Procter & Gamble Global Geothermal Screening Study FINAL 9 Feb 2023

P&G Global Geothermal Screening Client Confidential
P&G Geothermal
Global Screening
Heat Seeker Study
Date: 9th Feb 2023

Prepared for
Version: 1.0
Procter & Gamble
Status: Final
Kitson House, Elmete Hall, Elmete Lane, Leeds LS8 2LJ, United Kingdom.
T: +44 (0)113 322 2200 W: www.getech.com E: info@getech.com
1
Executive Summary
Getech ranked 128 Procter & Gamble (P&G) sites worldwide according to their relative potential to replace
some or all of their current energy consumption with geothermal energy for decarbonization purposes. To
place the geothermal potential of each site in context of other low-carbon energy alternatives, this analysis
also reports the relative potential for solar and wind energy, although wind and solar are not included in the
ranking.
The sites were evaluated against five geothermal factors, with data for each factor collected from globally
consistent data sets at or in the vicinity of the location provided by P&G. The factors are (in order of priority):
Temperature, Geologic Structure, Recharge, Lithology, and Operations.
The ranking methodology assigned a score between 0 (least attractive) and 100 (most attractive) for each
site, calculated based on the five factors, where each component of the score contributes according to the
relative importance or weight of the factor. In our view this methodology provides the most consistent way of
ranking sites because it provides a globally holistic measure of geological and surface conditions that
determine whether locations are favorable for geothermal exploration.
The top ranked sites (Tier I) are listed below. For further details and site rankings please refer to the
remainder of this report.
Tier I Sites (Score 75 and over):
Site_Name Score Temp Structure Recharge Lithology Operations

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
Kuantan 94 5 4 5 5 5
Ben Cat 86 5 4 4 3 4
Budapest 81 4 5 3 5 5
Gyongyos 81 4 5 3 5 5
Jijona 81 4 5 3 5 5
Xiqing 80 4 5 3 5 4
Box Elder 79 4 5 3 4 5
Oxnard 79 4 5 3 4 5
Wallduern 79 4 5 3 4 5
Gross - Gerau 78 5 3 3 4 4
Jakarta 78 5 2 5 4 4
Marktheidenfeld 78 4 5 3 4 4
Altfeld DC 77 4 5 3 3 5
Luogang 77 4 5 2 5 4
Shiga 77 4 5 3 3 4
Kobe GO & IC 76 4 5 3 4 1
Tianjin 76 4 5 3 4 1
West Coast Mixing Center 75 4 5 3 2 4
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 2
DOCUMENT CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2. DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 TEMPERATURE................................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 RECHARGE......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 LITHOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 10
3. METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 SCORING MATRIX ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 COMPONENT GRADES .............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1 TEMPERATURE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2.3 RECHARGE ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.4 LITHOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2.5 OPERATIONS............................................................................................................................................................................... 14
4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 COMPILED INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1.1 ACCOMPANYING EXCEL WORKBOOKS .......................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.2 DATA FIELDS COMMON TO BOTH WORKBOOKS ...................................................................................................... 15
4.1.2.1 PROVIDED BY P&G .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
4.1.2.2 PROVIDED BY GETECH ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.3 DATA FIELDS UNIQUE TO THE VISUALIZER .................................................................................................................. 15
4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION ....................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 STRONG CONTRAST IN ENERGY CONSUMPTION AMONG THE SITES ............................................................. 17
4.2.2 DEMAND AT THE SITES COMPARED TO GEOTHERMAL HEAT AVAILABLE ................................................... 18
4.2.3 RELATIVE ATTRACTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT LOW-CARBON ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ........................... 18
4.3 SITES IN RANK ORDER BY SCORE ........................................................................................................................ 21
5. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
6. APPENDIX – SATELLITE IMAGERY OF SITES WITH A RANGE OF POPULATION DENSITIES .. 26

6.1 BOX ELDER, <1/KM2 .................................................................................................................................................... 26
6.2 GREENSBORO PHC, 929/KM2 ................................................................................................................................. 27
6.3 SOCHACZEW, 1024/KM2 .......................................................................................................................................... 30
6.4 SHIGA, 1073/KM2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 32
6.5 SAN MARTIN OBISPO, 2652/KM2 .......................................................................................................................... 34
3
6.6 BERLIN, 2703/KM2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 37

