howclose.to
ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL

The problemsEnergyEnhanced geothermal

Updated · July 2026

How close are we to geothermal power anywhere?Can we dig for clean power almost anywhere?

Can we dig for clean power almost anywhere?How close are we to geothermal power anywhere?

The physics of engineered reservoirs is proven; the open question is whether they can be drilled cheaply, run for years, and financed at utility scale.Hot rock is everywhere underground. The race is to build the plumbing to reach it - cheaply, safely, and at the scale of a real power plant.

Current stageEngineeringEngineering a system that works outside the labBuilding a system that works outside the lab
Read the evidence Where we stand
The path so far

Recorded milestones

  1. Engineered circulation achieved

  2. First GeoBlock commissioning

Open tests · conceptual branches

TODAY
  1. OPEN TEST02 ↗
    Drill many wells quicklyRepeatable fast drillingFORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom time from 440 to 60 hours; Fervo reports 21-day longer-lateral wells.Cut hard-rock wells rapidly and repeatedly without sacrificing completion quality or reservoir output.
  2. OPEN TEST03 ↗
    Run a utility-scale plantCommercial 100 MW operationCape Phase I is commissioning, but no 100 MW EGS plant has yet reported commercial operation.Operate an approximately 100 MW multi-well EGS plant with published net output, availability and reservoir performance.
  3. OPEN TEST04 ↗
    Compete on costForty-five-dollar powerDOE's capital-cost model remains about $14,700/kW for 2023 versus roughly $3,700/kW associated with the goal.Deliver repeatable unsubsidized EGS electricity at $45/MWh with commercial financing and full project costs.
TODAY
OPEN TEST02 ↗
Drill many wells quicklyRepeatable fast drillingFORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom time from 440 to 60 hours; Fervo reports 21-day longer-lateral wells.Cut hard-rock wells rapidly and repeatedly without sacrificing completion quality or reservoir output.
OPEN TEST03 ↗
Run a utility-scale plantCommercial 100 MW operationCape Phase I is commissioning, but no 100 MW EGS plant has yet reported commercial operation.Operate an approximately 100 MW multi-well EGS plant with published net output, availability and reservoir performance.
OPEN TEST04 ↗
Compete on costForty-five-dollar powerDOE's capital-cost model remains about $14,700/kW for 2023 versus roughly $3,700/kW associated with the goal.Deliver repeatable unsubsidized EGS electricity at $45/MWh with commercial financing and full project costs.
Milestones are in recorded order. Open tests are separate questions, not a forecast.Milestones are in date order. Open tests are separate tests, not a promise.
Enhanced geothermalWhere we stand

The path shows First GeoBlock commissioning. Open thresholds are separate tests in a conceptual map, not a forecast. No single percentage represents progress.

01 · Where we standWhere we stand

Where we standWhere we stand

The current stage, the evidence recorded, and the single threshold that gates the next stage.The stage reached, the evidence recorded, and the one test still blocking the next step.

What the evidence has shownWhat the evidence has shown

Hot rock is everywhere underground. The race is to build the plumbing to reach it - cheaply, safely, and at the scale of a real power plant.The physics of engineered reservoirs is proven; the open question is whether they can be drilled cheaply, run for years, and financed at utility scale.

1 of 4 tests recorded1 of 4 thresholds achieved open
✓Make hot rock flowConnected engineered reservoirAchieved
Drill many wells quicklyRepeatable fast drillingOpen test
Run a utility-scale plantCommercial 100 MW operationOpen test
Compete on costForty-five-dollar powerOpen test

The next testBlocking threshold

Drill many wells quicklyRepeatable fast drilling

Cape Phase II must show its 21-day representative result across a fleet and disclose full completed-well cost.Cape Phase II must show its 21-day representative result across a fleet and disclose full completed-well cost.

02 · Thresholds & evidenceThresholds & evidence

What would count as proof?What would count as proof?

A clear test, the evidence behind it, and the limits of the claim.A clear test, the evidence behind it, and what it still leaves open.

✓Achieved · Aug 2024

Make hot rock flowConnected engineered reservoir

Utah FORGE recovered over 90% of fluid at about 370 F in a near-month test.Create and circulate fluid through a stimulated two-well reservoir in hot impermeable rock.

Recorded result FORGE sustained 420 gal/min injection for nearly a month with more than 90% recovery.

Next test Publish longer-duration flow, thermal drawdown, water-loss and seismicity data from the same reservoir.

