Stanford Geothermal WorkshopFebruary 9-11, 2026

Recently, there has been an interest to define temperatures at depth (≥3 km) in the Basin and Range province as a means to prospect for sites suitable for developing enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). One approach to estimating these temperatures is to use published estimated temperatures-at-depth maps derived from three well-known heat flow studies; 1) the Southern Methodist, University (SMU) model published in 2011, 2) the Stanford model published in 2024, and 3) the United States Geological Survey (USGS) updated model published in 2024. Use of these heat studies considers how these models were built and if they are modeling only patterns of conductive heat flow or both conductive and convective heat flow. Another approach is to establish representative local geothermal gradient(s) derived from published well temperature data and to project the gradient(s) to the depth of interest. This second approach allows coupling with conceptual modeling with considerations for the quality and under what conditions the well temperatures were collected, thermal effects of flow in cool or warm aquifers, and relative differences in thermal conductivity between major rock units. In this paper we provide a comparison of the two approaches for selected sites within the Basin and Range. In some study areas the estimated temperatures from heat flow modeling correlate with deep well data, however, sites were also identified where the estimated temperatures do not correlate with well data and the representative gradient; either underestimating or overestimating the thermal regime at depth. Due to these discrepancies, it is recommended to evaluate the model derived temperatures against downhole measured data, calculated gradients, and consider conceptual models to estimate the thermal regime in the depth of interest for developing EGS projects in the Basin and Range.

Topic: General