoor SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outdoor SF 18,000.00 22,000.00 28,000.00 20,000.00 26,000.00 CRAC Space Allocation in Equipment Rooms SF 4,580.00 4,510.00 5,330.00 4,080.00 5,080.00 PDU Space Allocation SF 4,500.00 5,400.00 6,750.00 4,650.00 6,300.00 Items in Data Center Space Allocation for CRACs SF 12,800.00 15,400.00 19,200.00 13,300.00 17,800.00 Space Allocation for PDUs SF 9,000.00 10,800.00 13,500.00 9,300.00 12,600.00 Option #1 Indoor Option Interior Space SF 104,380.00 122,090.00 153,340.00 109,340.00 150,040.00 Option #1 Indoor Option Exterior Space SF 20,319.20 24,899.00 36,117.20 22,899.00 30,058.60 Option #2 Outdoor Option Interior Space SF 60,980.00 70,090.00 86,940.00 61,740.00 86,240.00 Option #2 Outdoor Option Exterior Space SF 58,919.20 70,899.00 95,317.20 65,699.00 86,658.60 12/6/2012 Page 3 of 3

Prototypical Data Design Calculations Data Center Design Co/Lo Option Prototypical Co-Location DataCenter Options Traditional A/C System Cabinet Densities Total Load (with redundant Typical Data Hall systems - spare capacity IT Load Calculations 10,000 0 White Space 100W + Number of Active Racks EA 20.00 Average Power Consumption per Rack KW 2.50 Total Connected Power for Active Racks KW 50.00 Number of Misc Equipment Cabinets EA 20.00 Average Power Consumption per Misc. Equipment Cab KW 4.20 Total Connected Power for Misc. Equip. Cabs KW 84.00 Number of Server Cabinets EA 230.00 Average Power Consumption per Server Cab KW 4.20 Total Connected Power for Server Cabs KW 966.00 TOTAL IT LOAD KW 1,100.00 Gross Raised Floor Area SF 10,000.00 Watts per SF (N Load) W 110.00 Head Room 5% 5.50 Total Design KW 115.50 Total ammonut of Cabinets / Racks EA 270.00 Average SF per Cabinet SF 30.00 Includes Isles and support space Square Foot of White Space SF 8,100.00 Items in Data Center Space Allocation for CRACs SF 1,200.00 Space Allocation for PDUs SF 600.00 Total used White Space SF 9,900.00 Average White SF per Cab SF 36.67 Data Hall 110 10,000 White Space Area Units 100W Gross Square Foot Whole Building SF Gross Raised Floor Area SF 10,000.00 Design Computer Equip. Load Density W/SF 115.00 UPS Minimum Usable Capacity KW 1,150.00 Notes & Comments Primary Power Gross SF of "White" space * Design Load W 1,150,000.00 Total Critical Load KW 1,096.88 Total Essential Load KW 651.96 Total Required Load KW 1,748.83 Total Required Load KVA 1,923.72 Nominal Transformer Rating KVA 2,000.00 Number of Transformers Space Allocation Indoor Transformer Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 1.00 1,000.00 Total Required Space SF 1,000.00 Outdoor Transformer Footprint (Includes Walkway) SF 400.00 Total Required Space SF 400.00 Allowance for Supplimentary Equipment SF 300.00 12/6/2012 Page 1 of 3

Prototypical Data Design Calculations Data Center Design Co/Lo Option Area Units 10,000 White Space 100W Notes & Comments UPS System - A System Static Minimum Usable UPS Capcity "N" KW 1,150.00 UPS Redundancy KW N+1 1,875.00 Module Rating KVA 625.00 Module Rating KW 562.50 Total Number of Modules Required EA 3.00 Modules per System EA 3.00 Total Number of Systems EA 1.00 Total Capacity per System KVA 1,875.00 Total Capacity per System KW 1,687.50 Total Capacity KVA 1,875.00 Total Capacity KW 1,687.50 Total Spare Capacity KW 100.00 Total Spare Capacity per system KW 100.00 Number of Batteries EA 401.00 Batteries per String EA 40.00 Number of Strings EA 11.00 Number of Strings per System Space Allocation Module Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 11.00 300.00 Number of Mods per system EA 3.00 System Control Cabinet Footprint (Includes Walkway) SF 300.00 Total Required Space per System SF 1,200.00 Number of Systems EA 1.00 Total Required Equipment Space SF 1,200.00 Footprint of Battery Strings SF 200.00 Total required Battery Space per System SF 2,200.00 Total Required Battery Space SF 2,200.00 Total required UPS Space SF 3,400.00 Allowance for Supplimentary Equipment SF 1,020.00 PDU(s) PDU nominal Rating KVA 300.00 PDU(s) EA 4.00 Redundant PDU(s) for A & B distribution Space Allocation PDU Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 4.00 75.00 Number of PDU Units for Data Center EA 8.00 Space Required for PDUs in Data Center SF 600.00 Allowance for Supplimentary Equipment SF 300.00 Generator Plant Total Critical Load KW 1,096.88 Total Essential Load KW 651.96 Unit Rating KW 2,000.00 Total Load KW 1,748.83 Number of N units KW 1.00 System Capacity KW 2,000.00 Spare Capacity on "N" KW 251.17 Configuration N+1 1.00 Total # of Generators EA 2.00 Generator Paralelling Switchgear EA 0.00 Number of Gennies per Paralleling Switchgear Space Allocation Generator Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 0.00 800.00 Number of Generators EA 2.00 Total Footprint of Generator SF 1,600.00 Allow for Suplimentry Equipment SF 80.00 Paralleling Switchgear Footprint SF 600.00 Number of Paralling Switchgear lineups EA 0.00 Total Required Space SF 0.00 Allowance for Supplimentary Equipment SF 0.00 Diesel Fuel Storage Requirement Consumption Rate per Generator per HR Gal 195.00 Storage Interval Hrs 24.00 Total Generators EA 1.00 Required Fuel Storage Day Tank Volume Gal Gal 4,680.00 Calculation includes Day Ta nk Volume 3,500.00 Day Tank Volume Total Gal 200.00 Required Fuel Storage Tank (Day Tank - Total Required Fuel Gal -980.00 Delta is -5.03 Hrs short per PG Lineup if redundant Gennie is Time Extra / Short Hrs @ Full load Hrs -5.03 used. 12/6/2012 Page 2 of 3

