Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 775781

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A discussion of major geophysical methods used for geothermal

exploration in Africa
Zakari Aretouyap n, Philippe Njandjock Nouck, Robert Nouayou
Laboratory of Geophysics and Geo-exploration, University of Yaounde I, PO Box: 812, Yaounde, Cameroon

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 4 February 2015
Received in revised form
21 December 2015
Accepted 27 December 2015

Geophysics provides a range of methods for the exploration of geothermal sources. This range is so broad
that it can sometimes embarrass the geophysicist. The present paper classies these methods according
to several criteria: best-tted geological environment, main assets and limitations of each method,
preliminary or detailed nature of each method and even the specic objective of the exploration to be
carried out. This classication could therefore help to signicantly reduce costs and time loss related to
trial uncertainty and bad choices in selecting the appropriate method. In order to provide necessary
information for potential geothermal investors in Africa, the paper addressed several aspects such as the
geological setting and the geothermal potential, the population density, the energy needs or demand, the
current electricity tariff and the business environment or opportunities in the continent.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Asset
Direct method
Geothermal exploration
Indirect method
Limitation

Contents
1.
2.
3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
3.1.
Presentation of results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
3.2.
Explanatory notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
3.2.1.
Seismic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776
3.2.2.
electric and magnetic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
3.2.3.
Thermal methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
3.2.4.
Remote sensing method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
3.2.5.
-ray spectrometry method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
3.2.6.
Induction method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
3.2.7.
Frequency domain electromagnetic (FDEM) method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
4. Discussions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
4.1.
Inuence of the geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
4.2.
The geothermal potential of Africa and business opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778
4.3.
Appropriateness of those methods with the African continent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778
4.4.
Geophysical methods and levelized cost of geothermal energy exploration in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778
4.5.
Other advantages of geothermal energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
4.6.
Useful information for geothermal investors in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780

Corresponding author. Tel.: 237 675086759.

E-mail address: aretouyap@uy1.uninet.cm (Z. Aretouyap).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.277
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

776

Z. Aretouyap et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 775781

1. Introduction
The ght against climate change is a challenge that currently
enrolls the whole world. Both developed countries, responsible for
the situation and developing countries, virtually victim are
expected to work together in order to curb the problem. Currently,
greenhouse gases produced by fossil and oil sources (hydrocarbons) are indexed as the main cause of global warming. Hence,
it is necessary to explore renewable and cleaner energy sources
like geothermal sources [1]. However, Geophysics provides a so
broad range of methods that professionals may be embarrassed. It
becomes then important to classify those geophysical methods
according to some criteria such as best-tted geological environment, main assets and limitations of each method, preliminary or
detailed nature of each method and even the specic objective of
the exploration to be carried out.
Geothermal energy is formed deep within the earth's crust, and
is exploited for electricity generation and other direct uses. The
medium of this energy transfer is geothermal uid. On the surface,
these are manifested as hot grounds, fumaroles, geysers, mudpools and hot springs [2]. The main geological parameters of the
geothermal reservoir to be determined are: geological formation
(lithology), tectonic structures (faults), permeability (hydraulic
conductivity), temperature, and stress eld. The depth to which
these parameters are located must also be considered. However,
the needs are not exactly the same for a hydrothermal or petrothermal project. Some of these parameters can be estimated
from the surface, mainly by geophysical methods while others let
themselves be measured in a borehole [3]. Anyway, geophysical
methods are among the best to explore these sources [4].
Domra Kana et al. [4] drew up a review of the main geophysical
methods used for this purpose. Their study classies these methods into four groups based on the physical measured parameter
and into two main categories depending on whether they are said
to be direct or indirect methods. The present paper aims at promoting the use of geothermal sources by reducing costs across the
world including Africa.
To achieve this prodigious idea, the present paper is as an
additive one designed to reduce ambiguity and speculation in
choosing a method. In fact, some methods are essentially preliminary and may be used only for a "pre-exploration", others are
more conducive to well-dened geological settings.

The main objective of the present paper is to clarify the assets

(strengths) and limitations of each method, then classify major
geophysical methods into preliminary and detailed categories.