SOURCE RECORD

Utah FORGE extended circulation test ↗

Still to demonstrateWhat this does not establishA separate system can still have different conditions and results.The named measurement has no wider implication until the supporting system test is also shown.

View every evidence record

Achieved

Make hot rock flowConnected engineered reservoir

Utah FORGE recovered over 90% of fluid at about 370 F in a near-month test.Create and circulate fluid through a stimulated two-well reservoir in hot impermeable rock.

Recorded result: Aug 2024 · FORGE sustained 420 gal/min injection for nearly a month with more than 90% recovery.

Next test: Publish longer-duration flow, thermal drawdown, water-loss and seismicity data from the same reservoir.

Utah FORGE extended circulation test ↗

Open test

Drill many wells quicklyRepeatable fast drilling

FORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom time from 440 to 60 hours; Fervo reports 21-day longer-lateral wells.Cut hard-rock wells rapidly and repeatedly without sacrificing completion quality or reservoir output.

Next test: Cape Phase II must show its 21-day representative result across a fleet and disclose full completed-well cost.

Open test

Run a utility-scale plantCommercial 100 MW operation

Cape Phase I is commissioning, but no 100 MW EGS plant has yet reported commercial operation.Operate an approximately 100 MW multi-well EGS plant with published net output, availability and reservoir performance.

Next test: Cape GeoBlock 1 targets Q4 2026 and the full three-block Phase I targets Q1 2027.

Open test

Compete on costForty-five-dollar power

DOE's capital-cost model remains about $14,700/kW for 2023 versus roughly $3,700/kW associated with the goal.Deliver repeatable unsubsidized EGS electricity at $45/MWh with commercial financing and full project costs.

Next test: Audited Cape construction cost and several years of net generation are required to calculate a comparable realized LCOE.

03 · The recordThe record

The record behind the verdictThe record behind the verdict

Major milestones and smaller context events share one source-linked record. Scheduled targets are marked separately from recorded events.Milestones, smaller events and setbacks share one sourced record. Scheduled targets are marked separately from recorded events.

Event key
TheoryExperimentFundingSetbackPolicyDeployment Future / scheduled
1904-19691 event1 shown

Natural Steam Proves the Prize

Geothermal electricity is old - but only where the earth volunteers steam. Larderello proved the power; geology confined the map to a few lucky fields.

1904
Geothermal electricity first generatedExperiment
Piero Ginori Conti used steam at Larderello to light five bulbs, establishing the conventional geothermal precedent.
Larderello and Piero Ginori Conti
1970-20053 events2 shown

Engineers Fracture Hot Rock

Los Alamos asked the question that defines the field: if hot rock is everywhere, can we build the reservoir ourselves? Circulation proved possible - never cheap, never long.

1970
Hot-dry-rock concept takes shapeTheory
Los Alamos researchers proposed drilling and hydraulically connecting wells to extract heat from impermeable hot rock.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
1977
Fenton Hill circulation achievedExperiment
The first Fenton Hill reservoir established circulation between drilled wells, proving engineered hot-dry-rock heat exchange.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
1997
Soultz circulates deep reservoir
European researchers circulated water through a stimulated granite reservoir at Soultz, advancing multi-well EGS methods.
European Soultz-sous-Forets consortium
2006-20141 event1 shown

Earthquakes Reset the Risk

Basel’s quake ended a project and nearly the field. Induced seismicity became the constraint every later project designs around.

2006
Basel quake stops injectionSetback
A local-magnitude 3.4 earthquake followed injection; the project ended in 2009 after a risk review and CHF6 million in claims.
Deep Heat Mining Basel
2015-20223 events2 shown

Field Labs Import Drilling Skill

The shale industry had spent two decades learning to drill fast and horizontal. FORGE existed to import that skill into hot granite - and drilling times collapsed.

2015
DOE launches FORGE selectionFunding
DOE began selecting a dedicated EGS field laboratory, describing more than 100 GW of potential US economic capacity.
US Department of Energy
2017
Pohang suffers magnitude-5.5 quakeSetback
A Mw5.5 earthquake beneath South Korea's EGS site became the largest known earthquake induced by an EGS project.
Pohang EGS project
2023-203514 events3 shown

Pilots Approach Commercial Scale

Fervo proved the shale playbook works for heat. The question moved from physics to finance: can Cape Station drill it cheap, run for years, and sell the power?