Prototypical Data Design Calculations Data Center Design Co/Lo Option 10,000 White Space Area Units 100W Notes & Comments Air Conditioning (Air Cooled Soultion) Configuration N+1 On Entire Phase 1 System Computer Equipment Pressurization units UPS Equipment Cooling Tons Tonns Tonns 358.00 34.13 Envelope & Office Area Cooling Substation T/F Misc Cooling Total A/C Load "N" Load Tonns Tonns Tonns Tonns 392.12 Chiller Nominal Tonnage Tonns 400.00 Number of Chillers Required for Load EA 1.00 Number of Redundant Chillers EA 0.00 Total Number of Chillers EA 1.00 Total System Space Allocation Chiller Footprint (Includes Walkway) Tonns SF 400.00 1,000.00 Number of Chillers EA 2.00 Total Required Space for Chillers SF 2,000.00 Allowance for Supplimentary Cooloing Equipment SF 600.00 CRAC Units CRAC nominal Capacity Tonns 50.00 number of CRAC for Computer Rm Load EA 8.00 Number of Redundant CRAC at 1 per 5 EA 2.00 Number of Redundant CRAC for Concurrent maintainability EA 2.00 numbe of CRAC for Equipment Rooms EA 1.00 Number of Redundant CRAC at 2N EA 3.00 Total Number of CRAC(s) Space Allocation CRAC Footprint (Includes Walkway) EA SF 16.00 100.00 Number of CRAC Units for Data Center EA 12.00 Space Required for CRACS Data Center SF 1,200.00 Number of CRAC Units for Equipment SF 4.00 Space Required for CRACS Equipment Rooms SF 400.00 Allowance for Supplimentary Equipment SF 160.00 Cooling Tower Make Up Water Requirements Air Cooled Solution Provided Cooling Towers Capacity Tonns N/A Number of Cooling Towers EA N/A Total CT Capacity Tonns Design Criteria Hrs 48.00 Cooling Tower Make Up Water per Hr Gal per T 2.20 Cooling Tower Make Up Water Requirements Gal 0.00 Proposed Tank Gal Space Allocation Cooling Tower Footprint (Includes Walkway) SF 2,000.00 Number of Cooling Towers EA N/A Total Required Space for Cooling Towers SF 0.00 Allowance for Supplimentary Equipment SF 0.00 Summary for Space Allocation Primary Power Allocated Space Indoor Option Outdoor Option Indoor SF SF 1,300.00 400.00 Outdoor SF 300.00 UPS Allocated Space (Indoor) SF 4,420.00 Generator Allocated Space Indoor Option Outdoor Option Indoor SF SF 1,680.00 80.00 Outdoor SF 1,600.00 Fuel Oil Storage Allocated Space SF 234.00 Chiller Space Allocation SF 2,600.00 Cooling Tower Space Allocation Indoor SF 0.00 Outdoor SF 0.00 CRAC Space Allocation in Equipment Rooms SF 560.00 PDU Space Allocation SF 300.00 Items in Data Center Space Allocation for CRACs SF 1,200.00 Space Allocation for PDUs SF 600.00 Option #1 Indoor Option Interior Space SF 10,860.00 Option #1 Indoor Option Exterior Space SF 234.00 Option #2 Outdoor Option Interior Space SF 5,760.00 Option #2 Outdoor Option Exterior Space SF 4,734.00 3/14/2013 Page 3 of 3

Chapter 4 Fiber Carrier Details 50

Fiber Carrier: Verizon Business Address: One Verizon Way Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1097 General Phone: (908) 559-7000 Web Site: www.verizon.com Carrier Profile: Specialties: Global IT, security, and communication solutions IT, Security, Communications, and Network Solutions Fiber Carrier: AT&T Address: 208 S. Akard St. Dallas, TX 75202 General Phone: (800)-248-3632 Web Site: www.att.com Carrier Profile: Wireless service, high speed internet access, local and long distance voice, and directory publishing and advertising services Specialties: Hosting Solutions Wireless Services, ecommerce, U-Verse, Enterprise Applications & Managed Fiber Carrier: Cox Communications Address: 1400 Lake Hearn Dr. Sandy Springs, GA 30319 General Phone: (800) 272-5111 Web Site ww2.cox.com Carrier Profile: Specialties: Broadband delivery network Television, Broadband, Telephone, High Speed Internet 60

Fiber Carrier: Centurylink Address: 100 CenturyLink Drive Monroe, LA 71201 General Phone: (800) 793-7269 Web Site www.centurylink.com Specialties: Voice, Broadband, Digital TV, Wireless, Home security, Managed services Carrier Profile: CenturyLink is the third largest telecommunications company in the United States. The company provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to consumers and businesses across the country. It also offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLinkTM PrismTM TV and DIRECTV brands. In addition, the company provides data, voice and managed services to enterprise, government and wholesale customers in local, national and select international markets through its high-quality advanced fiber optic network and multiple data centers. Fiber Carrier: Global Crossing Address: Wessex House 45 Reid St. Hamilton, CA HM 12 Bermuda General Phone: (44) 0 845 000 1000 Web Site www.globalcrosing.com Specialties: IPVPN, VoIP, IP Video, Collaboration, IP Convergence, MPLS, IPv6, Ethernet, VPLS, Unified Communications, Data Networks, IP Networks, Private Lines Carrier Profile: Global Crossing was founded in 1997 based on the concept and promise of IP convergence of voice, data and video traffic. It was an idea ahead of its time. Global Crossing led the way in IP services with the first global deployment of MPLS-te and the first global MPLS-based IP VPN, and this innovation and creativity still drives the global team of telecommunications professionals that work for our company. 61