2. Methodology
The study conducted by Domra Kana et al. [4] performs a
review of the most geophysical methods used for geothermal
exploration. That investigation of a paramount importance was
discussed mainly in terms of advantages and disadvantages for
each method. The present study is a thorough analysis of these
geophysical methods used in geothermal exploration. It presents
the assets, the limitations and the best-tted geological environment of each of them. These methods have also been classied
into preliminary and non-preliminary ones.
The asset of a method is dened as its success rate, or its ability
to deliver positive results while the advantage represents a positive point of a method compared to others. Similarly, the limitation
of a method lets know on its inability to perform a task while the
disadvantage refers to defects or deciencies or hazards related to
a method.

3. Results
For an easy operation, the main results are presented in tables.
3.1. Presentation of results
The results are reported in two summary tables. Table 1 summarizes the assets, the limitations and the preferred environment
of each method.
3.2. Explanatory notes
3.2.1. Seismic methods
Seismic reection predicts the depth and thickness of a desired
geological formation. This may be the thickness of an aquifer for a
hydrothermal project or the depth of the crystalline basement roof
for a petrothermal project, for example. The permeability of a geological formation, which guarantees the success of a hydrothermal

Table 1
Summary of the main strengths and limitations of different geophysical methods.
Methods

Assets

Limitations

Seismic refraction

Does not directly determine the permeability of a Volcanic and sedimentary

geological formation [5].
rock assemblage [6].

Magnetic

Allows us to image directly basement (geological

formations, presence and geometry of faults, predictive surveys prole).
Good resolution of layering from depths of 20 m to
more than several hundred meters.
A signicant depth resolution (magnetotelluric).

Gravimetric
Thermal

Simpler and less expensive.

Efcient for detecting geochemical haloes.

Remote sensing
-ray spectrometry

Autonomously and complementarily skilled.

High accuracy and enormous penetrating power.

Direct current (DC)

Simple rule of thumb with existence of several

electrode congurations.
A comparatively efcient reconnaissance tool
because the cap response is strong in both polarization modes.
Very effective for the rapid reconnaissance of an
area for mapping.

Seismic reection

Induction

Frequency domain electromagnetic (FDEM)

Extracting precise interval velocities from multilayered media is sometimes difcult [5].
Vertical sounding applications (no 2D or 3D
interpretation) [7].
Does not allow an unambiguous interpretation.
Limited to detecting relatively shallow features
[7].
Inefcient in areas covered by thick vegetation.
Intended primarily to detect radionuclides contained in a [10] rock.
Ambiguity in the interpretation of results
(determination of the structure or its geometry).
Requires large current sources (up to 100 A) and
large receiver loops (40 m 340 m) [11].

Environment/geological
setting

Volcanic and sedimentary

rock assemblage [6].
Volcanic environments [8].
Volcanic environments [8].
Any geological context [9].
Basement with faults [9].
Basement [8].
Any geological context [9].
All geological setting away
from power lines [9].

All geological setting away

Topography can be a problem in interpreting
FDEM data. TDEM is not widely used for shallow from power lines [9].
studies (less than 20 m).