6.7 MANAUS, 3010/KM2 ................................................................................................................................................... 40
6.8 READING, 3347/KM2 ................................................................................................................................................... 43
6.9 BEIJING, 4958/KM2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 46
6.10 BOSTON 5035/KM2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
6.11 MANDIDEEP, 5867/KM2 ............................................................................................................................................. 52
6.12 MATERIALES, 10082/KM2 ......................................................................................................................................... 55
6.13 TIANJIN 42022/KM2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 56
Document Control
Publication
Version Issue Date Author
1.0 9 February 2023 Getech Group plc
Document Sign-off
Name Date
Authors and Reviewers BH, JC, TG 8 February 2023
Business Line Owner Laurent Le Mee 9 February 2023
Delivery Director Lourens Koen 8 February 2023
4
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This study was undertaken to rank 128 Procter & Gamble (P&G) sites worldwide according to their relative
potential to replace some or all of their current energy consumption with geothermal energy for
decarbonization purposes. Relative potential for solar and wind energy are also provided to place the
geothermal potential in context of other low-carbon energy alternatives.
2. Data
The list of sites provided by P&G included a latitude and longitude for each site. The sites were evaluated
against five factors, with data for each factor collected at or in the vicinity of the provided point:
1. Temperature
2. Geologic structure
3. Recharge
4. Lithology
5. Operations
These factors are presented in order of importance. Temperature quantifies the magnitude of the subsurface
heat resource. Geologic structure quantifies the potential for flaws in the Earth’s crust to allow geothermal
fluids to carry the heat to a well bore. Recharge quantifies the potential for meteoric water to support
geothermal fluid circulation. Lithology quanitifes the intrinsic potential of rocks at depth (independent of flaws
in the crust) to transmit geothermal fluids. Operations quantifies the potential magnitude of regualtory and
logistical impediments to project development. The practical definition and data used to quantify of each
factor are summarized in Error! Reference source not found. below.
All data were compiled in ArcGIS.
5
Table 1 – Factors and Datasets Used to Evaluate Geothermal Potential.
Factor Definition Datasets
Temperature Estimated depth to 60° and 80°C. Getech Thermal Mapping global rasters
• Surface temperature (°C).

• Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km
estimated with 1D physics.
• Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km
estimated with machine learning.
Leibnitz Institute of Applied Geophysics

(LIAG) estimated temperatures (°C) at 2
and 4 km (in Germany).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2012
.07.002
Geologic Inferred density of crustal flaws to Getech 1:1M Structures interpreted from
structure facilitate circulation of geothermal gravity, magnetics, and remote-sensing
fluids. imagery.
World Stress Map estimates of maximum

horizontal stress azimuth (Heidback et al.
2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5880/WSM.2016.001
Recharge Relative availability of meteoric Köppen-Geiger climate map from Kottek et

water to replenish the geothermal al. 2006. http://koeppen-geiger.vu-
circulation system. wien.ac.at/present.htm
Lithology Relative permeability of regional Getech Depth to Basement (km) raster.

rocks.
Global Lithology Map GLiM.
https://www.geo.uni-
hamburg.de/en/geologie/forschung/aquatis
che-geochemie/glim.html
Operations Population density, as a proxy for Global Human Settlement Layer,

the relative difficulty of permitting Population Dataset (inhabitants/km2).
and operational execution. https://doi.org/10.2905/D6D86A90-4351-
4508-99C1-CB074B022C4A
6
2.1 Temperature
The depth to 60° and 80°C are taken as comparative metrics of the relative intrinsic magnitude of the
geothermal resource – shallower is better. The temperature at 0, 2, and 4 km was extracted from the relevant
data sets at the location of each plant. The surface temperature and 1D physics layers are global; the machine
learning layers have some geographic restrictions; the LIAG layers are only in Germany. For each plant site,
the highest temperature among the data sets at 2 and 4 km was selected. The depth to 60° and 80°C were
interpolated or extrapolated at each plant site from the extracted and selected temperatures. The depths are
estimates, not measurements. The actual depths to 60° and 80°C that would be demonstrated by drilling
might be different by hundreds of meters.
2.2 Geologic Structure