Fiber Carrier: Level 3 Communications Address: 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 General Phone: (720) 888-1000 General Fax (303) 926-3477 Web Site www.level3.com Specialties: CDN, Internet Access, Private Line, Ethernet, Vyvx, Colocation, Fiber, Wavelengths, VPN Carrier Profile: Level 3 Communications (Nasdaq: LVLT) is an international communications company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. The company operates one of the largest communications and Internet backbones in the world. Fiber Carrier: Sprint Address: 6200 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251-6117 General Phone: 866-866-7509 Web Site www.sprint.com Specialties: Wireless/Wireline Service Provider, Retail and Business Solutions, Expense Control, Asset Tracking Carrier Profile: Sprint Nextel Corporation offers a range of wireless and wireline communications services to consumers, businesses, and government users in the United States and internationally. The company s Wireless segment provides an array of wireless mobile voice and data transmission services on networks that utilize CDMA and iden technologies. Fiber Carrier: Windstream Communications Address: 4001 Rodney Parham Rd Little Rock, AR 72212 General Phone: 866-445-5882 Web Site www.windstream.com Specialties: Data Centers Customized solutions including Data, Voice, Networking, Phone Systems and Carrier Profile: Windstream Corp. (Nasdaq: WIN) is a leading provider of advanced network communications, including cloud computing and managed services, to businesses nationwide. The company also offers broadband, phone and digital TV services to consumers primarily in rural areas. 62

Chapter 5 Business Continuity Analysis 63

Natural Disaster Risk Details A review of the CEIP and the surrounding area resulted in several concerns regarding natural disaster risks, including tornadoes, flooding, wild fires, and excessive drought. These risks were discussed earlier in this report but are discussed in greater detail in this section. Seismic The index for earthquake events is compiled from a complex algorithm from the USGS which is comprised of factors including frequency of the hazard or event, damage exposure from an event, and the vulnerability of infrastructure from an event. The statistical data reviewed spans 50 years of recorded data. The U.S. average index is 1.8. With an index rating of 0.39, Tulsa, OK is 98% less than the U.S. average. Out of 797 cities and jurisdictions in the state of Oklahoma, where 1 would be the most prone to seismic activity and 797 would be the least susceptible, the area ranks 76 or is in the top 90th percentile. Recent seismic activity was recorded on May 27, 2007 68 miles from the city center, with a magnitude of 3.2 on the Richter Scale. The Richter Magnitude Scale is one of a number of ways that have been developed to assign a single number to quantify the energy contained in an earthquake. The scale is a base-10 logarithmic scale. The magnitude is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the amplitude of waves measured by a seismograph to arbitrary small amplitude. An earthquake that measures 5.0 on the Richter scale has shaking amplitude 10 times larger than one that measures 4.0, and corresponds to an energy release of 1000 31.6 times greater. 64

Magnitude Description Average maximum Mercalli intensity Average earthquake effects Average frequency of occurrence (estimated) Less than 2.0 Micro I to II Microearthquakes, not felt, or felt rarely by sensitive people. Recorded by seismographs. Continual/several million per year 2.0 2.9 I to III Minor 3.0 3.9 II to V Generally felt by few to many people up to several miles/kilometers from the epicenter. Weak shaking in the felt area. Recorded by seismographs. Often felt in the area by at least many people, but very rarely causes damage. Can be felt tens of miles/kilometers from the epicenter. Over one million per year Over 100,000 per year 4.0 4.9 Light III to VII Noticeable shaking of indoor objects and rattling noises. Many people, or everyone, feel it with slight to strong intensity. Slightly felt outside. Generally causes none to slight damage. Moderate, heavy, major, or significant damage unlikely. Some falling of objects. 10,000 to 15,000 per year 5.0 5.9 Moderate IV to VIII Can cause moderate to major damage to poorly constructed buildings. At most, none to slight damage to well-designed buildings. Can be felt hundreds of 1,000 to 1,500 miles/kilometers from the epicenter at low/lower intensity. It may be reported as per year very strong to violent intensity tens of miles from the epicenter. Deaths can depend on the effects. 6.0 6.9 Strong VI to X Can be damaging/destructive in populated areas. Damage to many to all buildings; poorly designed structures incur moderate to severe damage. Earthquake-resistant structures survive with slight to moderate damage. Most likely felt hundreds of miles/kilometers from the epicenter. Death toll between none and more than 50,000. 100 to 150 per year 7.0 7.9 Major VII to XII Can cause great/greater damage over larger areas. Damage to all buildings; many to all receive moderate to very heavy damage, or collapse partially to completely. Death toll is usually between none to more than 150,000. 10 to 20 per year 8.0 8.9 Great VIII to XII Can cause major damage across very wide, large areas. Many to all buildings in epicentral area severely damaged or destroyed. Buildings further from the epicenter are also likely to incur damage of any level. Very strong shaking up to a few hundred miles/kilometers away. Death toll is usually between 100 to more than 500,000, however some earthquakes this magnitude have killed none. One per year (rarely none, two, or over two per year) 9.0 9.9 Destructive to very devastating in extremely large areas. Many to all buildings severely damaged to completely destroyed up to tens of miles from the epicenter. Easily felt and/or damaging at extremely distant points. Ground changes. Death toll usually between 1,000 and one million. One per 5 to 50 years 10.0+ Massive/Epic IX to XII None per year Heavy, widespread, colossal damage/devastation across enormous areas. Will (unknown, destroy buildings fairly easily and quickly. Death toll most likely will be over extremely rare, 50,000 people. Large ground changes. Never recorded; see below for or equivalent seismic energy yield. impossible/may not be possible) Table 1.9 Magnitudes of seismic activity on the Richter Scale, Source USGS 65

Tornados Based on a similar index to the earthquake index, the U.S. average for tornados is 136.45. The average is compiled from a complex algorithm from the USGS and comprised of factors including frequency of the hazard or event, damage exposure from an event, and the vulnerability of infrastructure from an event. With an index rating of 429.88, Tulsa, OK is 312% greater than the U.S. average. Out of 797 cities and jurisdictions in the state of Oklahoma, where 1 would be the most prone to seismic activity and 797 would be the least susceptible, the area ranks 117 or is in the top 85th percentile. One hundred and forty three total tornado events were recorded within a 50-mile radius over the past 50-years. All of these events had a magnitude rating of 2 or higher on the Fujita scale. The Fujita scale (F-Scale), or Fujita-Pearson scale, is a scale for rating tornado intensity, based primarily on the damage tornados inflict on human-built structures and vegetation. The official Fujita scale category is determined by meteorologists (and engineers) after a ground and/or aerial damage survey; and depending on the circumstances, ground-swirl patterns (cycloidal marks), radar tracking, eyewitness testimonies, media reports and damage imagery, as well as photogrammetry/ videogrammetry (if motion picture recording was available). Tornado Rating Classifications Rating F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Tornado Scale Weak Strong Violent Damage Significant Wind Intense Table 1.10 Tornado magnitude ratings, Source NOAA 66

