Africa Geothermal

Feasibility Study for the
establishment of an
Africa Geothermal
Center of Excellence
FINAL REPORT
December, 2015
Presented by:
3050 P Street NW; Washington, DC 20007, USA

Tel: +1 202 333 6866; PI@partnership-international.com
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
This Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence Feasibility Study was commissioned by the
Government of Kenya, through the Geothermal Development Company, with funding from the
Icelandic International Development Agency and Nordic Development Fund. Additionally,
support was given from the African Union Commission and the United Nations Environmental
Program under the African Rift Geothermal Development Facility in the facilitation of a workshop
to gain stakeholder feedback and validation of the report findings. Partnership International, Inc.
was engaged to conduct this feasibility study as well as to prepare a conceptual model and
budget for the establishment of an Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence. The report was
compiled by the consulting team of Partnership International, comprising Gordon Bloomquist, Jeff
Ponsness, Martin Mwangi, and Steven Hirsch, and edited by Tracy Mathieu.
2|P a g e
Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence - Partnership International
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................... 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 8
1. ASSESSING THE NEED - WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR AN AFRICA GEOTHERMAL
CENTER OF EXCELLENCE? ........................................................................................................ 12
1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.2 COE FEASIBILITY STUDY APPROACH .................................................................................... 12
1.3 DESK REVIEW: THE NEED FOR AFRICA GEOTHERMAL CAPACITY BUILDING ......................... 14
1.4 DONOR COORDINATION NEEDED .......................................................................................... 20
1.5 RESULTS FROM PIS FEASIBILITY STUDY QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................... 21
1.5.1 Student Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 21
1.5.2 Stakeholder Questionnaires ......................................................................................... 24
1.6 SUSTAINABLE FRAMEWORK FOR THE CENTER OR EXCELLENCE......................................... 27
1.7 COE PROPOSED MISSION & OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 28
1.7.1 CoE Proposed Mission .................................................................................................. 28
1.7.2 Steps towards achieving CoE Objectives..................................................................... 29
COE NEEDED CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 31
2.1 OVERVIEW OF GEOTHERMAL TRAINING FOR THE REGION .................................................. 31
2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE TYPES OF TRAINING TO BE OFFERED BY THE PROPOSED
COE 35
2.3 COE INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH .................................................................................. 36
2.3.1 Core-Courses based at CoE ...................................................................................... 36
2.3.2 Courses based at Partners and Affiliates .................................................................. 39
2.3.3 Representative Core-Course Descriptions for CoE Training Categories ................ 41
2.4 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF COE CORE-COURSES; PARTNER AND AFFILIATED COURSES ....... 43
COE NEEDED LABORATORY & EQUIPMENT FRAMEWORK ........................................ 45
3.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING GEOTHERMAL LABORATORY FACILITIES......................................... 45
3.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR LABORATORY & EQUIPMENT.............................................. 46
3.2.1 Geochemistry .............................................................................................................. 46
3.2.2 Petrography ................................................................................................................ 48
3.2.3 Geophysics ................................................................................................................. 49
3.3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF PROPOSED COE LABORATORY TRAINING FRAMEWORK ............... 50
COE NEEDED ICT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR E-LEARNING, DATA MANAGEMENT &
COLLABORATION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 51
4.1 OVERVIEW OF GEOTHERMAL DATA MANAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN THE REGION
51
4.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF PROPOSED COE ICT INFRASTRUCTURE.............................. 52
4.2.1 Training ........................................................................................................................ 52
4.2.2 Collaboration ............................................................................................................... 53
4.2.3 Content/Data Access and Management Network ..................................................... 54
4.2.4 GeoScience Software Applications ........................................................................... 54
4.2.5 Benefits of ICT Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 55
4.3 CONTENT/DATA MANAGEMENT AND SHARING SYSTEM ........................................................ 55
4.4 LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LMS, OR E-LEARNING) .................................................. 57
4.5 STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 59
4.6 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF PROPOSED COE ICT FRAMEWORK............................................... 60
COE NEEDED GOVERNANCE & ADMINISTRATION FRAMEWORK ............................. 62
5.1 LOCATION OF THE COE ......................................................................................................... 62
3|P a g e
5.2 OVERALL PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE COE IN ITS FORMATIVE YEARS........................... 63
5.3 GOVERNANCE: STEERING COMMITTEE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD......................... 65
5.4 PROPOSED COE STAFFING STRUCTURE .............................................................................. 66
5.5 COE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND MEMBER-COUNTRY COE TRAINING PLANS ..................... 66
5.6 SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND THE DONOR COMMUNITY.................................................. 67
5.7 STUDENT SELECTION FOR THE COE ..................................................................................... 67
5.8 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 68
5.9 COE CORE COURSE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ............................................................... 68
5.10 RECOMMENDED COE FACILITIES LONG TERM PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.................... 69
COE PROJECTED COST/BUDGET ..................................................................................... 71
6.1 NEAR-TERM PROJECT COST BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY AND YEAR................................. 71
6.2 NEAR-TERM PROJECT COST BY EXPENDITURE TYPE AND YEAR .......................................... 73
6.3 MID-TERM PROJECT COST BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY AND YEAR ................................... 74
6.4 MID-TERM PROJECT COST BY EXPENDITURE TYPE AND YEAR ............................................. 75
6.5 TRAINING DEMAND ................................................................................................................ 76
6.6 PROJECTED FINANCING AND CONTRIBUTIONS ...................................................................... 77
6.7 QUARTERLY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: NEAR-TERM (1-5 YEARS) AND MID-TERM (6-10
YEARS) .......................................................................................................................................... 81
6.8 EXPLANATION OF ITEMS IN THE ABOVE 10 YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (TABLE 6.7) 84
6.9 ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 85
6.10 SUSTAINABILITY................................................................................................................. 86
COE VALIDATION WORKSHOP, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS & NEXT
STEPS .............................................................................................................................................. 89
7.1 COE VALIDATION W ORKSHOP............................................................................................... 89
7.2 COE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 90
7.3 COE NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................. 97
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 98
APPENDIX 1: STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES .............................................................................. 99
A. National Entities............................................................................................................... 99
B. Regional Agencies ........................................................................................................ 107
C. Donor Agencies ............................................................................................................. 109
D. Private Sector Companies ............................................................................................ 118
E. Others (Capacity Building) ............................................................................................ 120
APPENDIX 2: STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRES........................................................................... 122
APPENDIX 3: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................................................... 123
APPENDIX 4: POTENTIAL POWER PLANT SIMULATOR FOR COE .................................................. 131
APPENDIX 5: GEOTHERMAL DATA AND CONTENT NETWORK....................................................... 136
APPENDIX 6: LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LMS) .............................................................. 142
APPENDIX 7: LMS USE IN AFRICA ............................................................................................... 149
