UGS outlines $10M deep-drilling science proposal to study deep fluids near Great Salt Lake
Loading...
Summary
At the Jan. 21 board meeting, UGS staff described a deep-drilling proposal — framed as scientific research — intended to characterize deep crustal fluids, groundwater inflow and potential brine-mineral resources near the Great Salt Lake. Staff cautioned about siting, costs and possible trade-offs with existing groundwater uses.
Staff at the Utah Geological Survey told the board on Jan. 21 they submitted a roughly $10 million proposal, at the request of a state senator, to drill a deep test well near the Great Salt Lake to better understand deep crustal fluids, groundwater inflow and possible mineral brines.
Stefan Kirby and other UGS staff emphasized that the proposal is a scientific resource-assessment exercise, not an authorization for extraction. Kirby said the primary goal is to answer baseline science questions: "What do the fluids look like at 8,000 feet — potential resources or not?" he said. The project would measure fluid chemistry, temperature gradients and geophysical context to inform both resource and water-management decisions.
Board members raised concerns about water balances and potential trade-offs. One board member asked whether the flows that could be produced from a deep well would meaningfully affect the Great Salt Lake without "robbing Peter to pay Paul." Staff acknowledged the complexity and said siting is critical; there is no agreement yet on the well location.
Staff also discussed likely drilling depth and cost. While deeper than 4,000 feet could be more informative, UGS staff said drilling cost varies with market conditions and rig availability. "The well itself would be very, very expensive," a UGS scientist said, and the team would need to balance scientific goals against fiscal and environmental constraints.
Next steps UGS will continue stakeholder engagement, refine siting and objectives, and present the proposal and any legislative requests during its upcoming presentation to the legislature. The board did not approve funding at the meeting; staff presented the proposal as an item for further discussion and possible legislative engagement.