Scal e Estimated wind speed mph km/h Relative frequency Average Damage Path Width (meters) Potential damage F0 40 72 64 116 38.9% 10 50 Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees pushed over; sign boards damaged. Moderate damage. F1 73 112 117 180 35.6% 30 150 The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. Significant damage. F2 113 157 181 253 250 19.4% 110 Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees snapped or uprooted; highrise windows broken and blown in; light-object missiles generated. Severe damage. F3 158 206 254 332 500 4.9% 200 Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown. F4 207 260 333 418 900 1.1% 400 Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown away some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. Incredible damage. F5 261 318 419 512 <0.1% 1100 ~ Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 m (109 yd); trees debarked; steel reinforced concrete structures badly damaged. Table 1.11 Tornado magnitude ratings on Fujita Scale, Source NOAA 67

Extreme Weather From a period between 1950 and 2010 there were 6,846 extreme weather events within a 50-mile radius of the CEIPS. Extreme weather events are considered to be weather phenomena that are at the extremes of the historical distribution, especially severe or unseasonal weather. The most commonly used definition of extreme weather is based on an event's climatological distribution. An extreme weather event can range from a severe storm resulting in property damage to an event as common as an above / below average temperature day. The events are broken down in the following classifications: CEIPS Oklahoma Statewide Event Type 50-Mile Radius Event Occurrence Average Events Per Year* Statewide Event Occurrence Average Events Per Year Blizzard 2 0.03 24 0.40 Cold 4 0.07 14 0.23 Dense Fog 10 0.17 18 0.30 Drought 33 0.55 52 0.87 Dust Storm 0 0.00 1 0.02 Flood 591 9.95 2,211 36.85 Hail 3,251 54.62 22,749 379.15 Heat 25 0.43 77 1.28 Heavy Snow 42 0.70 127 2.12 High Surf 0 0.00 0 0.00 Hurricane 0 0.00 0 0.00 Ice Storm 26 0.43 55 0.92 Landslides 0 0.00 0 0.00 Strong Winds 73 1.22 477 7.95 Thunderstorm 2,580 43.63 14,316 238.60 Winds Tropical Storms 0 0.00 1 0.02 Wild Fires 17 0.28 71 1.18 Winter Storms 54 0.92 136 2.27 Winter Weather 22 0.37 101 1.68 Other 116 1.92 818 13.63 Total Events 6,846 115.30 41,248 687.47 *Source USGS Table 1.12 Extreme weather events within 50-mile radius over 60 year period, Source USGS 68

It should be noted the statistical data covers a large area. A radius of 50 miles from the site covers an area of almost 12% of the entire state of Oklahoma. It is also important to note that, in all the categories of extreme weather events, occurrences in Tulsa and the surrounding vicinity event are well below the state s average. Events such as hurricanes, wildfires, blizzards and floods pose the greatest risk to the continual operation of a data center operation and, therefore, are of the greatest concern. In these categories, the site has some concerns which are detailed below. As mentioned previously there is a high risk of flood in and around the CEIP. Portions of the site are in flood zone AE (the 100-year flood zone) and flood zone X (a buffer area for the 100-year flood zone or the 500-year flood zone). The portions of the site in the flood zone are located in the southern section of the site as indicated previously in this report. Approximately 6.8 acres (11.57% of the total area of the site) are in the flood zone AE. Approximately 4.27 acres (7.26% of the total area of the site) are in flood zone X. According to the National Weather Service s Advance Hydrologic Prediction Service, the metering station on Bird Creek at 66 th St. North, which is directly neighboring the CEIP, reported that Bird Creek has risen 21 above its normal state 25 times within the last 20 years. Anything above 21 is considered the flood stage, above 24 is moderate flood stage, and above 29 is major flood stage. Of the 25 events, the vast majority were above moderate flood stage. The highest of the 25 events occurred on April 12, 1994 with a flood measurement of 28.93 feet above normal. The highest recorded level was on October 3, 1959 with a level of 32.60 feet above normal. The most recent major event occurred on March 20, 2012 with a level of 22.50 feet above normal. During the most recent event, sections of Route 75 had to be closed. Currently the state is experiencing a drought. This could have negative effects on the operation of a mission critical facility, especially if the facility s cooling system is waterbased. Another effect of drought is the drying up of the surrounding forested lands. This can present a high probability for wildfires, which is also a noted concern. There were several recent large wildfires nearby to the CEIP. Man-Made Disaster Risk Details Ultimately, any facility within close proximity to dense population and to the infrastructure that supports that population is susceptible to any and all of these risks to some degree. Some risks are more probable than others. In performing these risk analyses, the question of what if? is a common theme. The biggest part of the risk assessment is identifying the risk and implementing measures to mitigate potential disruptions to operations. 69

The list of potential man-made disasters is quite extensive. Some of the categories of man-made disasters include: A. Infrastructure and Engineering failures 1. Building Collapse 2. Bridge and Roadway Failures 3. Tunnel Failure 4. Dam Failure 5. Nuclear Plant Disasters 6. Electrical Infrastructure Failure 7. Sewer System Failure 8. Water System Failure 9. Gas Pipeline Rupture B. Environmental Disasters 1. Chemical Leak 2. Biohazard C. Fire D. Industrial Accidents and Incidents E. Transportation Failures 1. Train Accidents a. Passenger b. Freight 2. Airline Disasters F. Massacres G. Non-Combat Military Accidents H. Space Accidents I. Terrorist Attacks J. Weapons of Mass Destruction 1. Chemical 2. Biological 3. Nuclear During the site selection process for a data center or other mission critical facility, a detailed risk assessment report is typically performed in conjunction with the design and tier classification of the particular facility. The facility tier classification dictates how reliable the facility should be and the facility s projected downtime. A Tier IV facility is the most reliable facility with an uptime rating of four nines (99.995% of the time up and running or an average of 26.30 minutes per year of downtime). Potential man-made disasters are factored in when calculated this uptime rating. 70