APPENDIX 8: DETAILED BUDGET ................................................................................................. 152
APPENDIX 9: DETAILED COURSE BUDGET ................................................................................... 154
APPENDIX 10: DETAILED LAB BUDGET ........................................................................................ 163
APPENDIX 11: DETAILED SUSTAINABILITY PLAN .......................................................................... 164
APPENDIX 12: GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EXISTING EQUIPMENT LIST - 2015 ....... 166
APPENDIX 13: ARGEOS SKILLS AUDIT & GAP STUDY FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY SUBSECTOR IN
AFRICAN COUNTRIES................................................................................................................... 170
APPENDIX 14: TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................ 171
APPENDIX 15: VALIDATION W ORKSHOP HOSTED BY UNEP ........................................................ 172
APPENDIX 16: NORTHERN CORRIDOR INTEGRATION PROJECT AGREEMENTS WITH REGARD TO
KENYA ESTABLISHING AN AFRICA GEOTHERMAL COE................................................................. 173
4|P a g e
Tables and Figures
Table 1.3.1 GRMF & other developments in East Africa .............................................................. 15
Table 1.3.2 Estimated Professional Skilled Manpower Needed for 2010-2020 .......................... 16
Table 1.3.3 The Ratio of the Current and Required Plant Technicians for Geothermal
Development in the Region within the next 15 years .................................................................... 18
Table 1.5.1.1 Number of Students marking levels 4 & 5 on Questionnaire ................................. 21
Table 1.5.1.2 Program Duration and Curriculum Preferences ..................................................... 22
Table 1.5.1.3 Location Preferences................................................................................................ 23
Table 1.5.2.1 Objectives of the Proposed Center of Excellence Chosen by 44 Stakeholders... 25
Table 1.5.2.2 Training Topics in the Program for the CoE Chosen by 44 Stakeholders ............ 26
Table 2.4.1 International Consultants Cost .................................................................................... 44
Table 2.4.2 In-Country Instructor Cost ........................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.2 ICT Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4.3 Integrated System.......................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.4 An e-Learning / Learning Management System ......................................................... 57
Figure 5.2 Organizational Chart for the Center of Excellence ...................................................... 64
Figure 6.1 Near-Term 1-5 Year Budget by Category .................................................................... 71
Figure 6.2 Near-term 1-5 Year Budget by Expenses .................................................................... 73
Figure 6.3 Mid-Term 6-10 Year Budget by Category .................................................................... 74
Figure 6.4 Mid-Term 6-10 Year Budget by Expenses ................................................................... 76
Table 6.5 Adjustments with UNEP Skills Assessment .................................................................. 77
Table 6.7 Quarterly Implementation Schedule over Ten Years ................................................... 82
Figure 6.10 Scenario 1: Near-Term 1-5 Year Funding Resources .............................................. 87
Figure 7.2.1 Near-Term 1-5 Year Budget by Category ................................................................. 95
Figure 7.2.2 Mid-Term 6-10 Year Budget by Category ................................................................. 96
Figure 7.2.3 Scenario 1: Near-Term 1-5 Year Funding Resources ............................................. 96
Table A.4.1 Rate Factors .............................................................................................................. 133
Estimates on a Simulator Development Costs in USD ............................................................... 133
Table A.4.2 Benefits and limitations of simulators vs. fidelity type. Courtesy ABB ................... 134
Figure A.5.1: Integrated CoE System........................................................................................... 137
Figure A.5.2: Proposed CoE AGDS (Full build) ........................................................................... 139
5|P a g e
Acronyms
AA Atomic Absorption
AFD French Development Agency (Agence Franaise de Dveloppement)
AfDB African Development Bank
AGCE Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence
AG-CoE Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence
AGDS Africa Geothermal Data System
AI Articles of Incorporation
API Application Programming Interface
ARGeo African Rift Geothermal Development Facility
AUC African Union Commission
BGR The Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources
(Bundesanstalt fr Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe)
BTC Belgian Development Agency
CKAN Community Knowledge Archive Network
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CERD Centre dtude et de Recherch de Djibouti
CIC Climate Innovation Center
CoE Center of Excellence
DMSS Data Management and Sharing System
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
DeKUT Dedan Kimathi University of Technology
EAC East Africa Community
EAGER East Africa Geothermal Energy
EAGP US-East Africa Geothermal Partnership
EAPP Eastern Africa Power Pool
EARC East Africa Regional Resource Center
EAU Election Assistance Unit
EdD Djibouti Electricity Authority (lectricit de Djibouti)
EDCL Energy Development Corporation Limited (Rwanda)
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIB European Investment Bank
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program
EU European Union
EU ITF EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund
EWSA Energy, Water, and Sanitation Authority
TCD Thermal Conductivity Detector
GDA Geothermal Development Associates
GDC Geothermal Development Company
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIS Geographic Information System
GoE Government of Ethiopia
GoJ Government of Japan
GoK Government of Kenya
GoT Government of Tanzania
GRC Geothermal Resource Council
GRMF Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility
GROD The Government of the Republic of Djibouti
GTP Geothermal Training Program
ICEIDA Icelandic International Development Agency
ICP-OES Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer
6|P a g e
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IFC International Finance Corporation
IGA Indonesia Geological Agency
IPP Independent Power Producer
IRENA The International Renewable Energy Agency
IRIS Incorporated Research Institutes for Seismology
ISOR Iceland GeoSurvey
JICA Japan International Corporation Agency
KfW Reconstruction Credit Institute (Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau)
LAN Local Area Network
LMS Learning Management System (also, e-Learning)
MEQ Micro-earthquake technique
MoEM Ministry of Energy and Minerals
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MT Magnetotelluric
LVCD Local Value Chain Development
NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
NDF Nordic Development Fund
NDIR Nondispersive Infrared Detector
NGDS National Geothermal Database System
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ODDEG Djiboutian Agency for Geothermal Energy Development (Office de
Dveloppement de lEnergie Gothermique)
OPEX Operational Expenditure
PALS Project Model Learning and Support
PASSCAL Portable Array Seismic Studies of the Continental Lithosphere
PI Partnership International
PIC PASSCAL Instrument Center
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PPP Public Private Partnerships
RCMRD Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development
RFP Request for Proposal
RG Reykjavik Geothermal
SC Steering Committee
SEAMIC Southern and Eastern Africa Mineral Center
SEED Social Entrepreneurship and Economic Development
SE4ALL Sustainable Energy for All
SEIA Solar Energy Industries Association
SIDA Sweden International Development
SME Subject Matter Expert
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
SREP Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program
TEM Transient Electromagnetic Method
TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training
UNEP United Nations Environmental Program
UoN University of Nairobi
UNU United Nations University
UNU-GTP The Geothermal Training Program of the United Nations University
UPS Uninterruptable Power Supply
USAID The U.S. Agency for International Development
US-DoE The U.S. Department of Energy
USEA The U.S. Energy Association
USGIN The U.S. Geo Science Network
WB The World Bank
7|P a g e
Executive Summary
Introduction
The overall objective, to which this consultancy will contribute, is to assist countries in East Africa
to build capacity for geothermal development and utilization as may be applicable, in order to
accelerate geothermal development in the respective countries. The specific objective of this
consultancy is to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional geothermal training center in
Kenya, and prepare a concept note with recommendations on key aspects of such a center,
including institutional set-up, operational model and long term sustainability. The main task of
this Feasibility Study was: 1) to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional geothermal
training center for Africa, in Kenya, and if so, 2) to provide a framework and recommendations,
including: facility, training programs, activities and equipment. To achieve the goal of building
African human resource capacity to develop geothermal resources for power generation and
direct uses in African countries, Partnership International (PI) was contracted to carry-out this
Feasibility Study and create a conceptual model and budget for the establishment of a
sustainable Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence (AG-CoE). This study includes seven parts:
1) a desk study on human resource needs assessment, 2) a curriculum framework, 3) the
required laboratories and equipment, 4) e-learning and data-management components, 5) CoE
governance and administration, 6) required budget, and 7) validation workshop, conclusion and
next steps with PIs recommendations on the best way forward.
Needs Assessment and Proposed Mission and Objectives