2023
Project Red proves horizontal EGSExperiment
A 30-day test delivered 63 L/s at 191 C, equivalent to 3.5 MW, through a 3,250-foot horizontal well pair.
Fervo Energy
2023
Project Red begins supplying the grid
Fervo's Nevada pilot moved beyond its 30-day well test and began contributing electricity to the grid serving Google's data centres.
Fervo Energy and Google
2024
FORGE connects deviated wells
A nine-hour test recovered about 70% of injected fluid, reached 139 C outflow and kept induced seismicity below magnitude 1.9.
Utah FORGE
2024
FORGE sustains month-long flowExperiment
A near-month circulation test injected 420 gal/min, recovered more than 90% of fluid and held temperature near 370 F.
Utah FORGE
2024
Cape completes first multi-well test
A three-well reservoir reached a company-reported peak flow of 107 kg/s, calculated as more than 10 MW gross-equivalent; this was a well test, not plant output.
Fervo Energy
2025
Cape observation well reaches 15,774 feet
Fervo completed its deepest observation well; the cited 550 F bottom-hole temperature was still projected pending thermal equilibration, not measured.
Fervo Energy
2026
DOE funds wider field tests
DOE announced up to $171.5 million for next-generation geothermal field tests and resource-confirmation drilling.
US Department of Energy
2026
Cape Phase I closes project finance
Fervo closed an approximately $421.5 million project-finance credit facility with nine lenders, an achieved financing close for the first 100 MW phase.
Fervo Energy and lender syndicate
2026
First 7,500-foot Cape lateral completed
Fervo finished drilling its first Generation 3.0 well with an approximately 7,500-foot lateral targeting hotter rock; higher output remained unproven.
Fervo Energy
2026
Project Red: first long-run operating data
Two years in, Fervo's EGS pilot averaged ~2.1 MW gross / 1.4 MW net over 614 production days at 98.4% availability - real operating evidence replacing the earlier 30-day-test headline.
Fervo Energy
2026
Cape commissioning becomes frontierDeploymentWe are here
Cape Phase I's first 33 MW GeoBlock is mechanically complete and commissioning toward an announced Q4 2026 start.
Fervo Energy
2026
First Cape block targets operationDeploymentTarget
Fervo targets commercial operation of Cape GeoBlock 1 in Q4 2026; this is a company schedule, not achieved output.
Fervo Energy
2027
Cape targets 100 MWDeploymentTarget
GeoBlocks 2 and 3 are scheduled for Q1 2027, bringing Phase I nameplate capacity to approximately 100 MW.
Fervo Energy
2028
Cape targets 500 MWDeploymentTarget
Fervo schedules the additional 400 MW Phase II for 2028, for 500 MW total nameplate capacity if all modules operate.
Fervo Energy
2022-20352 events1 shown

Additional records

This record spans “DOE launches Geothermal Shot” to “DOE targets competitive economics” and includes scheduled targets.

2022
DOE launches Geothermal ShotPolicy
DOE targeted a 90% EGS cost reduction to $45/MWh by 2035.
US Department of Energy
2035
DOE targets competitive economicsPolicyTarget
The Enhanced Geothermal Shot targets $45/MWh EGS power by 2035, associated with roughly $3,700/kW capital cost.
US Department of Energy
— end of record · 24 events shown —
04 · The dataThe data

The data behind the verdictThe data behind the verdict

Read each measure with its units, conditions, uncertainty and source; targets remain distinct from observations.Read each chart with its conditions, limits and source. Future targets remain distinct from recorded results.

Open figure in archive: A measured seven-fold reduction in rock-cutting time across four FORGE wells; it excludes tripping, casing, completion and surface-plant time.Open figure in archive: Company-reported drilling time fell while laterals lengthened from 3,250 to 7,500 feet; these are representative wells, not fleet averages.Open figure in archive: Longer horizontal contact is intended to raise heat and power per well, but only operating output can verify the design benefit.Open figure in archive: Reservoir tuning raised recovered fluid from about 70% in a nine-hour test to more than 90% in a near-month test; plotted values are rounded bounds.Open figure in archive: Only the 3.5 MW pilot test is demonstrated; 33, 100 and 500 MW are company nameplate schedules and must be shown as projected.Open figure in archive: FORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom drilling time by more than sevenfold.Open figure in archive: FORGE's extended 2024 test improved fluid recovery by at least 20 percentage points over the short test.Open figure in archive: Cape Station's planned build-out is more than fifteen times the size of its first commissioning GeoBlock.Open figure in archive: The Basel project produced a felt magnitude-3.4 event and more than 200 recorded events at magnitude 0.9 or above.
Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGSEstimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS
Scale