Superfund Sites Superfund Sites is the United States Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA s) environmental program for addressing abandoned hazardous waste sites. A search on the EPA s database for superfund sites within the state of Oklahoma resulted in 8 sites within Tulsa County. The sites closest to CEIPS pose no or very low risk to the site. The entire list of the sites follows: EPA Superfund Site Database for the Tulsa Area Site Name EPA ID NPL Status City County Compass Industries (Avery Drive) Modern Steel Fabricators, Inc. Proximity in Relation to CEIPS OKD980620983 Deleted NPL Tulsa Tulsa 12 miles OKN000606750 Not NPL Tulsa Tulsa 4.75 miles Oil Producers and Refining Corp. Petroleum Electronics MFG., Inc. Power Electronics MFG., Inc. OKD980696835 Not NPL Tulsa Tulsa 9.5 miles OKD987096278 Not NPL Tulsa Tulsa 8.5 miles OKD981152325 Not NPL Tulsa Tulsa 8.5 miles S & K Industries OKN000605678 Not NPL Tulsa Tulsa 4.5 miles Tire Disposal and Recycling, Inc. Unidentified Dump Site OKD987095346 Not NPL Tulsa Tulsa 5.5 miles OKD980699839 Not NPL Tulsa Tulsa NA *Source EPA Database Table 1.13 EPA Superfund site database for Tulsa Area 71

Graphic 1.38 Map of EPA Superfund sites Neighboring Activities A search on the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Facility Registration System (FRS) database listed several facilities in the immediate area that currently -- or have previously -- housed, stored, or manufactured substances that may be hazardous to health or affect the environment. These facilities could pose a low to moderate risk to a data center at the site. Graphic 1.39 Sites with potential toxins Graphic 1.40 Sites with potential substances that could adversely affect air quality 72

Graphic 1.41 Sites with potential elements that could have health or environmental risks Graphic 1.42 Sites that could have potential hazardous chemicals From documented data, there appears to be no immediate man-made risk to the operation of a mission critical facility steaming from an industrial accident at neighboring businesses at the CEIP. Other Man Made Risks A review of the CEIP and the surrounding area resulted in several concerns regarding man-made disaster risk, including close proximity to Tulsa International Airport, the close proximity to military bases, traffic accidents or highway closures, rail accidents, neighboring company activities, and the location of gun ranges. These potential manmade risks were discussed earlier in the report; however, greater detail follows in this section on the types of materials being used at the neighboring facilities. The immediate risk to a mission critical data center at the CEIP from a man-made disaster could stem from an aviation accident associated with Tulsa International Airport. Although the site is not directly in the flight path, the airport is less than 3 miles away. In addition the Oklahoma Air National Guard has a major installation at the airport. The 138 th Fighter Wing is based at this facility along with an Army Air Support Wing. The Army Air Support Wing has approximately 20 helicopters. The 138 th Fighter Wing s primary mission is to maintain combat forces ready for mobilization, deployment, and employment as needed to support national security objectives. Additionally, the 138th's state mission is to support the Governor of the state of Oklahoma with units organized, equipped, and trained in the protection of life and property, and the preservation of peace, order, and public safety. The 138 th Fighter Wing includes the following military groups: a. 138 th Operations Group b. 125 th Fighter Squadron c. 138 th Mission Support Group d. 138 th Medical Group e. 138 th Maintenance Group 73

f. 219 th Engineering Installation Squadron g. 138 th Logistics Reediness Squadron h. 138 th Civil Engineering Squadron i. 138 th Security Force Squadron Although the risk posed by the airport and the military installation is moderately low to low, there is the potential for an accident to affect the operation of a mission critical facility at the CEIP. On March 14, 2008, a 138th Fighter Wing-assigned fighter aircraft en route to the Smokey Hill Gunnery Range in Salina, Kansas accidentally dropped a 22-pound, non-explosive practice bomb on an apartment complex in Tulsa, OK. No one was injured, but a building suffered significant damage. The neighboring companies to the CEIP may pose a low risk to a mission critical facility at the site. In particular, the Hesselbien Tire facility is of moderate concern. In addition to auto parts, the facility stores a considerable amount of tires. A fire in this facility could have adverse effects on a neighboring mission critical facility. As mentioned in the section on natural disasters, a closure to Route 75 could have a negative impact on the operation of a mission critical facility. Within one mile of the CEIP is a major rail line. There is also a direct rail spur that runs directly into the CEIP. Another potential man-made risk to the CEIP are the gun shooting ranges nearby. This risk is subject to debate. However, there are several potential scenarios where an incident at this facility or somebody potentially bringing a firearm into the mission critical facility could affect the operations. In general all of these risks are relatively low. However, the culmination of all these risks places the site at the CEIP at a moderately low to low risk level. Public Transportation Airports The nearest airport is Tulsa International Airport, located in the Tulsa, OK. The airport is the primary passenger and cargo airport for the Tulsa area. The airport has non-stop service to some major cities along the East Coast, as well as to most major cities in the Midwest and some on the West Coast. American Airlines, Delta, United Airlines and Southwest are the major airlines. There are a few smaller airports in the area but the one of note is R. L. Jones, Jr. Airport. R. L. Jones, Jr. Airport has been known to take on the role of relieving flight traffic from Tulsa International Airport. Along with 6 flight schools, there are 500 based aircraft located on the field and there are an estimated 200,000 operations per year. There are three asphalt runways at this airport. 74

Passenger Rail Service Rail service is not present in the immediate area. The nearest public rail service is in Oklahoma City, OK and is approximately 90 miles away. From this location, Amtrak has service that travels between Oklahoma City, OK and Fort Worth, TX via the Heartland Flyer line. Service from Fort Worth, TX is available to either Chicago or Los Angeles via the Texas Eagle Line. A trip from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth would take approximately 4 hours. Graphic 1.43 Amtrak Heartland Flyer Line Graphic 1.44 Amtrak Texas Eagle Line 75

Passenger Bus Service As far as public transportation within and around the immediate area is concerned, Tulsa Transit bus service is present. It offers bus service throughout the city of Tulsa. The purple line or Route 105 bus offers service closest to the CEIPS. Below is the route map for the bus system. Graphic 1.45 Tulsa Transit bus service map Taxi service is readily available in Tulsa. Greyhound bus service is also present with service to a number of metropolitan areas. In addition to Greyhound, Jefferson Lines operates bus service throughout the Midwest. 76

