Mining worldwide

S&P Global expects UAE and Saudi Arabia to add 2–3 GW of data-center IT power by 2030

Source report: 2026-10-07 · Editorial analysis published: 2026-10-08

The October 7 update highlights a regional expansion forecast. The 2–3 GW estimate concerns data-center IT power, not newly operating Bitcoin hashrate or a confirmed connection available to every project.

Analysis and practical implications

This section is our analysis and illustrative calculations, separate from the source report.

The forecast highlighted in the October 7 update

S&P Global’s October 7 daily update highlights expectations that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia will lead Middle Eastern data-center growth and add about 2–3 GW of IT power by 2030. It says those additions represent over 80% of the regional share but less than 2% of global IT power additions over 2026–2030, citing 451 Research data. These are forecast additions for computing infrastructure. They are not a register of commissioned projects or a measure of Bitcoin mining output.

For mining readers, the distinction matters because the same regional electricity market can serve different computing activities. The forecast can inform a discussion of infrastructure demand, but it cannot establish that additional ASICs have been installed. Our analysis keeps this story separate from yesterday’s Bitcoin mining-geography map. One concerns expected data-center expansion; the other concerns estimated locations of mining work. Combining them into a single country ranking would merge different activities, dates and measurement methods.

IT power is not the complete facility draw

IT power describes the electrical load assigned to computing equipment at the stated boundary. Supporting equipment can add other loads. Our independent illustration is a site with 10 MW of IT draw and 2 MW of supporting draw: its total is 12 MW at that operating point. This does not mean the reported regional forecast uses those ratios, and the source’s 2–3 GW should not be multiplied by an invented universal overhead factor to produce a claimed regional electricity bill.

A site comparison should identify whether a quoted number refers to IT capacity, total facility capacity, contracted utility supply or actual measured use. Those values are related but not interchangeable. The same project may report several of them at different stages. Our interpretation is that a clearly labelled IT forecast is useful precisely because it preserves one boundary. Changing that label to total electricity demand without evidence would make the forecast less informative and could overstate what has been verified.

A regional majority can still be a small global share

The regional and global percentages in the update have different denominators. Our illustrative example is a development adding 8 units within a region that adds 10, while the world adds 500. That development represents 80% of regional additions but 1.6% of global additions. These invented units explain the arithmetic; they are not the original research data. A large share within a region is therefore compatible with a small share of worldwide expansion.

This distinction is useful when a headline uses leadership to imply global dominance. The reported countries may drive most regional additions without accounting for most new computing capacity worldwide. Readers should retain the geographic scope and time interval beside any percentage. The comparison also concerns additions, not necessarily the full installed base. A region’s share of new projects can differ substantially from its share of all operating infrastructure, so neither figure should be silently substituted for the other.

Forecast capacity still has to pass project milestones

A forecast can include expected expansion whose underlying projects have not reached the same stage. Our project analysis would distinguish planning, contracting, construction, testing and commissioning. Each stage provides different evidence about what a customer can actually use and when. A regional forecast alone does not establish that a named project has secured a utility connection, received critical equipment or completed testing. Those questions require records at the project level.

For computing operators seeking capacity, a documented availability date is more actionable than a distant aggregate target. Contracts should identify the load boundary, delivery conditions and responsibility for delays. This article does not claim that every Middle Eastern project is delayed or that the forecast cannot be achieved. It explains why a 2030 expectation and a near-term hosting offer answer different questions. The next useful evidence is progress through individual milestones rather than repeating the aggregate number as if it were already energized.

Different workloads create different requirements

Bitcoin mining equipment and AI computing racks can use electrical capacity differently and require different service arrangements. Our analysis does not treat a new data center as a drop-in location for every ASIC. Device interfaces, cooling design, communications, maintenance access and customer requirements must be reviewed separately. A regional increase in general computing capacity says nothing by itself about a specific miner’s algorithm, hash rate or power specification.

The useful connection for mining is competition and opportunity around infrastructure, rather than a direct conversion from gigawatts to exahashes. Such a conversion would need identified hardware, efficiency and operating conditions. No universal fleet mix is supplied by the forecast. A prospective operator should compare a real equipment plan with the actual capacity offered. That preserves the value of the regional outlook while preventing the article from inventing a mining expansion that the source has not announced.

Energy accumulation depends on operating time

Power and energy need separate units. In an illustrative constant-load example, 1 GW used for 24 hours corresponds to 24 GWh. Real installations may operate at changing utilization, and a capacity forecast does not supply that utilization profile. The calculation is independent explanatory arithmetic, not a claim about actual daily consumption in the UAE or Saudi Arabia. A maximum available load and the energy billed over a month answer different operating questions.

For a farm assessing a contract, review how charges depend on consumption, reserved capacity and the conditions under which load can be reduced. The source does not provide a tariff table or establish that cheap electricity is universally available in either country. Infrastructure growth can coexist with quite different commercial terms across sites. Our analysis therefore avoids deriving a payback period or regional mining profitability ranking from the announced gigawatt forecast. Those results would need additional, current project and equipment evidence.

Regional expansion should be followed with matching evidence

The useful follow-up is a consistent series of project completions, revised plans and measured use at defined boundaries. Comparing a new announcement with an older installed-base number can create an apparent trend that is simply a mismatch of definitions. Our interpretation is that readers should preserve publication dates, forecast horizons and whether a value measures capacity or consumption. That makes later updates comparable and helps identify whether a project has advanced or only restated its target.

The October 7 item is a current publisher update, while the expected additions run through 2030. A later commissioning announcement would be a different event. Keeping those dates separate avoids presenting a four-year development outlook as a completed change in this week’s computing market. ASIC.tools has not audited every project behind the regional estimate, and this article does not invent a project list. It reports the stated expectation and explains the limits of applying it to an individual operating decision.

What readers can use from the outlook

The confirmed news is S&P Global’s highlighted regional growth expectation, with its power boundary and horizon retained. For an operator researching the Middle East, it is a useful lead for investigating electricity delivery, cooling arrangements and actual hosting contracts. Our analysis does not use the forecast as evidence to change miner release dates or catalogue specifications. The archived illustrations show regional urban context, with captions that distinguish them from the specific projects included in the forecast.

The original update is linked for its context and source attribution. The article’s practical conclusion is to compare like with like: IT power with IT power, commissioned capacity with commissioned capacity, and a forecast with its own time horizon. Readers considering a deployment should then move to project-level documents and current terms. The region’s expected growth is newsworthy, while the evidence for a particular farm’s readiness and economics remains a separate question that the aggregate forecast does not answer.

Source: S&P Global ↗