DOE early next-generation geothermal estimate · 27,800 2026 USD/kW · 2021 · verification unspecified

Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS over time, with measured values, projected values, and a goal at 3,700 2026 USD/kW.10,000Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS · 2026 USD/kWYear2021202320302035GOAL 3,700 · Approximate capital cost associat…DOE early next-generation g…DOE revised estimate, appro…Midpoint of DOE $4,700-5,00…DOE target-associated capit…~11,000 2026 USD/kW to goal
NOTE - The candidate file recommends capital cost rather than mixing project LCOEs with different financing and capacity factors. Every point is a DOE model estimate or target, not an audited plant cost; 2030 is the midpoint of a published range. The 2035 capital value is the modeled level associated with the $45/MWh goal.
View data table
All metric observations
DateValueStatusCondition / labelVerificationCICensoringSource
202127800 2026 USD/kWobservedDOE early next-generation geothermal estimateunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
202314700 2026 USD/kWobservedDOE revised estimate, approximatelyunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
20304850 2026 USD/kWtargetMidpoint of DOE $4,700-5,000/kW pathway rangeunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
20353700 2026 USD/kWtargetDOE target-associated capital cost, approximatelyunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
AS OF July 2026
View every data figure
Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGSEstimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS
Scale

DOE early next-generation geothermal estimate · 27,800 2026 USD/kW · 2021 · verification unspecified

Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS over time, with measured values, projected values, and a goal at 3,700 2026 USD/kW.10,000Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS · 2026 USD/kWYear2021202320302035GOAL 3,700 · Approximate capital cost associat…DOE early next-generation g…DOE revised estimate, appro…Midpoint of DOE $4,700-5,00…DOE target-associated capit…~11,000 2026 USD/kW to goal
NOTE - The candidate file recommends capital cost rather than mixing project LCOEs with different financing and capacity factors. Every point is a DOE model estimate or target, not an audited plant cost; 2030 is the midpoint of a published range. The 2035 capital value is the modeled level associated with the $45/MWh goal.
View data table
All metric observations
DateValueStatusCondition / labelVerificationCICensoringSource
202127800 2026 USD/kWobservedDOE early next-generation geothermal estimateunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
202314700 2026 USD/kWobservedDOE revised estimate, approximatelyunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
20304850 2026 USD/kWtargetMidpoint of DOE $4,700-5,000/kW pathway rangeunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
20353700 2026 USD/kWtargetDOE target-associated capital cost, approximatelyunspecified—noneDOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff report
AS OF July 2026
A measured seven-fold reduction in rock-cutting time across four FORGE wells; it excludes tripping, casing, completion and surface-plant time.A measured seven-fold reduction in rock-cutting time across four FORGE wells; it excludes tripping, casing, completion and surface-plant time.

Independent records

FORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth log scale · hours

log scale · hours
2017440 hours

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

2021.01180 hours

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

2021.02100 hours

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

2021.0760 hours

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

observed self-reported target / pathway right-censored lower bound
View data table
All plotted observations
SeriesDateValueStatusCondition / labelVerificationCICensoringSource
FORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth2017440 hoursobservedFORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneDOE FORGE program and drilling results
FORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth2021.01180 hoursobservedFORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneDOE FORGE program and drilling results
FORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth2021.02100 hoursobservedFORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneDOE FORGE program and drilling results
FORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth2021.0760 hoursobservedFORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneDOE FORGE program and drilling results
AS OF July 2026
Company-reported drilling time fell while laterals lengthened from 3,250 to 7,500 feet; these are representative wells, not fleet averages.Company-reported drilling time fell while laterals lengthened from 3,250 to 7,500 feet; these are representative wells, not fleet averages.

Independent records

Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time linear scale · days

linear scale · days
202370 days

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

202521 days

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

202621 days

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

observed self-reported target / pathway right-censored lower bound
View data table
All plotted observations
SeriesDateValueStatusCondition / labelVerificationCICensoringSource
Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time202370 daysobservedFervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneFervo drilling-generation comparison
Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time202521 daysobservedFervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneFervo drilling-generation comparison
Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time202621 daysobservedFervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneFervo drilling-generation comparison
AS OF July 2026
Longer horizontal contact is intended to raise heat and power per well, but only operating output can verify the design benefit.Longer horizontal contact is intended to raise heat and power per well, but only operating output can verify the design benefit.