Chapter 6 Demographic Details 77

Demographics The general health of the area and the future projections for the general area are important factors in determining whether or not a site is suitable for a mission critical facility. The following pages include an overview of the demographic attributes of the area surrounding CEIPS. Note: Prospective data center operators are encouraged to speak with local utility and economic development officials to gain greater insight into the local labor force dynamics, including commute tolerances, detailed occupational profiles, and current hiring conditions. Background The city of Tulsa is the 2 nd largest city by population in the state of Oklahoma. The largest city in Oklahoma by population is Oklahoma City which is approximately 90 miles away. CEIPS is located outside the city limits of Tulsa, OK. This area encompasses 24.79 square miles and is located within Tulsa County. Tulsa County accounts for only 16% of the total population in Oklahoma while its land area accounts for about 0.8% of Oklahoma. Tulsa County occupies the main area surrounding route 244 and route 75. The three surrounding counties are Rogers County, Wagoner County and Creek County. Statistics for Surrounding Counties Population Total Area (Sq Miles) Rogers County 86,905 675.63 Wagoner County 73,085 561.55 Creek County 69,967 950.14 Source: 2010 U.S. Census Table 1.19 Population information on surrounding counties The three counties have a total area of 2,186 square miles and a combined population density of 105.19 people per square mile. 78

Demographic Details Of note, the population growth rate in the immediate area is well below that of the state of Oklahoma (8.71%) and the U.S. national average (9.7%), as measured over the period 2000-2010. Population, Counts, Density and Growth Tulsa Tulsa County Oklahoma Population 391,906 603,403 3,751,351 Area (square miles) 196.75 570.25 68,595 Population Density (people per square mile) Population Growth (since 2000) 1,949.89 1,027.91 53.67-0.29% 7.12% 8.71% Source: 2010 U.S. Census Table 1.20 Population information for Tulsa area The median age for the United States is 37.2 years old; the median for Oklahoma is 36.2. As indicated by the following median age statistics, the area surrounding the CEIPS is comprised of a younger population. Population Bracket Population by Age Tulsa, OK % State of Oklahoma (%) U.S. (%) Under 5 years 29,479 7.52 7.04 6.54 5 to 9 years 26,792 6.84 6.91 6.59 10 to 14 years 24,600 6.28 6.76 6.70 15 to 19 years 26,416 6.74 7.05 7.14 20 to 24 years 31,069 7.93 7.18 6.99 25 to 34 years 59,063 15.07 13.51 13.30 35 to 44 years 48,252 12.31 12.29 13.30 45 to 54 years 52,673 13.44 14.01 14.58 55 to 64 years 44,723 11.41 11.74 11.82 65 to 74 years 24,778 6.32 7.48 7.03 75 to 84 years 16,757 4.28 4.38 4.23 85 years and 7,304 1.86 1.65 1.78 over Total 391,906 100 100% Median age 34.70 36.20 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.21 Population by age 79

The race make-up of the surrounding area is predominantly white of approximately 62% of the population. The following chart shows the race make-up of the surrounding population to the CEIPS. Population by Ethnicity Race Tulsa, OK (%) Oklahoma (%) U.S. (%) White 62.59 72.16 72.4 Black 15.86 7.40 12.6 Hispanic 14.10 8.85 16.4 Asian 2.32 1.73 4.8 Native 5.39 8.69.2 American One Race 7.97 4.12 6.2 Other Two Races 5.87 5.90 2.9 Other *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.22 Population by ethnicity In regards to first ancestry in Tulsa, 100% of the population claimed first ancestry. This might be an error in the data but this was what has been reported none the less. Languages Spoken at Home Tulsa % OK (%) U.S. (%) English 143,036 87.66 90.48 79.95 Spanish 12,896 7.90 5.72 11.42 Other Indo- European 2,901 1.78 1.37 4.60 Languages Asian and Pacific Islander Languages 3,230 1.98 1.45 3.14 Other 1,110 0.68 0.99 0.89 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.23 Languages spoken at home The following chart shows the statistical information for households and families of Tulsa in comparison to the state of Oklahoma and national averages. 80

Housing and Household Statistics Tulsa % OK U.S. Total Households Average Household Size 1 Person Households 2 or more Person households Family Households Average Family Size Married Couple Family 163,975 1,460,450 116,716,292 2.34 2.49 2.58 56,551 34.49 27.47% 26.74% 107,424 65.51 72.53% 73.26% 95,246 58.09 66.78% 66.43% 3.04 3.04 3.14 62,719 38.25 49.47% 48.42% Non-Family 68,729 41.91 33.22% 33.57% Households *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.24 Housing and housing statistics Note the correlation between median ages (illustrated earlier) and the income statistics found in the following table. As seen below, 20% of the population is at or below the poverty level. This is a staggering amount compared to the fact that the median age is 34 which would be the prime working age. Income Statistics Tulsa Oklahoma U.S. Median Household Income $38,220 $42,072 $50,046 Mean Household Income $57,214 $56,533 $68,259 Population at or Below Poverty 20.09% 16.91% 15.33% Level Families at or Below Poverty 15.55% 12.69% 11.28% Level *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.25 Income statistics The area, in general has witnessed an 11.25% growth in household income when compared to year 2000 to year 2010 statistical data. 81

Employment Status Tulsa % OK (Totals & %) U.S. (Totals & %) Population 16 308,098 2,930,683 243,832,923 years and over Male 145,580 47.25 48.93% 48.62% Male in Labor 103,468 71.07 68.42% 69.78% Force Male in Armed 419 0.29 1.16% 0.76% Services Male Civilian 103,049 70.79 67.26% 69.03% Male Civilian 93,861 91.08 91.41% 88.43% Employed Male Civilian 9,188 8.92 8.59% 11.57% Unemployed Male not in 42,112 28.93 31.58% 30.22% Labor Force Female 162,518 52.75 51.07% 51.38% Female in 94,734 58.29 57.06% 59.26% Labor Force Female in Armed 168 0.10 0.24% 0.12% Services Female 94,566 58.19 56.83% 59.13% Civilian Female Civilian 85,182 90.08 92.29% 89.99% Employed Female Civilian 9,384 9.92 7.71% 10.01% Unemployed Female not in 67,784 41.71 42.94% 40.74% Labor Force *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.26 Employment of population 16 and over 82