The African Rift region has geothermal energy potential of an estimated 15 to 20 GW. Developing
these clean energy resources requires a vast amount of human resource capacity. Presently
there are about 600 MW e of installed geothermal capacity in East Africa, of which most has been
developed since 1981 in Kenya. According to studies conducted by African Rift Geothermal
Development Facility (ARGeo), African Union Commission (AUC), and Japan International
Corporation Agency (JICA) over the last decade, the development of geothermal resources is
expected to rapidly increase over the next fifteen years; however, at present, there exists a lack
of needed technical expertise to meet future demand. These studies, done in 2005 and 2010,
validated the growing need for African trained personnel in the region. More recently in 2015,
UNEP/ARGeo conducted a gap analysis of geothermal technical personnel, which confirmed an
increasing need for geothermal scientists, engineers, and technicians across the region. This
study analyzed the training needs for geothermal resource development over the next 15 years,
evaluating country-specific needs in three stages: 1) pre-feasibility, 2) feasibility, and 3) power
plant development and operations and maintenance (O&M). According to this analysis, by 2020,
2025, and 2030, the total number of geothermal scientists, engineers, and technicians needed
will be 2943, 3951, and 4325 respectively, based upon anticipated but yet to be confirmed
planned resource and project development. Another study, conducted by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), examined donor agency support for development of the
geothermal sector and capacity in the region. It recommended a comprehensive approach for
donors to continually examine skill gaps/needs, determine the appropriate timing in addressing
these needs, and develop a donor-shared curriculum/approach to training.
Additionally, the PI team completed desk reviews, sent out and reviewed student and stakeholder
questionnaires, and conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with key stakeholders. The
combination of these disparate studies confirm that an Africa Geothermal CoE is required in the
region to provide training and other support elements that will facilitate and accelerate the
development of geothermal energy for power generation and direct uses. To enable these
outcomes, the CoE should serve as a means to cost-effectively pool resources and build regional
collaboration through the exchange of knowledge and experience that can address the
needs/gaps while building human resource capacity. After carrying-out our analysis, the PI team
determined that the CoEs mission should be to facilitate and accelerate the development of
8|P a g e
geothermal resources in Africa by serving both common and country-specific capacity building
needs. To carry out this mission, three objectives are proposed: 1) development of curriculum
and CoE Training Plans that can be re-used and customized to satisfy regional and country-
specific needs; 2) provide access to shared specialized equipment, facilities, and technology, and
3) facilitate stakeholder collaboration on data management and knowledge sharing.
Curriculum Framework
Given the proposed mission of the CoE, the curricula will aim to provide relevant and cost-
effective training while addressing Member-Country capacity building needs. The CoE training
course content and frequency will be demand-driven and tailored to the needs and personnel
requirements of Member-Countries as well as those of active private developers needing trained
manpower. Toward this goal, the CoE staff will work closely with the Member-Countries to
develop a coordinated CoE Training Plan that meets both government and private sector
geothermal needs.
The CoE will use an interdisciplinary approach in which the CoEs core curricula will include both
theoretical and practical hands-on training in various aspects of geothermal energy production.
The types of training to be offered by CoE will include: short- and medium-duration theoretical
and hands-on training as well as e-Learning. The CoE core courses will be from 1 or 2 weeks
up to 4 months for professional and specialized technicians. Some of the courses will be lectures
while the majority of time and emphasis will be devoted to practical, hands-on training.
Additionally, e-Learning will be offered giving trainees access to online course materials, remote
assistance and distance learning guidance offered by experts and specialists located both
regionally and internationally.
In addition, the CoE will work with partners and affiliates that will carry out comple mentary
training, such as internships, university linkages, and joint-degree programs with host country
universities. Affiliate courses will be of a longer duration. For example, research oriented
students with a focus on geothermal sciences and engineering can be placed with affiliated
institutions, such as United Nations University Geothermal Training Program (UNU-GTP) in
Iceland, Geothermal Institute of Auckland in New Zealand, Kyushu University in Japan, or Pisa
University in Italy. Internships with private sector companies, governmental agencies, and
attendance at affiliated university programs will also be identified by the CoE for those candidates
seeking more in-depth expertise and/or more focused practical training.
Lab and Equipment Framework

A major feature of the CoE will be a state-of-the-art laboratory facility based at GDC designed for
training purposes as well as research and analysis of field-gathered samples and data. The
facility will provide for geochemical analysis of liquid and gas samples, petrographic analysis of
rock and clay samples from field surveys as well as samples from drill cuttings and cores and
interpretation of geophysical magnetotellurics (MT), transient electromagnetic methods (TEM),
and gravity, magnetic, and seismic surveys. The facility will provide equipment and capacity for
analyses including: 1) geochemistry, 2) petrography, and 3) geophysics. The facility will be
designed to meet the needs of both students and analytical personnel.
The CoE laboratory should also serve as a clearinghouse for Member-Country rental or loan of
GDC geophysical survey tools, geochemical sampling and field-testing equipment as well as
consultants to carrying out this work (if needed). Basic equipment should be provided to the
Member-Countrys geological survey departments, while equipment only used periodically should
be shared through the CoE loan or rental programs.
9|P a g e
E-Learning and Data-Management Framework
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) services are essential to support the training
platform of a Learning Management System (LMS or e-Learning), which provides for multiple
types of learning methods integrating collaboration, data management and sharing, and
geoscience software applications. The LMS will support all courses with e-Learning tools. These
web-based collaboration tools provide anytime, anywhere interaction by removing both
geospatial and temporal barriers. In doing so, the CoE provides a secure, open-data platform to
share geothermal content (documents, images, videos, etc.) and geothermal data (content/data
access and management network arrangements). While the platform serves an educational
purpose, it can also support business and policy objectives that are specific to individual CoE
Member-Countries and organizations (e.g., business license processes and application links).
Furthermore, geoscience software applications can be shared, covering such areas as drilling
engineering, geoscience, conceptual modeling, power plant engineering and mapping, etc. The
ICT physical infrastructure will have high-speed Internet access, public and private WIFI access,
printers/plotters, local area networks (classrooms, offices, labs), a small data center, casual
workstations, a video-conference facility and classrooms. For office and administrative use, the
desktops (or laptops) with access to online office software products or services will be provided;
each student will be assigned a laptop while enrolled at the CoE. For visitor computing use,
managed access from casual workstations will be provided.
Governance and Administration Framework

The CoE should be established as a semi-autonomous entity of GDC, governed by a Steering
Committee (SC) whose members provide guidance based on the companys Bi-Laws. The SC,
which will consist of voting members, shall oversee the CoE management team to assure that
operation, curricula and finances abide by the CoEs Bi-Laws, mission and objectives. A
Technical Advisory Committee will also be established that will assist the SC and CoE staff. The
committee members will include specialists in training, laboratory facilities and power generation,
coming from outside agencies such as IPP developers, participating donor agencies, and training
institutions. The CoE is envisioned to have 7 fulltime employees including a managing director,
curriculum manager, geoscience lab learning manager, engineering learning manager, e-
Learning manager, technical manager, and administrative manager.
The CoE would best be located in Kenya, as it is endowed with geothermal resources,
progressive regulations, trained human resources, and existing power generation and direct use
facilities. At the Validation Workshop, it was decided that the CoE will be under the auspices of
the Government of Kenya as host, be based at GDCs offices in Nakuru, with a satellite campus
at KenGens offices in Naivasha/Olkaria. GDC and KenGen have carried out training and have
classrooms, workshops, laboratories, equipment and experienced specialists, which will allow for
a rapid startup of CoE operations.
CoE Projected Costs/Budget