Z. Aretouyap et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 775781

project, on the contrary cannot directly be determined by seismic

reection. Seismic methods can then be used to detect substantial
faults that may have a high hydraulic conductivity and may represent
a target for hydrothermal projects. Large regional faults can also be
associated with a higher risk of seismic activity and therefore must be
identied in the framework of petrothermal projects [12].
3.2.2. electric and magnetic methods
With the exception of the magnetotelluric, electrical or magnetic methods have not deep geothermal application. Indeed, the
vertical thermal gradient is an increasing function of the operation
depth. However, its value depends strongly on the petrophysical
and especially tectonic setting of the region except in the context
of (very) low geothermal energy. Industrial geothermal power
plants are located in areas where the temperature is abnormally
high. This is the case of the context of volcanic rifting in Iceland or
back-arc basins in the Philippines or the active plutonism in Larderello, Italy [13]. Given that these potential methods do not allow
an unambiguous interpretation, they should be used in addition to
other investigation methods. They can also help to validate such a
geological model of the basement derived from the interpretation
of the seismic reection.
In some cases, the changes in the gravity can be correlated to
changes in the porosity of the rocks. This method has the advantage of being much simpler and less expensive to implement than
seismic reection campaign.
To curb the limitations of DC methods, one states the double
assumption that the ground is horizontal with the last layer innitely thick, and each layer is electrically homogeneous and isotropic [14].
3.2.3. Thermal methods
Thermal methods include two distinct techniques: the rst one
is comprises borehole or shallow probe methods for measuring
thermal gradient. Thermal gradient is very useful since it permits
to measure heat ow when the thermal conductivity is known.
The second technique comprises airborne or satellite-based measurements, which can be used to determine the Earth's surface
temperature and thermal inertia of surcial materials, of thermal
infrared radiation emitted at the Earth's surface [15].
3.2.4. Remote sensing method
Remote sensing techniques can contribute to geothermal surveys by detecting topographic features related to geothermal
activities and by detecting surface thermal anomalies using thermal infrared imagery [16].
3.2.5. -ray spectrometry method
Gamma-ray spectrometry is a surveying technique that allows
the calculation of the heat produced during radioactive decay of
potassium, uranium, and thorium within rock. Radiogenic heat
produced by rocks is often targets for geothermal exploration and
production. Hence, renements in gamma-ray spectrometry surveying will allow better constraint of resources estimation and
help to target drilling [10].
3.2.6. Induction method
The induced polarization method provides a measure of
polarizable minerals (metallic-luster sulde minerals, clays, and
zeolites) within water-bearing pore spaces of rocks. Polarizable
minerals, in order to be detected, must present an active surface to
pore water. Induced polarization is widely used in geothermal
exploration [17].

777

3.2.7. Frequency domain electromagnetic (FDEM) method

Several light-weight FDEM units are available for use by single
operators for rapid reconnaissance. Active source (horizontal loop)
methods can be specially displayed to map ground features at
several hundred meters depth. TDEM appears to have wellthought-of potential for vertically probing in areas of restricted
horizontal access. Whereas TDEM has been used by the mineral
industry for deep exploration for many years, it has few service
providers for shallow (o 100 m) investigations. However, topography can be a problem in interpreting TDEM data [18].
Regardless of the preferred environment of each method or its
assets or its limitations, all those methods have also been classied
according to their preliminary or detailed and direct or indirect
status as shown in Table 2.
During reconnaissance surveys carried out in sedimentary
basins or blank areas (unexplored), the choice of a method is based
on gravimetry, magnetism, aeromagnetic, radiometric and magnetotelluric. On the contrary, in detailed and semi-detailed studies,
the most appropriate methods are seismic reection or vertical
electrical soundings. And for recovered structures, the best-tted
methods are seismic refraction and polarization induction.

4. Discussions
4.1. Inuence of the geology
A good and precise knowledge of the geological context of the
area to be explored is very important. This goes beyond the choice
of the suitable exploration method and even controls the selection
of the geothermal system to be implemented. Indeed, there are
two major geothermal systems for the moment: rstly hydrothermal systems that use hot water from aquifers. Those systems
are usually installed in the sedimentary context; secondly the
petrothermal systems using the heat stored in the hard and dry
rocks (crystal rocks) by articially increasing their permeability
and using a heat exchanger (Fig. 1).
Two basic factors determine the performance of a deep geothermal project: reservoir temperature and permeability of the
rock allowing sufcient volumes of water to ow between drilling
production and injection [12].
The deep geothermal projects suffer from a fundamental conict of interest between these two factors. In order to maximize
performance and energy efciency, high temperature is desired.
This involves reservoirs located at huge depths. However, the
increase in depth is accompanied by increasing compaction of
sedimentary rocks. Unfortunately, too deep sedimentary rocks
gradually lose their porosity and permeability which are required
for high ow rates. In general, the best quality reservoirs are at
shallow depths. One solution to this conict of interest is provided
by what is called the "reservoir stimulation", namely the increase
Table 2
Broad classication of major geophysical methods used for geothermal exploration.
Methods

Nature

Observations

Seismic
Magnetic
Gravimetric
Thermal
Remote sensing
-ray spectrometry
Direct current (DC)
Induction
Frequency domain electromagnetic (FEM)

Preliminary
Preliminary
Preliminary
Detailed
Preliminary
Detailed
Detailed
Preliminary
Detailed

Indirect

Direct

778

Z. Aretouyap et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 775781

Sediments

Basement

Fig. 1. Illustration of the location of hydrothermal (surface) and petrothermal (deep) systems (Source GREGE).

