EE Europe Updated 2026-08-20

Estonia Geothermal Screening

Geothermal screening assessment identifies 2.8% prospective land reaching 185°C by 5.5 km depth in Estonia.

Key Geothermal Metrics

Land Reaching 185°C by 5.5 km Low Prospect
2.8%

Primary baseline screening criterion

Shallowest Depth to 200°C Deep Target
7.5 km

Minimum drill depth for high enthalpy

Peak Temperature at 5 km Depth Direct Heat
159.2 °C

Maximum modeled temperature

Typical Geothermal Gradient Continental Normal
26.7 °C/km

Average to 5 km depth (15°C surface)

Grid Connectable Prospective Area Moderate Distance
40.5%

Hot territory within 50 km transmission

Stored Heat In-Place (3–7 km) 1 ZJ = 10²¹ Joules
6.1 ZJ

Thermal volume in place (>80°C baseline)

Depth vs. Temperature Matrix (% Land Area)

Proportion of national territory exceeding target isotherm at specified depth

0.1° Inversion Grid
Isotherm 3.0 km 4.0 km 5.0 km 6.0 km 7.0 km 8.0 km
150°C 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 1.2% 1.8% 2.2%
175°C 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1% 1.3%
200°C 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%
225°C
250°C

4-Stage Geothermal Resource & Infrastructure Funnel

Progressive screening from gross national territory down to grid-connected & populated prospective zones

1 Whole country
45 228 km² 100%
2 Reaches 185°C by 5.5 km
1 266 km² 2.8%
3 ...and within 50 km transmission
513 km² 1.1%
4 ...and within 100 km town
452 km² 1%

Geological Setting & Subsurface Parameters

Lithology, basement thickness, stress and thermal boundary constraints

Median Depth to 200°C Isotherm 9.8 km
Best 10th Percentile Depth to 200°C 7.9 km
Median Temperature at 5 km Depth 119.5 °C
Best 10th Percentile Temp at 5 km 148.3 °C
Median Sediment Thickness 0.7 km
Sediment / Hard-Rock Well Share 19.9%
Territory Under 1 km Sediment Cover 77.7%
Lithostatic Pressure at 5 km Depth 139 MPa
Moho Crustal Discontinuity Depth 39.8 km
Thermal Lithosphere Thickness 109.4 km
Curie Temperature Isotherm Depth 35.8 km
Model Temperature Spread Uncertainty (200°C) ±1.4 km

Transmission Grid & Demand Colocation

Infrastructure interconnectivity and urban power demand proximity

High-Voltage Transmission Network Length 6 458 km
Land Area Within 25 km of Grid 31%
Land Area Within 50 km of Grid 40.5%
Land Area Within 100 km of Grid 47.4%
Average Proximity to Nearest Substation / Line 25.4 km
Urban Centers (>10,000 Population) 23
Total Urban Population 6.5 M
Prospective Resource Colocated Near Demand (>1M Pop) 49.3%

Target Sensitivity & Deep EGS Upside

Sensitivity of prospective resource area to adjusted depth and temperature thresholds

150°C Baseline at 5.5 km 4.5% of national territory reaches 150°C at 5.5 km depth
185°C Baseline at 7.5 km 5% of national territory reaches 185°C at 7.5 km depth

Global Peer Benchmarking (vs. 278 Assessed Jurisdictions)

Relative ranking distribution of Estonia across 11 standardized geothermal indicators

Estonia Rank Global Peer Spread
Shallowest 200°C depth
7.5 km Lower 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 7th percentile
Peak temp at 5 km
159.2 °C Lower 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 24th percentile
Prospective land area (>185°C at 5.5 km)
2.8% Lower 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 5th percentile
Stored heat in-place (3-7 km)
6.1 ZJ Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 25th percentile
Typical geothermal gradient
26.7 °C/km Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 38th percentile
Grid proximity (<50 km)
40.5% Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 40th percentile
Thin sediment coverage (<1 km)
77.7% Top 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 78th percentile
Curie isotherm depth
35.8 km Lower 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 21th percentile
Moho crustal thickness
39.8 km Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 28th percentile
Model temperature uncertainty spread
±1.1 km Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 74th percentile
Urban demand colocation
48.4% Top 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 73th percentile
Asset-Level 3D Simulation Available

Need Interactive 3D Spatial Inversion for Estonia?

High-resolution 3D temperature cubes, localized Curie depth inversions, fault network stress tensors, and drilling capex curves for Estonia are accessible through our Premium & Enterprise subscription tiers.

Direct Founder Contact: founders@geothermalradar.com

Analytical Geothermal Assessment & Discussion: Estonia

Subsurface thermal interpretation, model uncertainty, infrastructure colocation, and resource quality analysis

Resource Overview

Geothermal assessment for Estonia indicates craton_shield geological controls governing subsurface heat transport, yielding 2.8% of land area reaching the baseline target of 185°C at 5.5 km depth.

Uncertainty & Model Variance

Thermal inversion across Estonia shows consistent model convergence with constrained standard deviations across deep crustal layers.

Grid & Infrastructure Colocation

National electrical transmission coverage positions approximately 40.5% of prospective geothermal ground within 50 km of existing high-voltage corridors.

Geological & Basement Setting

Subsurface lithology is characterized by craton shield dynamics with median sediment thickness of 0.7 km and crustal thickness of 39.8 km.

Stored Heat Volume

Accessible thermal energy in place between 3 km and 7 km depth above 80°C totals 6.1 Zettajoules (ZJ).

Peer Comparison

Benchmarked against 237 global assessment jurisdictions, Estonia demonstrates competitive positioning across heat flow, infrastructure, and basement competence indicators.

Target Sensitivity Analysis

Screening at 150°C baseline at 5.5 km increases prospective territory, demonstrating substantial deep EGS resource headroom.

Screening Methodology, Parameters & Limitations

This screening assessment for Estonia is generated from Geothermal Radar Data Pack 2026.1 utilizing global 0.1° hex-grid thermal inversion across 503 model cells (land area: 45 228 km²). Baseline prospective criterion is defined as reaching 185°C at or above 5.5 km depth with surface temperature normalized to 15°C.

  • Screening estimates represent regional-scale heat in place and do not replace localized 3D seismic or exploratory drilling.
  • Model uncertainties expand in regions with sparse deep boreholes and complex thrust fault kinematics.
  • Grid proximity indicators reflect line-of-sight distance to high-voltage transmission and do not account for local substation thermal capacity.
Need Detailed Asset-Level Due Diligence?

Access 3D temperature grids, drilling cost curves, and micro-siting GIS layers.

Request Full Technical Dossier