As recommended at the Validation Workshop, during the first five years an existing campus
strategy will be utilized to expedite needed training. If deemed needed by the SC during the first
five years of operations, a separate CoE physical facility will be planned and built beginning in
the sixth and seventh year of program operation.
The proposed financial model covers training demands and costs for roughly 1000 trainees over
the near-term first five years and an additional 1420 new technicians, scientists, and
professionals during the mid-term five year period (years 6-10). During the first five years, roughly
$16.5M USD will be required for both CoE capital expenses ($5.3M USD including drilling/power
plant simulators at existing GDC/KenGen facilities as well as vehicles, additional lab equipment
and ICT equipment at GDC facilities in Nakuru) and operating expenses ($11.2M USD including
planning, CoE staff, consultants, trainers, and related costs). During the mid-term (years 6-10)
10 | P a g e
the projected budget is roughly $31.7M USD which includes capital expenses ($17.9M USD for
CoE building and lab facilities and $13.8M USD for operating expenses).
A portion of the CoE facilitys capital expenses is expected to be provided by the Government of
Kenya in the amount of $17.1M USD over the CoEs first ten years. Section 6.10 of this report
provides sustainable budget requirements illustrating how these GoK funds could be used.
Additional near-term capital expense funding is expected from the African Development Bank
(AfDB) for simulators and the Icelandic International Development Agency (ICEIDA) for
laboratory equipment. GDC as host will provide a portion of the operational expenses. Other
additional operational financial support is expected to come from bilateral and multilateral
donor/lending agencies, although they have not yet been confirmed. It is expected that on-going
operation costs will be covered by tuition fees, equipment rentals, consulting fees, royalty taxes
and donor financing.
According to the recent UNEP/ARGeo Skills Audit and Gap Study for the Geothermal Energy
Subsector in African Countries, there will be a need for roughly 6858 trained geothermal
technicians, scientists, and professionals over the next ten years based on prospective future
geothermal projects. The PI study recommends verifying these numbers by developing Member-
Country CoE Training Plans and assessing country-specific human resource needs/demands.
Should this greater demand for training be realized, program costs for the initial five year period
near term phase would increase by ~72%. For the second five year period mid-term phase, total
costs would increase by ~40%.
Validation Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations

During the Validation Workshop, the stakeholders confirmed that there is an urgent need to
establish a CoE in Kenya, and, in order to do so expediently, existing infrastructure should be
utilized through in-kind support by the Government of Kenya, through GDC as host and KenGen
with additional training facilities. It was also agreed that the Steering Committee would be chaired
by the African Union Commission and have representatives of UNEP/ARGeo, GDC, KenGen,
UNU-GTP and two Member-Countries (initially Djibouti and Rwanda for the first year). The
Steering Committee should provide advice and oversight of the CoE management team (and
retained implementation consulting team), working with individual countries to identify specific
needs and provide tailor-made training programs. The AUC, in coordination with UNEP, and with
the support from development partners, will facilitate the institutional support and backstopping
that needs to be provided to establish the CoE. Given the need to establish and launch operation
of the CoE as soon as possible, the PI team proposes these steps be taken in 2016 by the
Steering Committee through GDC as host:
1. Dec 2015 Confirm the CoEs Mission and Objectives and overall Concept
Model as per the Feasibility Study and secure CoE start-up funding from GoK,
GDC as host and other immediately available donor funds.
2. Jan 2016 Retain implementation consulting team to:
a) Plan and begin carrying-out CoE Near-Term Implementation Plan (2016-
2020) & Member-Country CoE Training Plans.
b) Prepare CoE legal documents to form the CoE as a semi-autonomous
educational entity hosted by GDC governed by the SC, and prepare the
CoEs governing Bi-Laws as well as other legal agreements (trainers
contracts, MOUs, equipment rental/consultant agreements, etc.).
c) Assist the SC and GDC in hiring the CoE Managing Director (MD) and
Curriculum Manager (CM).
3. May 2016 Upon approval of SC, the implementation consulting team will
assist the MD, CM in working with GDC, KenGen, and UNU consultants to
develop the needed curriculum and training activities to address the CoE
Training Plans, in order to begin implementation of CoE training activities.
11 | P a g e
1. Assessing the Need - Why is there a Need for
an Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence?
1.1 Introduction
The overall objective, to which this consultancy will contribute, is to assist countries in East Africa
to build capacity for geothermal development and utilization as may be applicable, in order to
accelerate geothermal development in the respective countries. The specific objective of this
consultancy is to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional geothermal training center in
Kenya, and prepare a concept note with recommendations on key aspects of such a center,
including institutional set-up, operational model and long term sustainability.
In carrying out this feasibility study on the development of an Africa Geothermal Center of
Excellence, as outlined in the Terms of Reference the two main tasks of this assignment are:
1. Ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional geothermal training center for Africa,
in Kenya.
2. Prepare a concept note, assuming the feasibility of the center, with analysis and
description of the conditions under which such a center would be feasible and provide
a framework and recommendations for next steps, including the establishment,
training and future development of programs, activities and equipment.
To achieve the goal of building African human resource capacity to develop geothermal
resources for power generation and direct uses in African countries, Partnership International
(PI) carried out this feasibility study and created a conceptual model and budget for the
establishment of a sustainable Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence ( AG-CoE).
1.2 CoE Feasibility Study Approach

This study was granted to the Government of Kenya (GoK), through the Geothermal
Development Company (GDC), with funding from the Icelandic International Development
Agency and Nordic Development Fund (ICEIDA/NDF). Additionally, support was given from the
African Union Commission (AUC) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) under
the African Rift Geothermal Development Facility (ARGeo), seeks to assist African countries to
facilitate and accelerate geothermal developments through capacity building. Partnership
International (PI) was engaged to conduct this feasibility study as well as to prepare a conceptual
model and budget for the establishment of an Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence. The
objective of this study was for PI to provide detailed recommendations on the technical,
intellectual, physical, virtual and budgetary requirements for a geothermal center that can best
serve the long-term geothermal development requirements of the region as a whole.
In carrying out this study, the PI Team analyzed the feasibility of such a center and prepared
recommendations for a sustainable framework and program for the proposed CoE. The main
tasks conducted by the PI Team were:
Confirm and expand knowledge of the geothermal-related needs in Africa

related to power generation and direct uses.
Based on the above, ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional

geothermal training center for Africa and the elements it should include.
12 | P a g e
Prepare an analysis and description of the conditions under which such a
center would be feasible, providing a framework and recommendations for next
steps, including the establishment, training elements and required programs,
activities and equipment.
The PI Team worked with host country counterparts and met with designated key stakeholders
to conduct evaluations and propose tailored recommendations for the development of the CoE.
In developing this comprehensive assessment and implementation strategy, the PI team
conducted desk reviews, sent out and reviewed student and stakeholder questionnaire
responses, held telephonic interviews and had face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders.
The PI study builds on lessons learned from established geothermal training entities and
information obtained on how best to enhance collaboration and develop sustainable programs.
The PI Team examined how best to utilize and integrate the existing efforts and develop an
ongoing physical/virtual support framework for the CoE with the support of the five stakeholder
groups identified below:
1. National
Ministries of energy and geothermal departments in African countries that have
hosted trainings and/or sent their staff for regional/international trainings that
have helped build internal capacity in relation to technical, economic, financial,
legal, regulatory know-how that has promoted the development of geothermal
resources in their respective countries. The PI Team talked with these national
stakeholders to discuss their experience with previous training programs and
their perceived strengths and weaknesses relative to the development of
geothermal power generation plants and direct use facilities. The PI Team
collected their views as to needs, critical success factors, and barriers to
success in advancing the development of their geothermal resource potential
through national human resource capacity development.
2. Regional
Regional players such as AUC, UNEP/ARGeo, and AfDB/EARC have been
active in providing on-going training and support to advance geothermal
development. For example, the AUC has on-going training programs in place.
Likewise, ARGeo/UNEP is conducting a gap analysis on geothermal training
needs and equipment assessments for the region. In addition, ARGeo has
created 16 nodes of geoscientists trained in Member-Countries who gather
data within an online database structure. The PI Team met with these regional
players to determine how to best incorporate these efforts and resources into
the physical/virtual framework of the CoE.
3. Donor
Donor agencies have invested significant resources in financial and technical
support toward capacity building and the development of geothermal resources
in the region. The PI Team solicited the advice from these donor agencies to
understand what has worked, which efforts are ongoing, and how each donor
might best contribute to establishment and operation of a C oE. The PI Team
worked on developing a collaborative approach as to how to reach common
donor agency goals, and how donors can work together through the
physical/virtual framework of the CoE to further build and sustain human
resource capacity within the region to accelerate the development of
geothermal power generation and direct use.
13 | P a g e
4. Private Sector
Private sector project developers are in need of trained staff in their offices and
in the field. This includes but is not limited to exploration geologists,
geochemists and geophysicists, drilling personnel and drilling managers,
reservoir engineers, power plant designers and operators, etc. In their efforts
to hire local personnel, some private sector companies have established very
effective geothermal training programs. Additionally, companies have provided
hands-on training for skills such as drilling managers and power plant
operators. The PI Team talked with private sector players to assess their
capacity-building needs and how they too can participate in supporting and
obtaining benefits from the CoE.
5. Centers of Excellence and other International Agencies

The PI Team also conducted interviews with capacity building programs and
other training centers such as the Indonesias Geological Agency Center of
Excellence, USEAs East-Africa Geothermal Partnership Program, IGA's &
GRCs Workshop & Programs, etc. The PI Team interviewed key players within
these establishments regarding programs that have been implemented and are
effective in advancing capacity building in the sector, and examined how these
entities can physically and/or virtually collaborate with the African CoE.
The PI Team carried out the above consultations and fact-finding interviews on various matters
pertaining to geothermal capacity building in the region to produce this report. The objective of
this report is to identify and propose the type of cost-effective classroom, on-the-job and virtual
training as well as laboratories and equipment that will address geothermal power generation
and direct use needs in the participating African countries. We also include recommendations
for the best model to build a collaborative framework with national, regional, donor, private sector
and international participating stakeholders.
In August 2015, the PI Team conducted a Validation Workshop for the Draft Report. We worked
with counterpart agencies to ensure stakeholders participated in the workshop (see Appendix
15). The workshop findings and recommendations of the consultants were presented with open
discussions among participating stakeholders. At the end of this workshop, feedback from
participants was incorporated into this Final Report. The PI Team worked closely with the key
institutions, stakeholders and donors to develop a consensus in establishing the best way forward
as outlined in this feasibility study.
1.3 Desk Review: The Need for Africa Geothermal Capacity

Building
The countries of East Africa along the East African Rift System share significant geothermal
energy potential, generally estimated as 15-20 GW. Developing and operating these resources
will require billions of dollars of investment and several thousand trained geothermal
professionals. Governments, donor agencies, private developers and other geothermal
stakeholders should pool their resources to advance the development of this valuable source of
clean energy. In doing so, African countries with geothermal resources will conduct geological,
geochemical, geophysical, and environmental studies. The capacity to conduct such studies
relies on the availability of special equipment, expertise and experience. Presently there are not
enough skilled professionals in the region to meet this growing demand. Given the high cost of
human capital, facilities and equipment in developing geothermal resources, an Africa
Geothermal Center of Excellence provides a cost-effective means for geothermal-endowed
countries in the African Rift region to explore and develop their geothermal resources. As with
other CoEs around the world, the high cost of geothermal exploration can be reduced and the
14 | P a g e
risk shared by creating a facility where equipment and technical support can be pooled and
experience can be mapped, reported, and archived. Since 2000, initially under the auspices of
KenGen, 1 and more recently since 2010 through GDC, 2 there have been studies justifying the
need for a CoE. This study further underscores the need for a CoE that can provide the region
with critical expertise, field equipment, laboratory facilities, office hardware and analytic software.
There are over 600 MWe of installed geothermal capacity in East Africa, with additional capacity
on the way. By 2022, through the financial assistance provided through the AUCs Geothermal
Risk Mitigation Facility (GRMF), and other programs supported by various international donor
agencies, there is expected to be a more than 3-fold increase of roughly 1700 MWe of both public
and privately installed capacity in East Africa (see Table 1.3.1 below).3
Table 1.3.1 GRMF & other developments in East Africa
Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility and other developements in East Africa

Power plant Capacity MW GRMF Date
Olkaria I 45 1981- 1985
Olkaria II units 1&2 70 2004
Olkaria II Unit 3 35 2010
Olkaria III 52.8 2000- 2008

Kenya (628 MW)
Olkaria Wellheads 56 2012-2014
Oserian 4 2003-2006
Olkaria III 57.2 2009-2014
Olkaria IV, Olkaria I unit 4&5 280 2014
Eburru Wellhead 2.5 2010
Ethiopia Aluto Langano 7.5 1998
Corbetti-Ethiopia 300
GRMF 1stAR Bogoria-Silali -Kenya 200 2020
Longonot-Kenya 140
Akiira-Kenya 40 -140
Suswa - 150
GRMF 2ndAR** 2022
Kinigi-Rwanda 44-87
Tendaho -Ethiopia 35
Total ~1700
Note: As of November 2015, Kenya has 602.5 MWe installed; an additional 25.5 MWe are in the process of being developed.
Source: AUC (June, 2015) & Martin Mwangi
Over the last ten years there has been an accelerated development of geothermal energy use in
1 Geothermal Resources Center for Eastern Africa: A Proposal for its Development and Operation, Martin N. Mwangi
and Silas Simiyu, Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd, (2000).
2 Development of a Regional Geothermal Training Institute in Kenya, James Wambugu, Geothermal Development
Company, (2010).
3 Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility (GRMF), "Its Role in Unlocking Investment," presented by Philippe
Niyongabo, Head of Energy Division, African Union Commission at the IRENA Stakeholders Meeting, Nairobi, 15-6-
2015
15 | P a g e
Africa for power generation, but there remains a lack of needed technical experts and specialized
technicians to meet future demand. In 2005, ARGeo/ICEIDA produced a study indicating that
164 African professionals were working in the geothermal sector in countries where geothermal
potential was being actively developed, namely Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Tanzania and
Uganda. 4 Of this total, 79 were professionals trained at various schools around the world and
the rest were locally trained. The 2005 survey concluded that, with increasing interest in
geothermal development, about 200 individuals would need to be trained over the following 5
years (2006-2010). To address that need, short 3 to 4-week courses in Naivasha, Kenya were
initiated and 6 month courses in Iceland at UNU-GTPs were more heavily relied upon to meet
the need for advanced education and training.5
In 2010 the AUC conducted a survey to determine the human resource needs/gaps existing in
the region in order to better address the acceleration of geothermal developments in eleven East
Africa countries. It was projected that, from 2010-15, 458 additional staff (including geoscientists,
engineers and drillers) would be required to support geothermal development in these countries
(this number excluded those to be engaged by IPPs). In 2010, an additional study was conducted
by JICA. The JICA study team visited the same five geothermal-endowed countries to collect
information through personal interviews, spending about two days in each country. Their study
reported that 363 geothermal professionals were employed in various governmental institutions
and by IPPs within the five countries. Except in Kenya and Ethiopia (where there are existing
geothermal power plants) most of the staff were employed by geological surveys or utility
companies. Of this total, 338 reported having received training in geothermal related disciplines
in Iceland, Italy, Japan and/or New Zealand and more recently in Kenya. The courses in Kenya
were 4 weeks and the international courses were 6-10 months. Given the 170+ MWe installed
capacity in 2010 and the projected demand for geothermal resource development from 2010-
2020, the JICA study estimated 903 additional personnel would require training over the span of
10 years (see Table 1.3,2 below).6
Table 1.3.2 Estimated Professional Skilled Manpower Needed for 2010-2020
Kenya Ethiopia Djibouti Tanzania Uganda Total
Geologist 22 10 5 6 8 51
Geochemist 9 7 3 6 5 30
Geophysicist 12 7 2 2 5 28
Reservoir
Engineer
14 7 5 6 6 38
Drilling
52 19 3 5 5 84
Engineer
4"Summary Status, Strategy, Gaps and Support Programmes in the countries of EARS for Development of
Geothermal Energy, by Meseret Teklemariam, Ph.D., Regional Geothermal Stakeholders Workshop, Nairobi,
Kenya, March 15-17, 2010.
5
Situation Analysis Study on Geothermal Energy Development in Africa, Final Report; Chapter 13: Necessity of
Technical Capacity Enhancement, JICA (2010).
6 Ibid.
16 | P a g e
Power Engineer 20 5 3 6 6 40
Environmental
4 5 2 6 6 23
Scientist
Financial
9 3 2 3 3 20
Planner/Modeler
GIS Scientist 3 7 0 3 3 16
Drillers 91 100 2 4 4 201
Technicians 165 115 30 36 26 372
Total 401* 285 57 83 77 903
*Kenyas MoE staff not included