Greenhouse heating
Bathing and swimming

40

Fish farming
30

Other uses

20

Tunisia

South Africa

Morocco

Kenya

Ethiopia

10

Egypt

Many African countries (from east Africa, the Horn of Africa,

and parts of north and southern Africa) are endowed with geothermal energy. This energy source is likely to become a major
contributor to the electrical power of those countries. Other
countries may benet by means of high voltage direct current lines
[20,21].
Using technology available today, Africa has the potential to
provide 9000 MW of power generation capacity from hot water
and steam based geothermal resources, not including the additional potential of heat and ground source heat pump applications
[22]. Kenya and Ethiopia are front-runners in the domain. With a
geothermal power generation potential of more than 4000 MW,
both countries have already registered signicant progress in
exploring geothermal energy for power generation. Nowadays,
both countries have an installed capacity of about 300 MW,
equivalent to about 15% of the countries installed electricity generation capacity [23]. In the near future, Kenya plans to double its
installed capacity [24].
For now, following the classication criteria namely power
generation, direct use and ground source heat pumps, Africa is
very poorly ranked on the global market status [25,26]. This is due
to the fact that geothermal energy for power generation is currently being used mainly only in Kenya (about 270 MW installed
capacity). Nevertheless, geothermal energy is directly used in
several countries, including Algeria, Tunisia, Kenya, South Africa,
and Morocco [27]. The type of direct use differs between individual countries, however, in general, the heating of greenhouses
and bathing and swimming are the two applications showing the
highest shares of installed capacity [28]. This is illustrated in Fig. 2.
With such a geothermal potential and such energy demand,
Africa offers a pretty good business opportunity in the renewable
energy sector in general and geothermal energy in particular to
geothermal investors.

Space/ district heating

50

Algeria

4.2. The geothermal potential of Africa and business opportunity

60

Installed capacity (MW)

in natural permeability by injecting water under pressure into the

rock [19].
It is important to mention that in order to be more apprehensive about some key parameters of a geothermal reservoir like
permeability, temperature and the stress eld, surface measurements are very limited. These parameters are usually extrapolated
or modeled from deep wells.

Fig. 2. Installed capacity for direct use in Africa in 2010, adapted from Lund et al.
[27] and RE21 [29].

4.3. Appropriateness of those methods with the African continent

Independently of the implantation region, geothermal development typically consists of six major key steps undergoing systematic investigation and evaluation processes of the geothermal
elds from their initial exploration and development until steam
production mechanisms have been implemented: project denition and reconnaissance evaluation, detailed exploration,
exploratory drilling and delineation, resource analysis and
assessment of development potential, eld development, and
steam production and resource management [21].
However, as mentioned in Section 3.1, the choice of a method
may depend strongly on the geological setting of the study area.
Africa continent is divided into 6 major geology areas as illustrated
in Fig. 3.
0].A combination of Table 1 and Fig. 3 may help to select the
most suitable method for each region.
4.4. Geophysical methods and levelized cost of geothermal energy
exploration in Africa
In general, Africa's power sector is facing many challenges,
mainly due to insufcient generation capacity which has limited
electricity supply, resulting in low access. As a result, the average
electricity tariffs in Africa are much higher than in other developing regions. For instance, in 2010, the average effective tariff in
Africa was US $0.14/kW h (despite the governments subsidy) while
that for South Asia was US $0.04/kW h [31]. This is partly due to

Z. Aretouyap et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 775781

779

Fig. 3. Simplied geological map of Africa [30].

Table 3
Energy and investment costs for electric energy production from renewables
[32,29].

