The Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office to assist in identifying and pursuing long-term investment strategies through the development of a resource reporting protocol. GeoRePORT provides scientists and nonscientists a comprehensive and quantitative means of reporting: (1) features intrinsic to geothermal sites (project grade) and (2) maturity of the development (project readiness). Because geothermal feasibility is not determined by any single factor (e.g., temperature, permeability, permitting), a site?s project grade and readiness are evaluated on 12 attributes pertaining to geological, technical, or socio-economic feasibility. In this paper, we present case studies showing how GeoRePORT can be used to compare geological, technical, and socio-economic attributes between geothermal systems. The consistent and objective assessment protocols used in GeoRePORT allow for comparison of project attributes across unique locations and geological settings. GeoRePORT case studies presented here outline the geological, socio-economic, and technical features of four individual geothermal sites: Coso, Chena, Dixie Valley, and White Sands Missile Range. The case studies illustrate the usefulness of GeoRePORT in evaluating project risk and return, identifying gaps in reported data, evaluating R&D impact, and gathering insights on successes and failures as applicable to future projects.

The Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office to assist in identifying and pursuing long-term investment strategies through the development of a resource reporting protocol. GeoRePORT provides scientists and nonscientists a comprehensive and quantitative means of reporting: (1) features intrinsic to geothermal sites (project grade) and (2) maturity of the development (project readiness). Because geothermal feasibility is not determined by any single factor (e.g., temperature, permeability, permitting), a site?s project grade and readiness are evaluated on 12 attributes pertaining to geological, technical, or socio-economic feasibility. In this submission, we present the geological, socio-economic, and technical protocols as well as the spreadsheet template for easy data entry and reporting of the GeoRePORT protocol.

Simulation input and output files, post-processed figures and excel tables, and tecplot layout files for generating figures. These simulations were run with TOUGHREACT V4.12 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 2021. This work was completed as part of the geologic thermal energy storage (GeoTES) research project reported in the final report for Phase I of this work, which is linked below.

This is the Phase 3 native state model update. The Phase 3 numerical model represents a significant subsurface volume below the FORGE site footprint. The model domain of 4.0 km x 4.0 km x 4.2 km is located approximately between depths of 4000 to 4200 meters below land surface. This data archive consists of 10 files, 4 of which are simulation input files and the remaining 6 are simulation output files. There is an included readme.txt file that contains details on each of the data files. The input files include meshes, FALCON code inputs, tabulated data of water properties, temperature values, and model boundaries. The output files include simulation outfiles and point data of modeled material properties.