Source: JICA Situational Analysis Study on Geothermal Energy Developments in Africa (2010)
While these studies proposed the training required to address the growing need for trained
personnel, the lack of trained personnel and equipment persisted. More recently, ARGeo
completed a Gap Analysis of the human geothermal skills needed to fill the growing need for
trained personnel in the East Africa region, in which the need has increased three-fold as more
countries are considered and expectations are increased.
Conducted in 2015, the recent ARGeo Gap Analysis sought to identify the needs and
expectations of thirteen African countries. In varying degrees based on the countries resource
development, the ARGeo Gap Analysis showed that these countries anticipated a need in
capacity building including on the job technical training. The methodology used for collecting
information from countries was conducted through a detailed questionnaire to all relevant
geothermal related agencies. The feedback analysis includes three parts: 1) strat egic plan for
geothermal resource development in the next 15 years, 2) the geothermal workforce in the region
as of 2015, and 3) required expertise needed to meet the countrys resource developments by
2020, 2025 and 2030. 7
First, the analysis summarized the strategic plan for geothermal resource development in the
coming 15 years categorized into two groups: 1) countries with plans to generate power from
geothermal energy resource in the next 5 Years: Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and
Tanzania; and 2) countries with plans to identify geothermal prospect areas, including drilling, in
the next 5 years: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Eritrea, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda,
Uganda and Zambia (feedback from South Sudan and Burundi was not provided). To-date,
Kenya and to a lesser extent Ethiopia and Djibouti have had significant human resources and
equipment needed to initiate geothermal development. In the next 15 years, the ARGeo Analysis
identified 3 stages of geothermal development including:
Stage 1: Pre-feasibility - detailed survey and exploration drilling,

Stage 2: Feasibility - appraisal drilling, reservoir evaluation and feasibility study, and
Stage 3: Development - production drilling, well testing, detail design and construction. 8
7
Skills Audit and Gap Study for the Geothermal Energy Subsector in African Countries, UNEP - ARGeo, August,
2015.
8 Ibid.
17 | P a g e
Most respondents indicated that 57% of prefeasibility studies on geothermal resources are
planned to be conducted within the first period of 5 years and the rest will be done in the second
(2020-25) and the third period (2025-30). Under the feasibility phase about 41% of all activities
in various geothermal fields in the region in the areas of appraisal drilling, reservoir valuation and
feasibility studies are planned to be undertaken in the first 5 years. Next, approximately 45% of
the development phase activities are planned to be conducted within the first period of years
(2015-20). 9
Secondly, the analysis examined how the current geothermal workforce varies across the
involved countries and the stage in which the country is pursuing the development of its
resources. Kenya has the highest number of technicians in all fields while Uganda, DRC and
Djibouti have geoscience technicians in low numbers but have no engineering technicians.
Ethiopia has only limited reservoir and power plant technicians while the rest of the countries
have only geoscience technicians. The study reported that the geothermal workforce demand
will be high, for example, Kenya with the largest geothermal resource potential (estimated at over
10 GWe) will be require approximately 4000 drilling technicians, 2000 reservoir technicians, and
2000 plant technicians and 250 geoscience technicians in the next 15 years.10
Thirdly, as of August 2015 the ARGeo study reported that the current installed (and under
development) geothermal electricity in Africa is 628 MWe, and the estimated geothermal
electricity generated by 2020 would be roughly 3.6 GWe. It is expected that African countries
would develop about 10 GWe power from geothermal resources in the next 15 years and require
816 newly trained staff in 2015, 2943 in next 5 years (2015-20), up to 3915 by 2025, and up to
4325 by 2030. 11 These projections, yet to be confirmed, are based on planned resource and
project development.
Table 1.3.3 The Ratio of the Current and Required Plant Technicians for Geothermal Development
in the Region within the next 15 years
Required Staff vs MWe

10000 4325 2030, 9471 5000
9000 3915 4500
8000 4000
2025, 6825
7000 3500
2943
6000 3000
5000 2500
4000 2020, 3643 2000
3000 1500
861
2000 1000
1000 2015, 628 500
0 0
2015 2020 2025 2030
YEARS
MWe Staff required
Source: UNEP ARGeo 2015
9
Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
18 | P a g e
To respond to urgent needs of those countries, the study proposed to establish an African-based
CoE that could provide various tailored, hands-on geothermal short and long-term training such
as that provided by UNU-GTP in Iceland, and KenGen and GDC short courses in Naivasha. 12
Compared to the JICA study that covered five countries reflecting a need of roughly 1000
technicians from 2010 to 2020, the ARGeo 2015 Gap Analysis projected study included 12
countries with a three-fold increase of geothermal trained professionals needed in the next five
years (roughly 3000 by 2020), and an estimated 30% increase in the following five years (roughly
4000 by 2025), followed by a 10% increase in the following five years (roughly 4400 by 2030).
The report showed that there is a need for new (and replacement) trained African technical
personnel in all aspects of geothermal development. These findings and the study findings were
presented at stakeholder workshop; country representative agreed with these projections and
that these should be verified with country-specific CoE training plans.
Additionally, in another study Geothermal Capacity Needs Assessment Methodology,

conducted in 2015 by International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) on the geothermal
industry capacity building needs, the types of geothermal expertise was examined. The study
confirmed a need throughout the development phases of geothermal projects for various forms
of specialized expertise, and in addition, stated a need for enabling environment personnel.
The study split the need into two categories:
1) Highly specialized personnel (geoscientists, engineers and operations staff) directly