Biomass
Geothermal
Wind
Solar (photovoltaic)
Solar (thermal
electricity)
Tidal

Current
energy cost
US$/kW h

Potential future
energy cost
US$/kW h

Turnkey investment cost

US$/kW h

515
210
513
25125
1218

410
18
310
525
410

9003000
8003000
11001700
500010 000
30004000

815

815

17002500

the type of energy creation. Indeed, fossil-fuel based power generation is the single largest source of electricity generation in
Africa. However, fossil fuels are the most expensive means for
generating electricity, and this could be exacerbated by high fuel
prices.
Geophysical methods, by their effectiveness in exploring geothermal sources can contribute signicantly to reducing the high
cost of electricity since geothermal energy is presented as the one
with the lowest current and future cost among all renewable
sources [32]. Table 3 compares energy conts from various renewable energy sources.
Even using geothermal energy, the electricity cost can be further reduced by including factors such as cheaper drilling technology through advances in the state of the art of drilling,
increased efciency of the energy conversion process, cheaper

corrosion resistant materials, cheaper scaling mitigation methods,

more reliable resource potential prediction minimizing the number of abandoned projects and improved exploration techniques
minimizing the number of abandoned projects far into development [28].
4.5. Other advantages of geothermal energy
Geothermal energy provides various benets and advantages
including competitiveness in terms of cost, ecological or green
characteristics (near zero emissions, true for modern closed cycle
systems that reinject water back to the earth's crust), compactness
(less cumbersome: very little space requirement per unit of power
generated), autonomy from the seasonal uctuations, versatility
(with many other direct uses such as space heating and heating of
greenhouses for horticultural farming). All these aspects make
geothermal energy an attractive option compared to fossil fuel
alternatives, more regular than hydroelectric power which is
affected by low rainfall and cheaper than oil red power plants,
which can be prohibitively expensive to operate when oil prices
are high [33,23,34,35].
In terms of the technologies used, geothermal power projects
have very unique development timelines that are substantially
different from most other energy technologies. A greeneld project typically starts with several years of exploration and drilling,
followed by a brief construction period, and then several decades
of operation. The advantages of geothermal power in relation to
other energy technologies can be summarized in two main points:
Even with high upfront capital costs, geothermal power is a
competitive renewable energy source. The absence of fuel costs

780

Z. Aretouyap et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 775781

Table 4
Summary key information useful for geothermal investors in Africa.
Aspects

Observations

Geological setting

The continent has a diverse geology divided into 6 large groups: younger sedimentary rocks, younger orogens, sedimentary
basins, orogens, sedimentary rocks and cratons [30].
Geothermal potential
Africa has the potential to provide 9000 MW of power generation capacity from hot water and steam based geothermal resources
[22]
Population density
The total population of Africa is estimated at 1.1 billion, representing approximately 15% of the world's population [38].
Energy needs/demand
About 200 kW h per capita. From an electricity-access point of view, sub-Saharan Africa's situation is the world's worst. It has 13%
of the world's population, but 48% of the share of the global population without access to electricity [36].
Current electricity tariff
The average effective electricity tariff in Africa is US $0.14 per kilowatt-hour (kW h) against an average of US $0.18 per kW h in
production costs [36].
Business environment/opportunities Private sector activities in many African countries are facing various obstacles such as high costs of starting a business, weak
property rights, burdensome prot tax rates, unstable tax regimes, and limited access to nance [39].

and other variable costs over the long project life span give geothermal power the lowest levelized cost ($89.6/MW h) of any
renewable energy technology with the exception of wind power
(at $86.6/MW h) [36].
Having no reliance upon intermittent energy sources such as
wind and sunlight, geothermal facilities can produce electricity
24 h a day, 7 days a week. As a result, geothermal power plants
have a high capacity factor, demonstrating a level of consistency
and reliability not found in other renewable technologies. Geothermal power has the highest capacity factor (92%) of all the
energy sources, higher than coal (85%), natural gas (87%), and
biomass (83%). Many geothermal power plants enjoy capacity
factors of more than 96%. For comparison, the capacity factors of
wind, solar thermal, and solar PV are listed as 34%, 20%, and 25%,
respectively [36].
However, this technology has a huge risk and disadvantage
compared to other technologies in the same category [37]:
Geothermal power plant construction involves high expenditures and capital costs at the beginning of the project. This
upfront capital is especially necessary for the drilling and
exploration phases. This stage of the project involves considerable
risks. Indeed, the return on investment is essentially random or
long-term programmed.
Wind, solar, and fossil fuels are less limited by location than
traditional geothermal power systems. Geothermal plants must be
placed near or above the resource.
4.6. Useful information for geothermal investors in Africa
Any geothermal investor in Africa must question some aspects
such as the geological setting and the geothermal potential of the
interest area, the population density, the energy needs or demand,
the current electricity tariff and the business environment or
opportunities in the region. Table 4 summarizes the state of those
aspects for any potential investor.