Independent records

Fervo representative lateral length linear scale · feet

linear scale · feet
20233,250 feet

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

20255,000 feet

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

20267,500 feet

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

observed self-reported target / pathway right-censored lower bound
View data table
All plotted observations
SeriesDateValueStatusCondition / labelVerificationCICensoringSource
Fervo representative lateral length20233250 feetobservedFervo representative lateral length
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneFervo drilling-generation comparison
Fervo representative lateral length20255000 feetobservedFervo representative lateral length
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneFervo drilling-generation comparison
Fervo representative lateral length20267500 feetobservedFervo representative lateral length
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneFervo drilling-generation comparison
AS OF July 2026
Reservoir tuning raised recovered fluid from about 70% in a nine-hour test to more than 90% in a near-month test; plotted values are rounded bounds.Reservoir tuning raised recovered fluid from about 70% in a nine-hour test to more than 90% in a near-month test; plotted values are rounded bounds.

Independent records

Utah FORGE circulation fluid recovery linear scale · %

linear scale · %
2024.3370 %

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

2024.6790 %

Conditionwell, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort

observed self-reported target / pathway right-censored lower bound
View data table
All plotted observations
SeriesDateValueStatusCondition / labelVerificationCICensoringSource
Utah FORGE circulation fluid recovery2024.3370 %observedUtah FORGE circulation fluid recovery
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneUtah FORGE initial stimulation and circulation test
Utah FORGE circulation fluid recovery2024.6790 %observedUtah FORGE circulation fluid recovery
well, circulation test or planned project record; not a single operating cohort		unspecified—noneUtah FORGE extended circulation test
AS OF July 2026
Only the 3.5 MW pilot test is demonstrated; 33, 100 and 500 MW are company nameplate schedules and must be shown as projected.Only the 3.5 MW pilot test is demonstrated; 33, 100 and 500 MW are company nameplate schedules and must be shown as projected.

Independent records

Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale log scale · MW

log scale · MW
20233.5 MW

ConditionFervo 3.5 MW pilot test; demonstrated plant output record

202633 MW · target

ConditionFervo company schedule; planned nameplate capacity, not demonstrated output

2027100 MW · target

ConditionFervo company schedule; planned nameplate capacity, not demonstrated output

2028500 MW · target

ConditionFervo company schedule; planned nameplate capacity, not demonstrated output

observed self-reported target / pathway right-censored lower bound
View data table
All plotted observations
SeriesDateValueStatusCondition / labelVerificationCICensoringSource
Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale20233.5 MWobservedDemonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale
Fervo 3.5 MW pilot test; demonstrated plant output record		unspecified—noneFervo Project Red 30-day test
Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale202633 MWtargetDemonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale
Fervo company schedule; planned nameplate capacity, not demonstrated output		unspecified—noneFervo Q1 2026 Cape Station update
Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale2027100 MWtargetDemonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale
Fervo company schedule; planned nameplate capacity, not demonstrated output		unspecified—noneFervo Q1 2026 Cape Station update
Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale2028500 MWtargetDemonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale
Fervo company schedule; planned nameplate capacity, not demonstrated output		unspecified—noneFervo Q1 2026 Cape Station update
AS OF July 2026
FORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom drilling time by more than sevenfold.FORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom drilling time by more than sevenfold.
2017 well440 hours
−380 hours · 0.14× of A
July 2021 well60 hours

Each square = 20 hours

2017 well440 hours
July 2021 well60 hours
380 hours less from july 2021 well than from 2017 well
View data table
All aligned comparisons
ClaimABSource / provenance
FORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom drilling time by more than sevenfold.440 hours · 2017 well60 hours · July 2021 wellDOE FORGE program and drilling results
AS OF July 2026
FORGE's extended 2024 test improved fluid recovery by at least 20 percentage points over the short test.FORGE's extended 2024 test improved fluid recovery by at least 20 percentage points over the short test.
Nine-hour test70 % recovered
+20 % recovered · gain 1.29
Near-month test, more than90 % recovered

Each square = 5 % recovered

Nine-hour test70 % recovered
Near-month test, more than90 % recovered
20 % recovered more from near-month test, more than than from nine-hour test
View data table
All aligned comparisons
ClaimABSource / provenance
FORGE's extended 2024 test improved fluid recovery by at least 20 percentage points over the short test.70 % recovered · Nine-hour test90 % recovered · Near-month test, more thanUtah FORGE extended circulation test
AS OF July 2026
Cape Station's planned build-out is more than fifteen times the size of its first commissioning GeoBlock.Cape Station's planned build-out is more than fifteen times the size of its first commissioning GeoBlock.
First GeoBlock33 MW
+467 MW · gain 15.15
Cape planned total500 MW · projectedThis is planned capacity, not capacity already installed.Cape Station total is a planned build target, not installed capacity.