Fractures in rocks are orders of magnitude more effective at flowing geothermal fluids than are connected
pores in the rock (~100 m3/hr vs ~0.1-10 m3/hr). Therefore, we wish to evaluate the relative abundance of
fractures in the subsurface within around each site. At the global screening scale, we infer the relative
likelihood of fractures by the type, activity, proximity, and orientation of large, geophysically detectable faults
to the site.
• The bigger, the more, and the closer are these large faults, the higher the chance that the relevant rock
near the site will be fractured in a way that enhances geothermal fluid flow. We do not consider faults
more than about 100 km away from the site as relevant to the analysis, except as regional context to
interpret ambiguitites regarding faults that lie closer.
• The type of fault (Figure 1) matters: strike slip faults, on average, tend to reach deepest into the crust and
have the largest damage envelope around them. Normal faults are relatively better than thrust faults.
• Active (moving at present day) strike-slip and normal faults have the greatest chance that the fault will be
under relative extension and therefore most likely able to flow geothermal fluids. Active thrust faults are,
by definition, under compression, and therefore least likely able to flow geothermal fluids.
• The state of stress in the earth’s crust can be resolved into three mutually perpendicular directions
(Figure 2). The orientation of the faults with respect to maximum horizontal stress (SHmax) determines
whether they are more likely to be in extension or compression, even if the stress is not large enough to
cause active motion on the fault. SHmax is, by definition, perpendicular to the minimum horizontal stress
(SHmin), so when the direction of Shmax is parallel to the strike of a fault, the smallest possible stress
acts to press the fault closed, and the fault has the best chance to be open and pass fluid.
7
Figure 1 – Types of Faults (from Efythymiou & Makris 2021).
Figure 2 – Three mutually-perpendicular stress directions. (From Bell et al. 1994).
8
2.3 Recharge
Geothermal fluids in a basin will circulate more effectively if there is active recharge to drive hydrologic heads.
At a global-screening scale, we infer the magnitude of meteoric (water that falls from the sky) input to the
subsurface as a function of the gross climate, as documented by the Köppen-Geiger climate classification
scheme (Kottek et al. 2006). A climates have the greatest precipitation, and therefore we assign them the
highest relative recharge category. B and E climates have the least precipitation, so we assign them the
lowest recharge relative category. In C and D climates, precipitation is moderate, so that a substantial fraction
of the water that precipitates may not enter the subsurface due to evaporation. Evaporation will be relatively
more important if most of the precipitation falls during the summer, so dry winters (wet summers) are
downgraded relative to dry summers (wet winters). D climates with very cold winters will retain a significant
fraction of precipitation as snow and ice, even during the summer, so they are also assigned the lowest
relative recharge category.
Table 2 – Köppen Climate Classes and Recharge Categories

Class First Second Third Recharge Category
Af Tropical Feucht (Humid, Rainforest) 5
Am Tropical Monsoon 5
As Tropical Savanna, dry winter 4
Aw Tropical Savanna, dry summer 4
BSh Dry Semi-Arid, Steppe heiss (hot) 2
BSk Dry Semi-Arid, Steppe kalt (cold) 2
BWh Dry Wüste (Desert) heiss (hot) 1
BWk Dry Wüste (Desert) kalt (cold) 1
Cfa Temperate No dry season 3
Cfb Temperate No dry season 3
Cfc Temperate No dry season 3
Csa Temperate Summer dry season Hot summer 3
Csb Temperate Summer dry season warm summer 3
Csc Temperate Summer dry season cold summer 3
Cwa Temperate Winter dry season Hot summer 2
Cwb Temperate Winter dry season warm summer 2
Cwc Temperate Winter dry season cold summer 2
Dfa Continental No dry season Hot summer 3
Dfb Continental No dry season warm summer 3
Dfc Continental No dry season cold summer 3
Dfd Continental No dry season very cold winter 1
Dsa Continental Summer dry season Hot summer 2
Dsb Continental Summer dry season warm summer 2
Dsc Continental Summer dry season cold summer 2
Dwa Continental Winter dry season Hot summer 2
Dwb Continental Winter dry season warm summer 2
Dwc Continental Winter dry season cold summer 2
Dwd Continental Winter dry season very cold winter 1
EF Polar Ice cap 1
ET Polar Tundra 1
9
2.4 Lithology
We draw a fundamental distinction between “basement”, which is compact crystalline rock with virtually no
intrinsic porosity, and sediments. Sediments are either discrete, unconsolidated particles or their lithified
equivalents that retain significant void space (porosity) between the particles. We estimate the depth to the
interface between basement and sediments (which is rarely a sharp boundary in reality) by inversion of
measured gravity and magnetic fields. If the depth to 60°C is within the realm of sediments, the inherent
permeability of the lithology (independent of fracture permeability) is likely to be much higher than if the
depth to 60°C is within the basement. Among sediments, carbonate rocks (limestones, dolostones, marls) are
more likely to have macroscopic voids due to dissolution of the primary constituent CaCO 3. Volcanic rocks
may have mineralogical composition like other basement rocks, but their emplacement at the Earth’s surface
often creates significant void space that will give a geophysical signature more like sediments, and
correspondingly higher permeability than basement.
We use the Global Lithology Map (GLiM) from the University of Hamburg to document the surface exposure
and orientation of different rock types, which allows an interpretation of the lithology at the depth to 60°C.
The more permeable the rock type, the higher the relative score for lithology.
2.5 Operations
Drilling and other exploration activities like seismic acquisition are subject to regulatory and logistical
constraints. At a global screening level, we account for possible regulatory and logistical impediments as a
function of population density. The more tightly packed the people are, the more likely the government will
pay attention to things that might inconvenience them, and the smaller the maneuvering room. Higher
population density leads to a lower relative score for operations.
10
3. Methods
3.1 Scoring Matrix
Each site has been assigned a score between 0 (least attractive) and 100 (most attractive). The score is
calculated based on the five factors enumerated in the previous section. Each component of the score
contributes according to the relative importance or weight of the factor, as summarized in Table 3. Each
factor is twice as important as the one below it in the list, and therefore half as important as the one above it
in the list, with the intrinsic temperature of the subsurface as the most important factor of all.
Table 3 – Scoring Matrix