Careers - Occupation Tulsa % OK (Totals & %) U.S. (Totals & %) Civilian Employed 179,043 1,666,604 139,033,928 16 years and over Male 93,861 52.42 52.90% 52.06% Management, Professional, and 29,405 31.33 28.20% 32.77% Related Occupations Service 12,942 13.79 13.81% 14.98% Occupations Sales and Office 16,942 18.05 16.67% 17.82% Occupations Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 172 0.18 1.10% 1.17% Occupations Construction, Extraction, 11,117 11.84 12.71% 9.50% Maintenance, and Repair Occupations Production, Transportation, and 17,355 18.49 19.42% 17.70% Material Moving Occupations. Female 85,182 47.58 47.10% 47.94% Management, Professional, and Related Occupations 30,239 35.50 36.65% 39.40% Service 20,464 24.02 22.50% 21.33% Occupations Sales and Office 29,513 34.65 34.81% 32.73% Occupations Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 129 0.15 0.25% 0.30% Occupations Construction, Extraction, 295 0.35 0.41% 0.29% Maintenance, and Repair Occupations Production, Transportation, and 3,856 4.53 4.97% 5.67% Material Moving Occupations *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.27 Occupation by careers 83

Careers - Industry Tulsa % OK (Totals & %) U.S. (Totals & %) Civilian Employed 16 years and over Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Mining 179,043 1,666,604 139,033,928 2,875 1.61 4.40% 1.90% Construction 12,659 7.07 6.94% 6.25% Manufacturing 19,860 11.09 9.53% 10.39% Wholesale 5,447 3.04 2.87% 2.83% Trade Retail Trade 19,961 11.15 11.53% 11.65% Transportation, Warehouse, 8,494 4.74 5.13% 4.92% Utilities Information 5,936 3.32 2.05% 2.17% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 12,542 7.01 6.08% 6.67% Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, Waste Management Services Educational Services, Health Care, Social Assistance Arts Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, Food Services 20,076 11.21 7.59% 10.58% 38,011 21.23 23.03% 23.24% 20,726 11.58 9.40% 9.25% Public 5,813 3.25 6.27% 5.17% Administration Other Misc. 6,643 3.71 5.17% 4.97% Administration *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.28 Careers by industry The mean average commute to work for the residents of Tulsa is 18.1 minutes. The state of Oklahoma s average commute to work is 19.8 minutes and the national average is 25.3 minutes. 84

Based on 2006 to 2010 data, the median house value in Tulsa is $117,000. As of 2010, house values have grown by 39.95% in Tulsa since the year 2000. This is compared to the state of Oklahoma median house value $111,400 and the national median average house value of $179,900. The average house age in Tulsa is roughly 41 years old. The state of Oklahoma s average house age is 36 years old and the national average is 37 years old. Housing Occupancy Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacancy Housing Units Housing Units For Rent For Sale Only Tulsa % OK (Totals & %) U.S. (Totals & %) 185,127 1,664,378 131,704,730 163,975 88.57 87.75% 88.62% 87,787 47.42 58.99% 57.69% 76,188 41.15 28.76% 30.93% 21,152 11.43 12.25% 11.38% 10,238 5.53 3.56% 3.14% 2,445 1.32 1.36% 1.44% Rented or Not Sold, Not Occupied For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 1,120 0.60 0.67% 0.48% 833 0.45 2.11% 3.53% For Migrant 10 0.01 0.02% 0.02% Workers Other Vacant 6,506 3.51 4.53% 2.77% *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.29 Housing by occupancy 85

Housing Costs Statistics Tulsa Oklahoma U.S. Owner Occupied with Mortgage 62.88% 60.26% 67.23% Owner Occupied without Mortgage 37.12% 39.74% 32.77% Housing Costs with a $1,174 $1,089 $1,496 Mortgage Housing Costs without a Mortgage $392 $341 $431 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.30 Housing costs The median average for gross monthly rents in the community of Tulsa is $691. The following chart indicates the general distribution of the cost of rental units in the corresponding localities. Gross Monthly Rents Monthly Rents Tulsa (%) OK (%) U.S. (%) $199 or Less 2.82 2.08 1.98 $200 to $299 2.80 4.28 3.31 $300 to 499 11.71 16.93 9.08 $500 to $699 34.31 33.02 19.05 $700 top $999 33.57 29.61 29.93 $1,00 to $1,499 11.46 11.61 24.18 $1,500 to $1,999 1.35 1.51 8.01 $2,000 or more 1.97 0.96 4.46 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.31 Gross monthly rents for housing units 86

The primary method for household heating in the area around the CEIPS is utility natural gas. Electricity is the second most prevalent method for heating homes in the area. The following table illustrates the diversity of household heating methods for the general area, state, and the United States. Methods of Household Heating Tulsa (%) OK (%) U.S. (%) Utility Gas 67.05 55.81 49.48 Bottled, Tank, or LP Gas 0.44 7.69 5.04 Electricity 31.98 33.26 35.42 Fuel Oil, Kerosene 0.00 0.11 6.45 Coal or Coke 0.04 0.01 0.12 Wood, Pellets, or Similar Combustible Material Solar Energy (Active or Passive) 0.15 1.98 2.08 0.03 0.00 0.04 Other Fuel 0.03 1.00 0.45 No Fuel Used 0.29 0.14 0.92 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.32 Methods for home heating Heating and Cooling Costs Index Tulsa OK U.S. Heating 158.19 158 212.91 Cooling 321.99 345.1 139.42 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.33 Heating and cooling costs index 87