5. Conclusions
Domra Kana et al. [4] reviewed concise geophysical methods used
in geothermal exploration. The present paper that offer one's service
as an additive will allow faster and more efcient exploitation of that
article [3] by reducing wasted time and costs associated with trial and
error. The choice of a method will from now on be wiser and based on
the main purpose of the investigation and on the geological setting the
operation area. However, to make the choice of a method rational and
more efcient the choice of a method, a preliminary geological
investigation of the exploration area is required. Nevertheless, one can
note other choice criteria. For example, detection of a geothermal heat
source is best carried out by using a combination of gravity and

magnetic measurements, while reservoir characteristics are best

imaged by the use of electric or electromagnetic techniques.

Acknowledgment
The authors are very grateful to anonymous reviewers who
have hugely contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.
They would also like to record their gratitude to Prof. Oben Julius
Enyong and Prof. Kofan Timolon Crpin for their advice and
encouragement. Madam Artouyap Mirelle Flore and Mrs. Tchimela Clotilde are thanked for their linguistic assistance.

References
[1] Gupta HK, Sukanta Roy. Geothermal energy: an alternative resource for the
21st century. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Scientic Publishing
Company; 2007.
[2] Aradttir ESP, Gunnarsson I, Sigfsson B, Gunnarsson G, Jliusson BM,
Gunnlaugsson E, et al. Toward cleaner geothermal energy utilization: capturing and sequestering CO2 and H2S emissions from geothermal power
plants. Transp Porous Media 2015;108(1):6184.
[3] Bodvarsson G. Evaluation of geothermal prospects and the objectives of geothermal exploration. Geoexploration 1970;8:717.
[4] Domra Kana J, Djongyang N, Radandi, Njandjock Nouck P, Dadj A. A review of
geophysical methods for geothermal exploration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;44:8795.
[5] Grant FS, West GF. Interpretation theory in applied geophysics. New York,
USA: McGraw-Hill; 1965.
[6] Lierty L. Seismic reection imaging of a geothermal aquifer in an urban setting.
Geophysics 1998;63(4):128594.
[7] Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE, Keys DA. Applied geophysics. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press; 1976.
[8] McCay AT, Harley TL, Younger PL, Sanderson DCW, Cresswell AJ. Energies
2014;7:475780.
[9] Jalludin M. State of knowledge of the geothermal provinces of the republic of
Djibouti; presented at short course VI on exploration for geothermal resources. Naivasha, Kenya: UNU-GTP, KenGen, GDC; 2011.
[10] Pellerin L, Johnston JM, Hohmann GW. A numerical evaluation of electromagnetic methods in geothermal exploration. Geophysics 1996;61(1):12130.
[11] Dobrin MB. Introduction to geophysical prospecting. 3rd ed.. New York, USA:
McGraw-Hill; 1998.
[12] Flury F, Meier P, Zingg O, Dewarrat P, Donz J, Urfer D. Rpublique et Canton
du Jura Gothermie profonde Etude du potentiel cantonal. Jura: Groupement dtude gothermie profonde; 2012.
[13] Haffen S. Caractristiques gothermiques du rservoir grseux de Buntsandstein dAlsace. Strasbourg, France: Universit de Strasbourg; 2012.
[14] Parker LR. The inverse problem of resistivity sounding. Geophysics
1984;49:214358.
[15] Houseman GA, Cull JP, Muir PM, Paterson HL. Geothermal signatures and
uranium ore deposits on the Stuart Shelf of South Australia. Geophysics
1989;54:15870.
[16] Hase H, Miyazaki Y. Geothermal resources map aided by remote sensing data.
In: Proceeings of international archives of photograrnmerry and remote sensing; 1988. 27.p. 21221.
[17] Sumner JS. Principles of induced polarization for geophysical exploration.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1976.
[18] Mariita NO. Strengths and weaknesses of gravity and magnetics as exploration
tools for geothermal energy. Presented at short course V on exploration for
geothermal resources. Naivasha, Kenya: UNU-GTP, KenGen, GDC; 2010.