Each square = 20 MW

First GeoBlock33 MW
Cape planned total500 MW · projectedThis is planned capacity, not capacity already installed.Cape Station total is a planned build target, not installed capacity.
467 MW more from cape planned total than from first geoblock
View data table
All aligned comparisons
ClaimABSource / provenance
Cape Station's planned build-out is more than fifteen times the size of its first commissioning GeoBlock.33 MW · First GeoBlock500 MW · Cape planned total · projected
This is planned capacity, not capacity already installed.Cape Station total is a planned build target, not installed capacity.		Fervo Q1 2026 Cape Station update
AS OF July 2026
The Basel project produced a felt magnitude-3.4 event and more than 200 recorded events at magnitude 0.9 or above.The Basel project produced a felt magnitude-3.4 event and more than 200 recorded events at magnitude 0.9 or above.

The Basel project produced a felt magnitude-3.4 event and more than 200 recorded events at magnitude 0.9 or above.

Largest local magnitude3.4 ML
Recorded events at ML0.9+200 events, more than
Each value is scaled against zero in its own unit; bar length is not a cross-unit comparison.
View data table
All aligned comparisons
ClaimABSource / provenance
The Basel project produced a felt magnitude-3.4 event and more than 200 recorded events at magnitude 0.9 or above.3.4 ML · Largest local magnitude200 events, more than · Recorded events at ML0.9+Swiss Seismological Service Basel project record
AS OF July 2026

Methods & conditions

Under the measurement.

The boundary of a measurement changes what it means.

Technical note 1 of 8

Project Red's operating baseline

Method and conditions

Project Red's 614 production days were not continuous. Excluding surface-plant and grid outages, Fervo reported 98.4% availability; average production was 175°C, approximately 36 kg/s, 2.1 MW gross and 1.4 MW net.

Source notes
ThinkGeoEnergy

Technical notes and sources

Each note keeps its authored method, conditions and citations available for review.

Project Red's operating baseline

Project Red's 614 production days were not continuous. Excluding surface-plant and grid outages, Fervo reported 98.4% availability; average production was 175°C, approximately 36 kg/s, 2.1 MW gross and 1.4 MW net.

ThinkGeoEnergy
Thermal decline has begun

Temperature stayed approximately constant for more than 500 production days, followed by a small 2.5°F/1.4°C decline during the latest interval. That is evidence of delayed-not absent-thermal breakthrough.

Fervo Energy
Fluid recovery remains unresolved

Project Red recaptured only approximately 70% of injected fluid during steady operation, materially below FORGE's short-test result above 90%. Fervo interprets part of the difference as temporary reservoir storage, but commercial make-up-water demand remains unresolved.

ThinkGeoEnergy
The 20% heat-recovery claim

Fervo estimates Project Red recovered approximately 20% of the initial heat within its stimulated reservoir volume after 614 production days. This is not 20% of the regional geothermal resource and cannot be extrapolated directly to decades-long plant life.

ThinkGeoEnergy
Cape tested a three-well reservoir

Cape's 2024 test used a triplet-two injection wells and one producer-rather than Project Red's doublet. Published conference material reports about 195°C produced fluid, peak gross-equivalent output above 12 MW, and company-characterized sustained output of 8-10 MW.

Stanford Geothermal Workshop
Cape's public test record is incomplete

The public Cape test evidence is thinner than the “30-day” label implies: the released production trace covered about 24 hours, injection-rate data were absent, and the claimed 8-10 MW did not deduct pumping load. Treat sustainable net output as unverified until full test data appear.

GeoExpro
Cape's well design is still evolving

Cape Phase I's reference wells are approximately 9,000 feet vertical, 14,000 feet measured depth and 5,000-foot laterals; Fervo plans roughly 8-10 wells per standardized 50 MW GeoBlock. The March 2026 generation moved to a 7,500-foot lateral, but output improvement remains projected.

Fervo regulatory filing
Pilot proof is not commercial proof

Fervo itself describes Project Red as a limited-scope proof of concept, not commercial-scale proof, and states that Cape is its first attempt to demonstrate consistent, reliable and economic performance at scale.