Component Weight Points
Temperature 16 52
Structure 8 26
Recharge 4 13
Lithology 2 6
Operations 1 3
Total 31 100
3.2 Component Grades

At each site, each factor is assigned a grade from 1 (worst possible) to 5 (best possible), as summarized in
Table 4. If the grade is 5, the site receives the maximum possible points for that component. If the grade is 1,
the site receives no points for that component. If the grade is 2, 3, or 4, the site receives a fraction of the
maximum points, as outlined in Table 4. The criteria for assigning grades to each factor are explained in the
following sections.
Table 4 – Component Grading Scheme

Grades Meaning US Academic equivalent Score Fraction
5 Best Possible A 1
4 B 0.75
3 Neutral C 0.50
2 D 0.25
1 Worst Possible F 0
11
3.2.1 Temperature
The depth categories are intended to track with potential drilling costs, which tend to rise exponentially with
depth. The actual cost to drill a well to the same depth will vary significantly from place to place depending
on how well developed and competitive the local drilling market is, how much drilling services are in demand,
and the details of site geology. Among the 128 sites in this study, only 5 are in the shallowest category, and
only 6 are in the deepest category (Figure 3).
Table 5 – Depth Grades

Grade Depth to 60°
(km)
5 0.5-1.0
4 1.0-1.5
3 1.5-2.0
2 2.0-2.5
1 > 2.5
Depth to 60° Exceedance Probability

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0.00
0.50
1.00
Depth to 60° (km)
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Figure 3 – Probability That Depth to 60°C Will Be Deeper Than a Specified Value
12
3.2.2 Structure
Structure is a subjective score, assigned by an experienced geologist in consideration of all available
observations summarized on the map, but guided by the general principles articulated in Table 6. High spatial
density of structures, and proximity to the site, especially within a few km, can increase the score by 1 rank
over the general guidance.
Table 6 – General Principles for Assigning Structure Grades

Grade Strike slip Normal Thrust No Structure
5 Active
4 Inactive parallel to Active

Shmax
3 Inactive Inactive parallel to Inactive parallel to

Shmax Shmax
2 Inactive Active
1 Always
3.2.3 Recharge
The recharge categories described in Table 2 are also the Grade for scoring.
3.2.4 Lithology
Structure is a subjective score, assigned by an experienced geologist in consideration of all available
observations summarized on the map, but guided by the general principles articulated in Table 7.
Table 7 – General Principles for Assigning Lithology Grades

Grade GLiM Lithology
5 Karstified Carbonates, silicic volcanics if 60° is
above basement
4 Other carbonates, other volcanics, well known

sandstone aquifers (example shallow Bunter)
3 Mixed sediments, if 60° is above basement
2 Acid volcanics, quartzofeldspathic crystalline

metamorphics, if 60° is in basement
1 Mafic, metasediments, if 60° is in basement
13
3.2.5 Operations
The category limits expressed in Table 8 were derived by examining representative satellite images from
sites with different population densities (Appendix) and comparing them to historical experience with drilling
operations.
A site like Box Elder, with a population density less than 1 person per square km in the immediate
surroundings of the plant, is likely to have the maximum operational freedom. Tianjin, with more than 42,000
people per square km, will clearly present operational challenges. Greensboro PHC, at 929/km2 and
Sochaczew, at 1024/km2, start to define the upper limit of the population density consistent with room to
manoeuvre. At the other end of the spectrum, Boston (5035/km 2) and Beijing (4958/km2) bracket where the
tightest quarters might begin to loosen up enough to provide a degree of operational freedom.
The limits are necessarily subjective and arbitrary, but they are at least directionally useful.
Figure 4 illustrates that about 12% of the sites fall in the worst category, whereas more than half are in the
best category.
Table 8 – Operational Categories Inferred from Population Density

