GU Asia Pacific Updated 2026-08-20

Guam Geothermal Screening

Geothermal screening assessment identifies 48.3% prospective land reaching 185°C by 5.5 km depth in Guam.

Key Geothermal Metrics

Land Reaching 185°C by 5.5 km High Potential
48.3%

Primary baseline screening criterion

Shallowest Depth to 200°C Very Shallow
2.1 km

Minimum drill depth for high enthalpy

Peak Temperature at 5 km Depth Superhot
338.7 °C

Maximum modeled temperature

Typical Geothermal Gradient Volcanic / Rift
51.8 °C/km

Average to 5 km depth (15°C surface)

Grid Connectable Prospective Area High Accessibility
81.2%

Hot territory within 50 km transmission

Stored Heat In-Place (3–7 km) 1 ZJ = 10²¹ Joules
72.4 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 19.9% 45.1% 74.2% 88.1% 99% 100%
175°C 16.7% 41.4% 60% 82.9% 99% 100%
200°C 17.4% 36.5% 56.5% 73.1% 99% 100%
225°C 15.6% 29.8% 42.8% 70.5% 93.6% 93.6%
250°C 14.2% 22.2% 37.4% 49% 80.4% 83.4%

4-Stage Geothermal Resource & Infrastructure Funnel

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

1 Whole country
549 km² 100%
2 Reaches 185°C by 5.5 km
265 km² 48.3%
3 ...and within 50 km transmission
215 km² 39.2%
4 ...and within 100 km town
184 km² 35%

Geological Setting & Subsurface Parameters

Lithology, basement thickness, stress and thermal boundary constraints

Median Depth to 200°C Isotherm 4.4 km
Best 10th Percentile Depth to 200°C 2.6 km
Median Temperature at 5 km Depth 275.5 °C
Best 10th Percentile Temp at 5 km 308.6 °C
Median Sediment Thickness 0.5 km
Sediment / Hard-Rock Well Share 32.3%
Territory Under 1 km Sediment Cover 91.3%
Lithostatic Pressure at 5 km Depth 133.9 MPa
Moho Crustal Discontinuity Depth 37.3 km
Thermal Lithosphere Thickness 87.2 km
Curie Temperature Isotherm Depth 18.3 km
Model Temperature Spread Uncertainty (200°C) ±1 km

Transmission Grid & Demand Colocation

Infrastructure interconnectivity and urban power demand proximity

High-Voltage Transmission Network Length 881 km
Land Area Within 25 km of Grid 70.8%
Land Area Within 50 km of Grid 81.2%
Land Area Within 100 km of Grid 89.7%
Average Proximity to Nearest Substation / Line 16.6 km
Urban Centers (>10,000 Population) 6
Total Urban Population 1.1 M
Prospective Resource Colocated Near Demand (>1M Pop) 64%

Target Sensitivity & Deep EGS Upside

Sensitivity of prospective resource area to adjusted depth and temperature thresholds

150°C Baseline at 5.5 km 77.3% of national territory reaches 150°C at 5.5 km depth
185°C Baseline at 7.5 km 86.9% of national territory reaches 185°C at 7.5 km depth

Global Peer Benchmarking (vs. 278 Assessed Jurisdictions)

Relative ranking distribution of Guam across 11 standardized geothermal indicators

Guam Rank Global Peer Spread
Shallowest 200°C depth
2.1 km Top 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 84th percentile
Peak temp at 5 km
338.7 °C Top 10%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 95th percentile
Prospective land area (>185°C at 5.5 km)
48.3% Top 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 80th percentile
Stored heat in-place (3-7 km)
72.4 ZJ Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 58th percentile
Typical geothermal gradient
51.8 °C/km Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 74th percentile
Grid proximity (<50 km)
81.2% Top 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 81th percentile
Thin sediment coverage (<1 km)
91.3% Top 10%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 91th percentile
Curie isotherm depth
18.3 km Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 60th percentile
Moho crustal thickness
37.3 km Lower 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 33th percentile
Model temperature uncertainty spread
±0.9 km Middle 50%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 73th percentile
Urban demand colocation
48.4% Top 25%
P0 (Lowest) P50 (Median) P100 (Highest) • 64th percentile
Asset-Level 3D Simulation Available

Need Interactive 3D Spatial Inversion for Guam?

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

Direct Founder Contact: founders@geothermalradar.com

Analytical Geothermal Assessment & Discussion: Guam

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

Resource Overview

Geothermal assessment for Guam indicates volcanic_arc geological controls governing subsurface heat transport, yielding 48.3% of land area reaching the baseline target of 185°C at 5.5 km depth.

Uncertainty & Model Variance

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

Grid & Infrastructure Colocation

National electrical transmission coverage positions approximately 81.2% of prospective geothermal ground within 50 km of existing high-voltage corridors.

Geological & Basement Setting

Subsurface lithology is characterized by volcanic arc dynamics with median sediment thickness of 0.5 km and crustal thickness of 37.3 km.

Stored Heat Volume

Accessible thermal energy in place between 3 km and 7 km depth above 80°C totals 72.4 Zettajoules (ZJ).

Peer Comparison

Benchmarked against 237 global assessment jurisdictions, Guam 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 Guam is generated from Geothermal Radar Data Pack 2026.1 utilizing global 0.1° hex-grid thermal inversion across 6 model cells (land area: 549 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