Fervo regulatory filing
05 · What it unlocksWhat it unlocks

If the remaining tests pass.If the remaining tests pass.

Downstream capabilities remain conditional on results that are not yet in.These are possible next capabilities, conditional on results that are not yet in.

TODAY
  1. PASSED · Aug 202401 ↗
    Make hot rock flowConnected engineered reservoirUtah FORGE recovered over 90% of fluid at about 370 F in a near-month test.Create and circulate fluid through a stimulated two-well reservoir in hot impermeable rock.
  2. OPEN TEST02 ↗
    Drill many wells quicklyRepeatable fast drillingFORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom time from 440 to 60 hours; Fervo reports 21-day longer-lateral wells.Cut hard-rock wells rapidly and repeatedly without sacrificing completion quality or reservoir output.
  3. OPEN TEST03 ↗
    Run a utility-scale plantCommercial 100 MW operationCape Phase I is commissioning, but no 100 MW EGS plant has yet reported commercial operation.Operate an approximately 100 MW multi-well EGS plant with published net output, availability and reservoir performance.
  4. OPEN TEST04 ↗
    Compete on costForty-five-dollar powerDOE's capital-cost model remains about $14,700/kW for 2023 versus roughly $3,700/kW associated with the goal.Deliver repeatable unsubsidized EGS electricity at $45/MWh with commercial financing and full project costs.
PASSED · Aug 202401 ↗
Make hot rock flowConnected engineered reservoirUtah FORGE recovered over 90% of fluid at about 370 F in a near-month test.Create and circulate fluid through a stimulated two-well reservoir in hot impermeable rock.
TODAY
OPEN TEST02 ↗
Drill many wells quicklyRepeatable fast drillingFORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom time from 440 to 60 hours; Fervo reports 21-day longer-lateral wells.Cut hard-rock wells rapidly and repeatedly without sacrificing completion quality or reservoir output.
OPEN TEST03 ↗
Run a utility-scale plantCommercial 100 MW operationCape Phase I is commissioning, but no 100 MW EGS plant has yet reported commercial operation.Operate an approximately 100 MW multi-well EGS plant with published net output, availability and reservoir performance.
OPEN TEST04 ↗
Compete on costForty-five-dollar powerDOE's capital-cost model remains about $14,700/kW for 2023 versus roughly $3,700/kW associated with the goal.Deliver repeatable unsubsidized EGS electricity at $45/MWh with commercial financing and full project costs.

Possible, if the open tests pass.

  1. Firm clean power almost anywhere

    This is a possible benefit only if firm clean power almost anywhere works safely, reliably and at useful scale.Potential benefit only if the stated use (Firm clean power almost anywhere) is demonstrated with evidence for safety, reliability, affordability and scale.

  2. Smaller clean-power footprints

    This is a possible benefit only if smaller clean-power footprints works safely, reliably and at useful scale.Potential benefit only if the stated use (Smaller clean-power footprints) is demonstrated with evidence for safety, reliability, affordability and scale.

  3. Industrial heat and district energy

    This is a possible benefit only if industrial heat and district energy works safely, reliably and at useful scale.Potential benefit only if the stated use (Industrial heat and district energy) is demonstrated with evidence for safety, reliability, affordability and scale.

  4. Cheap firm power for electrolysis

    This is a possible benefit only if cheap firm power for electrolysis works safely, reliably and at useful scale.Potential benefit only if the stated use (Cheap firm power for electrolysis) is demonstrated with evidence for safety, reliability, affordability and scale.

    Related problem ↗

  5. Low-cost heat and power for capture

    This is a possible benefit only if low-cost heat and power for capture works safely, reliably and at useful scale.Potential benefit only if the stated use (Low-cost heat and power for capture) is demonstrated with evidence for safety, reliability, affordability and scale.

    Related problem ↗
These are possible outcomes, if the open tests pass. They are conditional, not promises.
06 · The players & the moneyThe players & the money

Meet the builders.Meet the builders.

The organisations, their approaches, and the evidence behind them.The teams doing the work, the money around them, and what the record can support.

United States · company

Fervo Energy

Develops horizontal-well enhanced geothermal systems and is commissioning the first 33 MW block of Cape Station.

Funding contextMay 2026 IPO: 80.5 million shares issued at $27, about $2.2 billion grossCape Phase I separately closed $421.4 million of non-recourse project debt; it is not company equity.
Named investorsPublic-market investors

Capital is context, not a demonstration.