Grade Population Density (people/km2)
5 0-1000
4 1000-2000
3 2000-3000
2 3000-5000
1 >5000
Population Density Exceedance Probability

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
Population Density (people/km2)
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Figure 4 – Probability That Population Density in This Dataset Exceeds a Specified Value
14
4. Results
4.1 Compiled Information
4.1.1 Accompanying Excel Workbooks
All information compiled for this analysis is presented in two Excel workbooks:
PG Plant Locations with compiled data 3 Feb 2023.xlsx
Site List for Geothermal Study Visualized 01 Feb 2023.xlsx
The first workbook includes the compiled information and the derived scores, the second workbook visualizes
many of the data in a variety of graphs. Both workbooks contain the same information; the visualizer is
provided primarily as a courtesy to explain the provenance of some figures in this report, it is not a highly
refined deliverable. The next sections summarize the kinds of data and information provided in the two
workbooks.
4.1.2 Data Fields Common to Both Workbooks

4.1.2.1 Provided by P&G
Site_Name Region
Site_Type Subregion
Category_Owner Supporting_Site
BU Latitude
Sector Longitude
Street_Address Average__GJ_Monthly
City Average_GJ_Jun_Jul
State Average_GJ_Jan_Feb
Country
Zip_Code
4.1.2.2 Provided by Getech

Please refer to Table 9 (next page).
4.1.3 Data Fields Unique to the Visualizer
Many of the plots visualize information according to rank. Column headers like “Trank” represent the rank,
from largest to smallest, of a variable (in this case temperature, as quantified by Tat2km). The name of the
respective variable can be interpreted from Table 9. “TrankRel” refers to a relative rank, or the given rank
divided by the largest rank. Exceedance probability is 1-rankRel.
15
Table 9 – Information Supplied by Getech

Column Header Meaning
SolarAvgPV Average Solar Potential, stated as the device-independent ratio of
the average kWh and the peak kWh the panel could produce
based on daily insolation during the year
SolarGWh Annual solar electric output (GWh) of a pro forma 100 ha site
with 1 x 1.5 m panels of 100W with spacing factor 0.5
WindAvgSpeed Average annual wind speed (m/s)
WindGWh Annual wind electric output (GWh) of a pro forma wind farm 10
km2 with 16 turbines, 110 m diameter, 80 m hub height, spacing
factor 7, efficiency 30W, wake loses 5%, air density 1.225 kg/m3
Tat0km Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 1.5 m above the Earth’s

surface, from Getech Thermal Mapping Layers
Tat2km, Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km below the Earth’s

Tat4km surface, calculated with 1D conductive heat-flow modelling, from
Getech Thermal Mapping Layers
LIAG_Tat2km, Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km below the Earth’s

LIAG_Tat4km surface in Germany, calculated by the Leibnitz Institute for
Applied Geophysics using geostatistical universal kriging
techniques on measured borehole temperatures.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2012.07.002
ML_Tat2km, Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km below the Earth’s

ML_Tat4km surface, estimated with random-forest machine-learning
techniques calibrated to the Western United States, from Getech
Thermal Mapping Layers
Max_Tat2km, The maximum value selected from the 1D-physics, machine-

Max_Tat4km learning, and LIAG temperature estimates
Gradient_0to2, The geothermal gradient, in °C/km, calculated from the surface to

Gradient_2to4 2 km and 2km to 4 km using Tat0km, Max_Tat2km, Max_Tat4km
Dto60, Depth to 60° and 80°C, interpolated or extrapolated using

Dto80 Max_Tat2km, Max_Tat4km, Gradient_0to2, Gradient_2to4
D2B (km) Depth to Basement: distance in km from the Earth’s surface to the
interface between sediments and crystalline igneous and/or
metamorphic rocks, estimated from inversion of gravity and
magnetic measurements
16
4.2 Characteristics of the Population

4.2.1 Strong contrast in energy consumption among the sites
A striking feature of the data supplied by P&G is the disparity of energy consumption among the sites (Figure
5). The single largest site, by itself, accounts for 40% of the total energy consumption of all sites. The top 10
sites account for just under 80% of total consumption. The sites smaller than the median consumption
collectively account for less than 2% of the total worldwide consumption. The 25 smallest sites collectively
represent less than 0.1% of the total.
1.00
0.90
0.80
Cumulative Fraction of Consumption
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Energy Consumption Relative Rank
Figure 5 – Relative Consumption of Energy by the Sites
17
4.2.2 Demand at the Sites Compared to Geothermal Heat Available