Z. Aretouyap et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 775781

[19] Hring MO, Schanz U, Ladner F, Dyer BC. Characterization of the Basel
1 enhanced geothermal system. Geothermics 2008;37(5):46995.
[20] Axelsson G, Stefansson V, Bjornsson G, Liu J. Sustainable management of
geothermal resources and utilization for 100300 years. In: Proceedings of the
World geothermal congress. Antalya, Turkey; 2005. p. 8.
[21] Mariita NO. Geothermal energy resources in Africa: exploration and sustainable management. Presented at short course I on exploration for geothermal
resources. Naivasha, Kenya: UNU-GTP, KenGen, GDC; 2006.
[22] Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE). Geothermal Market Assessment Report, The Eastern Africa Market Assessment Acceleration Geothermal Conference Agenda. Washington DC: BCSE; 2003.
[23] Karekezi S, Majoro L. Improving modern energy services for Africa's urban
poor. Energy Policy 2002;30:101528.
[24] Success Story Geothermal Power Generation in Kenya, AFREPREN/FWD. P.
13, http://www.afrepren.org; [assessed 19.12.15].
[25] Shirazi Y, Carr E, Knapp L. A cost-benet analysis of alternatively fueled buses
with special considerations for V2G technology. Energy Policy 2015;87:591
603.
[26] IGA. Installed Generating Capacity, http://www.geothermal-energy.org/geo
thermal_energy/electricity_generation.html; 2014 [accessed 18.12.15].
[27] Lund JW, Freeston DH, Boyd TL. Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2010
worldwide review. In: Proceedings of the World geothermal congress 2010.
Bali, Indonesia; 2010. p. 8.
[28] Sigfsson B, Uihlein A. 2014 JRC geothermal energy status report. Luxembourg: Publications Ofce of the European Union; 2014 2014.
[29] REN21. Renewables 2015 Global Status Report. Paris: REN21 Secretariat; 2015.
[30] Dallmeyer RD, Lcorch JP. Introduction. In: Dallmeyer RD, Lcorch JP, editors. The West African orogens and Circum-Atlantic correlatives. Berlin,

[31]
[32]
[33]

[34]
[35]

[36]

[37]
[38]

[39]

781

Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Barcelona, Budapest:
Springer-Verlag; 1991. p. 38.
Fridleifsson IB. Status of geothermal energy amongst the world's energy
sources. IGA News 2003;52:134.
Fridleifsson IB. Geothermal energy for the benet of the people. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 1999;5:299312.
Stefansson V. No success for renewables without geothermal energy. Paper
presented at the European Geothermal Energy Council Seminar. Ferrara, Italy:
EGEC; 1999. p. 15.
Lund JW, Freeston DH, Boyd TL. Direct application of geothermal energy.
Geothermics 2005;34:691727.
Bronicki L. Geothermal power conversion technology. New York: encyclopedia
of sustainability science and technology. New York: Reprinted by Springer
Science Business Media; 2013.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (US EIA). Levelized cost of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2013. Washington DC: US EIA,
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm;
2013
[accessed 18.12.13].
Matek B. The manageable risks of conventional hydrothermal geothermal
power systems. Washington: GEA; 2014.
Castellano A, Kendall A, Nikomarov M, Swemmer T. Brighter Africa: the
growth potential of the sub-Saharan electricity sector. Washington: McKinsey&Company; 2015.
World Bank. Doing business 2016: measuring regulatory quality and efciency. 13th ed.. Washington D.C.: World Bank; 2016.