involved in the development of geothermal projects. These types of personnel are most
likely to require highly specialized geothermal training and they are usually in short
supply in countries beginning to develop geothermal energy.
2) Other enabling environment personnel involved in regulating, monitoring, supporting

and advising geothermal projects. Such personnel are essential for facilitating geothermal
development and generally require overall knowledge of geothermal projects and
technologies, but often only as part of their wider responsibilities and expertise. 13
The result of this desk study demonstrated that, given the slow pace of development of
geothermal development thus far in the African Rift region, there is an urgent need for a self-
sustaining resource center that will help build broad-reaching human resource capacity needs
and foster collaboration among geothermal stakeholders in Africa.
Having gone through the process of developing over 600 MW e of geothermal power, it has been
an expressed goal of the Government of Kenya to create a CoE facility that will help build capacity
in the region. During the Northern Corridor Integration Projects Presidential Summit in February
2014, there was an agreement between the regional Presidents (Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda &
South Sudan) in which the President of Kenya committed to establishing an Africa Geothermal
Center of Excellence in Kenya. The Kenya presidential communique nominated GDC to host
CoE with the goal to help fast track training for geothermal experts in the region. 14 As discussed
elsewhere in this report, this commitment by the Government of Kenya is a significant pillar to the
success of the CoE.
12 Ibid.
13
Geothermal Capacity Needs Assessment Methodology, IRENA, 2015
14
Concept Paper for the Establishment of Africa Geothermal Centre of Excellence, A Human Capacity Building
Implementation Project In Geothermal Technology For Eastern Africa, Prepared by: Geothermal Development
Company, Menengai, Kenya, 2014.
19 | P a g e
1.4 Donor Coordination Needed
In 2014 and updated in 2015, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
conducted a study titled Multi-donor East Africa Geothermal Strategy. This study focused on
the six leading Africa Geothermal resource countries (Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania,
Rwanda and Uganda). These countries have received over $2.5B USD in donor financing for
geothermal development to-date. Given the challenges in developing geothermal resources, the
study aims to foster a collaborative approach for donors, country governments, private
developers, lenders, and regional bodies to work together to address some of the needs that are
obstacles to the successful development of geothermal power generation and direct use projects
by both public and private sector developers. 15
The study reveals that numerous donors are engaged in capacity building for geothermal
development but that there is a need for a more comprehensive approach. The donors have
developed workshops on a variety of geothermal capacity building topics, of which many overlap.
The study recommended a more comprehensive approach by first, identifying skill gaps/needs,
second, determining the appropriate timing, and third, developing a shared curriculum/approach
to training. This would help improve the return on donor funds dedicated to training and capacity
building and prevent duplication of efforts. 16
An Africa Geothermal CoE could fill such a role in helping coordinate and leverage the already
existing initiatives of international donors. Presently, geothermal training is dispersed and
uncoordinated. Training includes both African and international donor stakeholders conducting
the capacity building initiatives on an ad hoc basis. In general, the projects financially supported
by these agencies have been highly focused on specific objectives or development sites. The
CoE proposes a means to build collaborative regional and country-focused strategies based on
addressing needs/gaps that will improve training planning, expand training opportunities and
decrease costs.
Based on the PI Team reviews of four gap/needs analyses conducted from 2005 to 2015, as well
as the multi-donor report, it is clear that there is a need for building capacity within Africa to meet
the growing demand for trained geothermal professionals and specialized technicians. Since
2005, the concept of a regional CoE has been periodically discussed by stakeholders. In 2014,
during the 3rd AUC geothermal donor coordination meeting held in Iceland, the participants
confirmed in their action plan that there is an urgent need for a Regional Capacity Building
Program to build the required geothermal capacity in the region. Given these former reports
and the findings in this study, there is strong evidence that the demand for human resources can
best be met by the establishment of a regional training venue for local training of Africa
Geothermal students. Providing such support through a CoE will further enable African Rift Valley
countries to gather, analyze, learn and share geoscientific information, and will enhance
collaboration across the region.
The idea of an Africa-based CoE is further supported through our interviews and questionnaires
with national governments, regional and international donor agencies, private developers, and
technical advisors (we present an overview of these findings in the next section). Many
stakeholders have expressed both a need and an interest in supporting a CoE that can provide
qualified African-based training in all aspects of geothermal power generation and direct uses in
a venue that enhances collaborative synergies and further develops the regions geothermal
potential and resources.
15 Multi-Donor Strategy for Geothermal Development in East Africa, Amanda Lonsdale, Power Africa, United States
Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 2015.
16 Ibid
20 | P a g e
1.5 Results from PIs Feasibility Study Questionnaires
In conducting this feasibility study and preparing a conceptual model for the establishment of an
Africa Geothermal CoE, the PI Team prepared and sent out two questionnaires: 1) to geothermal
students, and 2) to geothermal stakeholders. This latter group included national, regional, donor,
private sector and geothermal capacity building organizations. The questionnaires aims were:
first, to establish the needs and requirements of the CoE, and second, obtain insights and
suggestions as to how to meet those requirements in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
1.5.1 Student Questionnaire

There were a total of 34 student/participant respondents, mainly from training at the Geothermal
World Congress in Australia, and UNU students in Iceland. Of the 34, there were 16 from Africa,
10 from Asia, 5 Latin America, and 3 from Europe. A summary tally followed by individual
respondents of the Student Questionnaires can be found in Appendix 3.
This survey has been divided into two parts. The first part focuses on the students interests in
different fields of training while the second one mainly concentrates on the comparison between
short-term and long-term training program. When analyzing the first result we try to break the
general theme into specific pieces and understand representative fields that draw potential
students attention. As for the next part courses are more general since we try to emphasize the
short-term (1-3 months) study versus long-term (1-2 years) degree program. Also the location
preferences will be also discussed in the second student survey.
1.5.1.1 Specific Training Field Preferences

We have ranked the level of interest for specific fields as six levels including no interest as 0, with
high interest marked as 5. For better understanding of students preferences we combined the
number of students who circle levels 4 and 5, and marked it as people who are willing to take the
course. Comparing the popularity of different courses, Table 1.5.1.1 depicts top-level interests
of the 34 respondents. In general, there was interest in most topics, with many respondents
showing interest in several courses.
Table 1.5.1.1 Number of Students marking levels 4 & 5 on Questionnaire
21 | P a g e
As indicated in the Table, Reservoir Engineering was the most attractive course, with 25 students
interested in it. Surprisingly, Contract Negotiation was the number two choice. The next five
most popular courses include Exploration Drilling, Planning & Budgeting Drilling Operations,
Drilling Data Acquisition and Analysis, Preparing Proposals for Funding and Feasibility Studies.
Contrary to the popularity of the courses mentioned above, Geologic Field Mapping and
Geochemical Laboratory Analysis were two least popular courses although these are important
skills in the realm of geothermal feasibility. In fact, the group of Geological, Geochemical and
Geophysical Science (except for Conceptual Geological Modeling) was not as popular as drilling,
engineering and financing courses as they were chosen by fewer than 20 students. Moreover,
Power Plant Development, Well Field Operation and Maintenance and Utility Requirements were
not selected. To sum up drilling, engineering, modeling, feasibility studies and financing courses
were the most popular courses among the students while Geo-Science was of the least interest
to students.
1.5.1.2 Program Duration, Curriculum and Location Preferences