Company source ↗
View every builder record

Fervo Energy

United States · company · Develops horizontal-well enhanced geothermal systems and is commissioning the first 33 MW block of Cape Station.

Funding: May 2026 IPO: 80.5 million shares issued at $27, about $2.2 billion gross

Named investors: Public-market investors

Cape Phase I separately closed $421.4 million of non-recourse project debt; it is not company equity.

Company source ↗

Eavor Technologies

Canada · company · Develops closed-loop geothermal systems and is building the Eavor-Europe project in Germany.

Funding: December 2023 Series B: C$180 million

Named investors: Canada Growth Fund · Japan Energy Fund · Microsoft Climate Innovation Fund · BDC · bp Ventures · Temasek

A separate €91.6 million EU Innovation Fund grant supports Eavor-Europe and is not part of the equity round.

Company source ↗

Quaise Energy

United States · company · Develops millimetre-wave drilling intended to reach superhot rock beyond conventional drill-bit limits.

Funding: $21 million Series A1

Named investors: Prelude Ventures · Safar Partners · Mitsubishi Corporation · Standard Investments

Funding supports field operations and supply-chain development; commercial power generation remains unproven.

Company source ↗

Sage Geosystems

United States · company · Develops pressure-based geothermal generation and subsurface energy-storage systems.

Funding: January 2026 financing: more than $97 million

Named investors: Ormat Technologies · Carbon Direct Capital

The amount is a disclosed round, not a verified cumulative company-funding total.

Company source ↗

Utah FORGE

United States · lab · DOE-sponsored field laboratory for shared EGS drilling, stimulation, circulation and seismic-monitoring research.

Funding: Funding not recorded in this record.

Company source ↗
07 · SourcesSources

Follow the evidence.Follow the evidence.

34 sources — every figure on this page traces to one.34 sources — every figure on this page traces to one.

Source · what this page citesScope and limits
  1. 01

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  2. 02

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  3. 03

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  4. 04

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  5. 05

    Fervo Q1 2026 Cape Station update

    Read source ↗ir.fervoenergy.com
    Used on this page
    All 12 uses across 9 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  6. 06

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  7. 07

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  8. 08

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  9. 09

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  10. 10

    Science assessment of the Pohang induced earthquake

    Read source ↗pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  11. 11

    Timeline · Geothermal electricity first generated

    Read source ↗enelgreenpower.com
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 1 destination

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  12. 12

    Timeline · Hot-dry-rock concept takes shape

    Read source ↗energy.gov
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  13. 13

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  14. 14

    Timeline · Soultz circulates deep reservoir

    Read source ↗publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  15. 15

    Timeline · DOE launches FORGE selection

    Read source ↗energy.gov
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  16. 16

    Timeline · Project Red begins supplying the grid

    Read source ↗blog.google
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  17. 17

    Timeline · Cape completes first multi-well test

    Read source ↗businesswire.com
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  18. 18

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  19. 19

    Timeline · DOE funds wider field tests

    Read source ↗energy.gov
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  20. 20

    Timeline · Project Red: first long-run operating data

    Read source ↗fervoenergy.com
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  21. 21

    Engineer note · Project Red's operating baseline

    Read source ↗thinkgeoenergy.com

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  22. 22

    Engineer note · Cape tested a three-well reservoir

    Read source ↗pangea.stanford.edu

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  23. 23

    Engineer note · Cape's public test record is incomplete

    Read source ↗geoexpro.com

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  24. 24

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  25. 25

    companies · Quaise Energy

    Read source ↗quaise.energy
    Used on this page
    All 3 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  26. 26

    companies · Sage Geosystems

    Read source ↗finance.yahoo.com
    Used on this page
    All 1 use across 1 destination

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  27. 27

    companies · Utah FORGE

    Read source ↗utahforge.com
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  28. 28

    people · Tim Latimer

    Read source ↗ir.fervoenergy.com
    Used on this page
    All 2 uses across 2 destinations

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  29. 29

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  30. 30

    Fervo Energy official site

    Read source ↗fervoenergy.com

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  31. 31

    Eavor Technologies official site

    Read source ↗eavor.com

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  32. 32

    Quaise Energy official site

    Read source ↗quaise.energy

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  33. 33

    Sage Geosystems official site

    Read source ↗sagegeosystems.com

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

  34. 34

    Utah FORGE official site

    Read source ↗utahforge.com

    Scope: Not recorded. Limit: Not recorded.

Sources describe evidence. Inclusion is not endorsement.