There is no systematic relationship between site consumption and subsurface endowment of heat (Figure 6).
Average Monthly Consumption (GJ)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Depth to 60°C (km)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Figure 6 – Energy Consumption vs Subsurface Heat Endowment
4.2.3 Relative attractiveness of different low-carbon energy alternatives

There is no systematic advantage across various alternative energy pathways to decarbonization of the sites.
For solar and wind (Figure 7), there is no overlap at all between the best 20 sites for solar and the best 20
sites for wind, if anything there is a negative correlation in the top 20. It is possible, however for a site to be
almost the worst in both solar and wind (as for example Chengdu, which is #120 for wind and #128 for
solar).
There is a weak association between subsurface temperature and solar potential, but no association with
wind potential (Figure 8). The top solar potential is found at Milenio, which is number 17 for Depth to 60°.
Second best solar potential is at Mariscala, which is number 10 for Depth to 60°.
18
140
120
Potential Solar Output (Rank)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Potential Wind Output (Rank)
Figure 7 – Comparison of Solar and Wind Potential Among the Sites
19
140
120
Wind or Solar Potential (Rank)
100
80
Solar
60 Wind
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Depth to 60° (Rank)
Figure 8 – Comparison of Solar and Wind Potential to Geothermal Potential.
20
4.3 Sites in Rank Order by Score

The relative ranking of the sites is documented in Table 10 through Table 13. There is an almost continuous
distribution of scores between the top-rated site, Kuantan, with 94 points and the lowest rated site,
Ordzhonikidze, with 15 points. The division between the four tables is necessarily arbitrary. Nevertheless, the
top tier in Table 10 appears to stand out as the best place to start. The bottom tier in Table 13 can
comfortably wait until late in the process because the benefits will be low, the costs will be high, or both.
Table 10 – Tier I Sites, Score 75 and over.

Kuantan 94 5 4 5 5 5
Ben Cat 86 5 4 4 3 4
Budapest 81 4 5 3 5 5
Gyongyos 81 4 5 3 5 5
Jijona 81 4 5 3 5 5
Xiqing 80 4 5 3 5 4
Box Elder 79 4 5 3 4 5
Oxnard 79 4 5 3 4 5
Wallduern 79 4 5 3 4 5
Gross - Gerau 78 5 3 3 4 4
Jakarta 78 5 2 5 4 4
Marktheidenfeld 78 4 5 3 4 4
Altfeld DC 77 4 5 3 3 5
Luogang 77 4 5 2 5 4
Shiga 77 4 5 3 3 4
Kobe GO & IC 76 4 5 3 4 1
Tianjin 76 4 5 3 4 1
West Coast Mixing Center 75 4 5 3 2 4
21
Table 11 – Tier II Sites, Score 74-56.

Cabuyao 74 3 5 5 5 5
Cruzeiro Do Sul 73 4 4 4 2 5
Binh Duong 71 5 2 4 3 1
Euskirchen 69 4 4 3 2 5
Bangkok 69 4 3 4 4 4
Gebze 68 3 5 3 5 5
Mequinenza 68 4 4 1 5 5
Manaus 67 4 3 5 2 2
Newbridge 67 4 3 3 5 4
DUBAI GO 67 4 5 1 2 2
Medellin 66 3 5 5 2 1
Blois 65 4 3 3 4 4
Worms 65 4 3 3 4 4
Mariscala 65 4 3 2 5 5
Singapore Pioneer 65 4 2 5 3 5
Takasaki 64 4 3 3 3 4
Akashi 62 3 5 3 3 2
October 6 61 4 3 1 5 5
Mandideep 61 3 5 3 3 1
Taicang 61 4 2 3 5 5
Goa 60 3 3 5 4 5
GOA -PHC 60 3 3 5 4 5
Kronberg 60 4 2 3 4 5
Jeddah 60 4 4 1 2 1
Cairo 59 4 3 1 4 4
Crailsheim 58 4 2 3 3 5
Dallas Mixing Center 58 4 2 3 3 5
Milenio 58 4 2 2 5 5
Pilar 58 4 2 3 3 5
Sacramento 58 4 2 3 3 5
Huangpu 58 4 3 2 2 3
Schwalbach 58 4 2 3 4 3
Newcastle TC 57 4 2 3 3 4
Alexandria 56 4 2 3 2 5
Amiens 56 4 2 3 3 3
Phoenix 56 4 3 1 2 5
Villa Mercedes 56 3 4 3 2 5
Minhang 56 4 2 3 3 2
Santiago 56 3 4 3 3 2
22
Table 12 – Tier III Sites, Score 55-41.