In the city of Tulsa, according to 2010 census data, there were a total of 3,867 government employees. This equates to 101.35 municipal government employees per 1,000 residents, an annual burden of $515.13 per resident, and an annual burden of $1,231.17 per household. The state of Oklahoma, according to 2010 census data, has 70,501 government employees. This equates to 53.21 government employees per 1,000 residents, an annual burden of $849.21 per resident, and an annual burden of $1,914.04 per household. Tulsa, OK Full-Time Employees Monthly Full- Time Payroll Equivalent Average Annual Wage Part-Time Employees Monthly Part-Time Payroll Full-Time Equivalent Employees Totals for Government 3,827 $16,746,944 $52,512 146 $76,544 3,867 Airports 146 $534,512 $43,932 0 $0 146 Financial Administration 90 $392,490 $52,332 1 $1,032 90 Firefighters 644 $3,699,860 $68,941 0 $0 644 Fire - Other 19 $61,200 $38,653 0 $0 19 Judicial & Legal 64 $285,310 $53,496 5 $6,634 65 Other Government 251 $991,214 $47,389 0 $0 251 Administration Health 44 $187,618 $51,169 0 $0 44 Streets & Highways 348 $1,250,610 $43,124 1 $550 348 Housing & Community 30 $118,326 $47,330 1 $952 31 Development Parks & Recreation 151 $519,942 $41,320 59 $51,818 180 Police Protection - 661 $3,949,278 $71,696 0 $0 661 Officers Police-Other 113 $369,260 $39,213 77 $12,420 121 Sewerage 199 $657,260 $39,634 0 $0 199 Solid Waste Management 12 $42,406 $42,406 0 $0 12 Other & Unallocable 565 $2,070,218 $43,969 2 $3,138 566 Water Supply 331 $1,114,590 $40,408 0 $0 331 Transit 159 $502,850 $37,951 0 $0 159 Totals for Government 3,827 $16,746,944 146 $76,544 3,867 Yearly payroll Population Households 391,906 163,975 $200,963,328 Total Payroll $201,881,856 $918,528 Burden per Person Burden per Household 101.35 $515.13 $1,231.17 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.34 Tulsa, OK government employees and population burdens 88

State of Oklahoma Full-Time Employees Monthly Full- Time Payroll Equivalent Average Annual Wage Part-Time Employees Monthly Part- Time Payroll Full-Time Equivalent Employees Totals for Government 61,922 $239,274,416 $46,370 26,828 $26,199,155 70,501 Airports 11 $51,124 $55,772 1 $1,520 12 Correction 5,328 $16,913,818 $38,094 49 $107,663 5,351 Higher Education - 16,261 $59,687,376 $44,047 17,569 $13,608,726 21,841 Other Higher Education - 6,451 $42,303,909 $78,693 7,075 $9,799,471 8,498 Instructional Other Education 1,949 $7,282,686 $44,840 62 $62,590 1,973 Social Insurance 1,397 $4,829,118 $41,481 103 $161,844 1,455 Administration Financial Administration 1,585 $5,979,196 $45,268 27 $31,435 1,594 Judicial & Legal 2,862 $12,637,581 $52,988 121 $168,055 2,911 Other Government 743 $2,816,571 $45,490 120 $191,928 820 Administration Health 5,552 $20,094,690 $43,432 345 $699,809 5,734 Hospitals 2,558 $7,879,210 $36,963 77 $137,420 2,612 Streets & Highways 3,002 $10,114,302 $40,430 0 $0 3,002 Natural Resources 1,715 $5,982,771 $41,862 821 $694,851 1,954 Parks & Recreation 653 $1,696,727 $31,180 250 $237,537 785 Police Protection - 1,029 $5,159,215 $60,166 3 $1,508 1,029 Officers Police-Other 916 $3,146,215 $41,217 67 $74,350 947 Welfare 6,865 $20,390,453 $35,642 30 $53,626 6,882 Solid Waste Management 92 $355,518 $46,372 16 $16,060 99 Other & Unallocable 2,411 $9,006,384 $44,826 85 $134,618 2,456 Electric Power 542 $2,947,552 $65,259 7 $16,144 546 Totals for Government 61,922 $239,274,416 26,828 $26,199,155 70,501 Yearly payroll Population Households 3,751,351 1,664,378 $2,871,292,992 Total Payroll $3,185,682,852 $314,389,860 Burden per Person Burden per Household 53.21 $849.21 $1,914.04 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.35 State of Oklahoma government employees and population burdens 89

Tulsa is comprised of 13 public school districts with the largest being Tulsa Public Schools. There were a total of 2,739 teachers for 41,493 students in the 2009 2010 school year. This yields a 15.15 student to teacher ratio for the school district. The 88 public schools serve grades Pre-K to Grade 12. There are 32 private schools in Tulsa with the closest 2 to the city center being: St. Augustine Academy (Pre-K to Grade 12) and St. Pius X School (Pre-Kindergarten-Grade 8). Tulsa School District 2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-2008 Total Students: 41,493 41,195 41,271 English Language Learner Students: 5,454 NA 5,158 Total Teachers: 2,739.00 2,704.70 2,698.30 Prekindergarten: 99.3 86.9 88.5 Kindergarten: 187.4 196 190.5 Elementary: 1,250.80 1,229.40 1,212.50 Secondary: 1,201.50 1,192.40 1,206.80 Ungraded: NA NA NA Total Other Staff: 3,451.50 3,435.20 3,227.20 Instructional Aides: 706.5 707.3 657.8 Instructional Coordinators & Supervisors: 57.2 32.4 25.1 Total Guidance Counselors: 156.5 158.6 147.9 Elementary Guidance Counselors: 62 61.9 56.1 Secondary Guidance Counselors: 94.5 96.7 91.8 Other Guidance Counselors: NA NA NA Librarians/Media Specialists: 86.7 84 83 Library/Media Support: 71.5 79.3 78.1 District Administrators: 2 1.7 1 District Administrative Support: 271.6 284.9 281.6 School Administrators: 133.9 129.3 125.9 School Administrative Support: 281.5 287.2 287.3 Student Support Services: 347.4 318.3 300.4 Other Support Services: 1,336.70 1,352.20 1,239.10 Student-Teacher Ratio: 15.15 15.23 15.3 *Source 2010 Census Data Table 1.36 Tulsa school district statistics 90

There are 12 universities, colleges, or higher education facilities located within 50 miles of the CEIPS. Most notably, the University of Tulsa is located in Tulsa, OK. University/College Student Population Institution Type Town Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences 375 4-year, public Tulsa University of Tulsa 4-year, private, not-for- 3,697 profit Tulsa Technical Institute of Cosmetology 28 2-year, private, for-profit Tulsa Tulsa Community College 9,841 2-year, public Tulsa Tulsa Technology Center-Lemley 281 2-year, public Tulsa Spartan College of Aeronautics and Technology 1,267 4-year, private, for-profit Tulsa Rogers State University Central Technology Center Green County Technology Center Oklahoma Wesleyan University Tri County Technology Center Bacone College *Source 2010 Census Data 2,557 4-year, public Claremore 230 2-year, public Drumright 283 2-year, public Okmulgee 655 4-year, private, not-forprofit Bartlesville 138 2-year, public Bartlesville 785 4-year, private, not-forprofit Muskogee Table 1.37 Local universities and colleges 91