DEEPEN stands for DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments.

As part of the development of the DEEPEN 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) methodology for magmatic plays (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical), weights needed to be developed for use in the weighted sum of the different favorability index models produced from geoscientific exploration datasets. This GDR submission includes those weights.

The weighting was done using two different approaches: one based on expert opinions, and one based on statistical learning. The weights are intended to describe how useful a particular exploration method is for imaging each component of each play type. They may be adjusted based on the characteristics of the resource under investigation, knowledge of the quality of the dataset, or simply to reduce the impact a single dataset has on the resulting outputs. Within the DEEPEN PFA, separate sets of weights are produced for each component of each play type, since exploration methods hold different levels of importance for detecting each play component, within each play type.

The weights for conventional hydrothermal systems were based on the average of the normalized weights used in the DOE-funded PFA projects that were focused on magmatic plays. This decision was made because conventional hydrothermal plays are already well-studied and understood, and therefore it is logical to use existing weights where possible. In contrast, a true PFA has never been applied to superhot EGS or supercritical plays, meaning that exploration methods have never been weighted in terms of their utility in imaging the components of these plays.

To produce weights for superhot EGS and supercritical plays, two different approaches were used: one based on expert opinion and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and another using a statistical approach based on principal component analysis (PCA). The weights are intended to provide standardized sets of weights for each play type in all magmatic geothermal systems. Two different approaches were used to investigate whether a more data-centric approach might allow new insights into the datasets, and also to analyze how different weighting approaches impact the outcomes.

The expert/AHP approach involved using an online tool (https://bpmsg.com/ahp/) with built-in forms to make pairwise comparisons which are used to rank exploration methods against one-another. The inputs are then combined in a quantitative way, ultimately producing a set of consensus-based weights. To minimize the burden on each individual participant, the forms were completed in group discussions. While the group setting means that there is potential for some opinions to outweigh others, it also provides a venue for conversation to take place, in theory leading the group to a more robust consensus then what can be achieved on an individual basis. This exercise was done with two separate groups: one consisting of U.S.-based experts, and one consisting of Iceland-based experts in magmatic geothermal systems. The two sets of weights were then averaged to produce what we will from here on refer to as the "expert opinion-based weights," or "expert weights" for short.

While expert opinions allow us to include more nuanced information in the weights, expert opinions are subject to human bias. Data-centric or statistical approaches help to overcome these potential human biases by focusing on and drawing conclusions from the data alone. More information on this approach along with the dataset used to produce the statistical weights may be found in the linked dataset below.