Ahmedabad 55 4 2 1 5 5
Cape Girardeau 55 3 3 3 5 5
Casablanca 55 4 2 3 3 1
Gattatico 55 3 3 3 5 5
Singapore IC 55 4 1 5 3 1
Berlin 55 4 2 3 2 3
Baddi 53 4 2 2 3 3
Baddi B&R 53 4 2 2 3 3
Mechelen 53 4 1 3 4 5
Skelmersdale DC 53 3 3 3 4 5
Beijing IC 52 3 3 3 5 2
Port Qasim 52 4 2 1 4 4
Manchester 52 3 3 3 3 5
Pomezia 52 4 1 3 3 5
Tepeji 52 4 1 2 5 5
Vallejo 51 4 1 2 5 4
Reading 51 3 3 3 4 2
Hyderabad TS 50 3 2 4 4 5
Hub 50 4 2 1 3 3
Louveira 50 3 3 3 2 5
Northeast Mixing Center 50 3 3 3 2 5
Rakona 50 3 3 3 3 3
San Martin Obispo DC 50 4 1 2 5 3
Brussels Innovation Center 49 4 1 3 2 4
Albany 48 3 2 3 5 5
Alce Blanco 48 4 1 2 5 1
Naucalpan 48 4 1 2 5 1
Sekerpinar DC 48 3 3 3 3 1
Spittal 48 2 5 3 2 3
London 48 3 2 3 5 4
Bhiwadi 48 4 2 1 2 2
Mehoopany 47 3 2 3 4 5
Dammam 46 4 1 1 4 4
Auburn 44 3 2 3 2 5
Targowek 43 3 2 3 3 2
Kansas City F&HC 42 3 1 3 5 5
23
Table 13 – Tier IV Sites, Score 40 and Below.

Chengdu 40 3 2 2 4 1
Sochaczew DC 40 3 1 3 4 4
Aleksandrow 39 3 1 3 3 5
Lodz - LMC 39 3 1 3 4 3
Dover 37 2 3 3 2 5
Materiales 35 3 2 1 3 1
North Chicago 35 2 2 3 5 5
Shanghai 35 3 1 3 3 1
St. Louis 35 2 2 3 5 5
Tabler Station 35 2 2 3 5 5
Edwardsville Mixing Ctrs 34 2 2 3 4 5
Greensboro 34 2 2 3 4 5
Greensboro - PHC 34 2 2 3 4 5
Southeast Mixing Center 34 2 2 3 4 5
Iowa City 33 2 2 3 4 4
Iowa City Oral Care 33 2 2 3 4 4
Johannesburg 32 2 2 2 5 5
Boryspil 31 2 2 3 2 5
Urlati 31 2 2 3 2 5
GPDF 29 2 1 3 5 5
iMFLUX 29 2 1 3 5 5
Lima 29 2 1 3 5 5
Winton Hill BC 29 2 1 3 5 5
Mason Business Center 28 2 1 3 5 4
BRTC BRB 27 2 1 3 4 5
Cincinnati 27 2 1 3 4 5
Dayton Mixing Center 27 2 1 3 4 5
Fabric & Homecare IC 27 2 1 3 4 5
St. Petersburg 27 2 1 3 4 5
Green Bay 21 1 2 3 4 5
Novomoskovsk 20 1 2 3 4 4
Andover 18 1 2 3 2 5
Belleville 18 1 2 3 2 5
Boston 16 1 2 3 3 1
Ordzhonikidze 15 1 1 3 4 5
24
5. Conclusions
We undertook a study to rank 128 sites, evaluated against five key geothermal factors, with data for each
factor collected at or in the vicinity of the provided point.
The ranking methodology assigned a score between 0 (least attractive) and 100 (most attractive) for each
site, calculated based on the five factors, where each component of the score contributes according to the
relative importance or weight of the factor.
In our view this methodology provides the most consistent way of ranking sites because it provides a globally
holistic measure of geological and surface conditions that determine whether locations are favorable for
geothermal exploration.
Of course, there is no perfect way of scoring and ranking sites; any quantitative and qualitative approach is
subject to some degree of subjectivity or data bias. We believe that our methodology provides a sound and
unique combination of data, expertise and judgment. As such, the results in this report should enable P&G to
make more informed decisions about which sites to prioritise for more detailed follow-up work.
25
6. Appendix – Satellite Imagery of Sites

with A Range of Population Densities
6.1 Box Elder, <1/km2
26
6.2 Greensboro PHC, 929/km2
27
28
29
6.3 Sochaczew, 1024/km2
30
31
6.4 Shiga, 1073/km2
32
33
6.5 San Martin Obispo, 2652/km2
34
35
36
6.6 Berlin, 2703/km2
37
38
39
6.7 Manaus, 3010/km2
40
41
42
6.8 Reading, 3347/km2
43
44
45
6.9 Beijing, 4958/km2
46
47
48
6.10 Boston 5035/km2
49
50
51
6.11 Mandideep, 5867/km2
52
53
54
6.12 Materiales, 10082/km2
55
6.13 Tianjin 42022/km2
56

Procter & Gamble Global Geothermal Screening Study FINAL 9 Feb 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Procter & Gamble Global Geothermal Screening Study FINAL 9 Feb 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P&G Global Geothermal Screening Client Confidential

Date: 9th Feb 2023

Tier I Sites (Score 75 and over):

Site_Name Score Temp Structure Recharge Lithology Operations

DOCUMENT CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................. 4

6. APPENDIX – SATELLITE IMAGERY OF SITES WITH A RANGE OF POPULATION DENSITIES .. 26

6.6 BERLIN, 2703/KM2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 37

Version Issue Date Author

1.0 9 February 2023 Getech Group plc

All data were compiled in ArcGIS.

Table 1 – Factors and Datasets Used to Evaluate Geothermal Potential.

Factor Definition Datasets

• Surface temperature (°C).

Leibnitz Institute of Applied Geophysics

World Stress Map estimates of maximum

Recharge Relative availability of meteoric Köppen-Geiger climate map from Kottek et

Lithology Relative permeability of regional Getech Depth to Basement (km) raster.

Operations Population density, as a proxy for Global Human Settlement Layer,

2.2 Geologic Structure

Figure 1 – Types of Faults (from Efythymiou & Makris 2021).

Figure 2 – Three mutually-perpendicular stress directions. (From Bell et al. 1994).

Table 2 – Köppen Climate Classes and Recharge Categories

Table 3 – Scoring Matrix

3.2 Component Grades

Table 4 – Component Grading Scheme

Table 5 – Depth Grades

Depth to 60° Exceedance Probability

Table 6 – General Principles for Assigning Structure Grades

4 Inactive parallel to Active

3 Inactive Inactive parallel to Inactive parallel to

Table 7 – General Principles for Assigning Lithology Grades

4 Other carbonates, other volcanics, well known

3 Mixed sediments, if 60° is above basement

2 Acid volcanics, quartzofeldspathic crystalline

1 Mafic, metasediments, if 60° is in basement

Table 8 – Operational Categories Inferred from Population Density

Population Density Exceedance Probability

PG Plant Locations with compiled data 3 Feb 2023.xlsx

Site List for Geothermal Study Visualized 01 Feb 2023.xlsx

4.1.2 Data Fields Common to Both Workbooks

4.1.2.2 Provided by Getech

4.1.3 Data Fields Unique to the Visualizer

Table 9 – Information Supplied by Getech

WindAvgSpeed Average annual wind speed (m/s)

Tat0km Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 1.5 m above the Earth’s

Tat2km, Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km below the Earth’s

LIAG_Tat2km, Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km below the Earth’s

ML_Tat2km, Mean Annual Temperature (°C) at 2 and 4 km below the Earth’s

Max_Tat2km, The maximum value selected from the 1D-physics, machine-

Gradient_0to2, The geothermal gradient, in °C/km, calculated from the surface to

Dto60, Depth to 60° and 80°C, interpolated or extrapolated using

4.2 Characteristics of the Population

Figure 5 – Relative Consumption of Energy by the Sites

4.2.2 Demand at the Sites Compared to Geothermal Heat Available

Average Monthly Consumption (GJ)

Figure 6 – Energy Consumption vs Subsurface Heat Endowment

4.2.3 Relative attractiveness of different low-carbon energy alternatives

Figure 7 – Comparison of Solar and Wind Potential Among the Sites

Figure 8 – Comparison of Solar and Wind Potential to Geothermal Potential.

4.3 Sites in Rank Order by Score

Table 10 – Tier I Sites, Score 75 and over.

Site_Name Score Temp Structure Recharge Lithology Operations

Table 11 – Tier II Sites, Score 74-56.