We also analyzed short-term versus long-term training preferences. Table 1.5.1.2 indicates that
desired program duration tended to be short. Apparently, the short-term (1-3 months) internships
with private geothermal companies were more attractive to students than the long-term degree-
focused training program. Among the short-term programs, students tended to prefer
Geothermal Drilling over other courses, as chosen by 26 respondents. Other popular study
concentration areas included Geophysical Field Surveys, Survey Data Interpretation and Direct
Use Projects, selected by 19 respondents. Geochemical Sampling and Analysis was the least
desirable course in the short-term program. On the other hand, the Geoscience and Drilling
Engineering long-term degree focused training program is more suitable for advanced degree
candidates, as there were many Masters Degree and PhD respondents in these categories.
Electrical Engineering, however, might need some cautious considerations because of the
relatively small number of candidates who selected this category for long-term study courses.
Table 1.5.1.2 Program Duration and Curriculum Preferences
Note: The first group with ST indicates that short-term (1-3 months) internships with private geothermal companies
while the second group with LT means long-term (1-2 years) degree-focused (BS, MS, PhD) training programs
22 | P a g e
As indicated in Table 1.5.1.3, when asked about location preferences, respondents chose Kenya,
elsewhere in East Africa, and overseas training equivalently. Notably they did not like the idea
of remote training via electronic media as only 18 people indicated this as a preference.
Respondents were randomly chosen, and we conclude that remote training is not recommended.
Among 34 respondents, 10 were from Asia, 5 from Latin America, 3 from Europe and 16 from
Africa, with overseas training having different meanings for people from these locales.
Table 1.5.1.3 Location Preferences
Note: Training includes classroom, laboratory

& on-site training except for the remote training.
As an enabler for e-Learning, most of the respondents have PCs or laptops and access to high
speed Internet. Ensuring Internet availability in the campus should therefore be a high priority.
As part of the ICT infrastructure, the Online Library is essential as an education tool, informing
students about the latest industrial news, innovations and technologies. We surveyed
respondents based on their subject matter preferences from Online Library and Online
Application perspectives. Table 1.5.1.4 shows that Online Library and Application systems were
almost equivalently significant. Specifically, the topics of Case Studies, and Research &
Development were most popular, followed by Current Industry News, Legal & Regulatory, and
Modeling (well field, power generation). These findings are consistent with the first survey about
receiving field training. It was also evident that there was a keen interest in Legal & Regulatory,
Economics and Modeling from those who have experience in renewable energy work, since many
of these respondents were participating in training at the Geothermal World Congress in Australia
and the UNU in Iceland. The second part of the survey also addressed a similarity with the first
section of the survey in that Environmental, Mapping and Visualization had gained less interest
compared with others. However, these areas were considered important to the Stakeholder. As
these practical requirements are needed, we recommend emphasizing the importance of
Environmental, Mapping and Visualization topics as part of a series of training.
23 | P a g e
Table 1.5.1.4 Online Library Subjects and Applications (Online and Download)
Note: All of the subjects on the left are belong with Online Library,
while others from the right-hand side are online applications.
1.5.2 Stakeholder Questionnaires

In order to reach the studys objectives to evaluate the feasibility and sustainability of a CoE, the
PI Team sent out questionnaires, held meetings and/or conducted telephone interviews with a
wide range of Stakeholders, with feedback from:
Stakeholder Questionnaires from 44 respondents:

The questionnaires were sent to the following key stakeholder groups:
national entities (ministries, geological agencies, etc.), regional entities
(AUC, AfDB, etc.), international donors, private sector (developers and
service providers), and others (CoEs, universities, associations and
geothermal training facilitators). Individual respondents to the
Stakeholder Questionnaires can be found in Appendix 2.
Stakeholder meeting and conference calls with over 45

stakeholders:
In addition, our study team conducted meetings with 14 national
entities, 3 regional entities, 17 international donors, 2 private sector,
and over 10 other key stakeholders (CoEs, universities, associations
and geothermal training facilitators). Meeting and call notes with
Stakeholders can be found in Appendix 1.
24 | P a g e
1.5.2.1 The Main Objectives of CoE from the Perspectives of Stakeholders
In order to assess the feasibility and sustainability of an Africa Geothermal CoE, the PI team sent
Stakeholder Questionnaires to 44 respondents, with deep experience and knowledge about
geothermal projects in Africa. The questionnaires were designed to help pool the
recommendations of these diverse national, regional, international and private sector
respondents. Some respondents provided detailed recommendations while others were
unresponsive. In this section we give an overview of the majority opinions as to what w ere
considered the most important objectives of the proposed Center of Excellence as well as
covering training topics considered the most significant from the view of these stakeholders.
As shown in Table 1.5.2.1, 38 stakeholders agreed that Human Resource Capacity should be
one of the most important objectives of the CoE. Human Resource Capacity refers to a center
that enhances local technical expertise, project management and related human resource
capacity in all aspects of geothermal power generation and direct use project design,
development, implementation and O&M. Second, Geothermal Resource Information, which
facilitates access to information on geothermal projects located in Africa was considered key. In
comparison with other important objectives, only half the stakeholders chose Private Sector
Expertise (which covered access to private sector technical experts) and Project Financing
(which would provide increased access to public and private financing for all aspects of
geothermal; power generation and direct use projects).
Table 1.5.2.1 Objectives of the Proposed Center of Excellence Chosen by 44 Stakeholders
1.5.2.2 CoE Training Topics from the Perspectives of Stakeholders

To visualize CoE training programs and what would be in demand among 41 stakeholder
respondents, over 70% considered Geothermal Geology, Geochemistry, Geothermal
Geophysics, Conceptual Modeling, Reservoir Numerical Modeling, Geothermal Data
Management, Drilling Engineering, Geothermal Project Management Reservoir Engineering and
Field Operations, Power Plant Management, and Operation and Maintenance as the main
25 | P a g e
training topics. The topics of Overview of Direct Use, Transmission Planning and Construction
were selected by 41% of 43 respondents. Additional recommendations included GIS for
Geothermal Exploration, 2D and 3D data compilation, and Project Development. Table 1.5.2.2
summarizes these results.
Table 1.5.2.2 Training Topics in the Program for the CoE Chosen by 44 Stakeholders
1.5.2.3 Individual Comments & Feedback from Stakeholders
Within the questionnaires and in one-on-one interviews, most comments and recommendations
were with regard to the CoEs a) Location/Hosting, b) Role, and c) Sustainability.
a. CoE Location and Hosting
With regard to location and hosting of CoE facilities, a majority of respondents agreed the location
in Kenya was ideal, providing a regional focus. Kenyas Ministry of Energy and Petroleum as well
as several other bi-lateral/international donor agencies support the CoE being hosted by Kenya,
based at GDC with semi-autonomous status. Many were aware of GDCs ongoing efforts, the
directive by the GoK to establish a CoE (see Appendix 16), and that GDC has already committed
staff, lab facility, property and on-going support for hosting the CoE. KenGen also expressed an
interest in supporting training at the CoE and providing additional training facilities, as needed.
Also, many recommended collaboration with professional institutes such as the UNU and other
East African universities and that if establishment of the CoE is to succeed, it must involve major
regional and donor stakeholders. Additionally, there was significant feedback that the CoE
should make use of equipment and personnel throughout the region as a regional-African institute
open to states from all over Africa.
26 | P a g e
b. Role of CoE
With regard to the training priority, a majority of respondents stated that the training programs
should be designed to meet needs of the region and be flexible. There was a clearly expressed
need for providing theoretical along with practical, hands-on training, including field work. In
addition, many commented that training should include financing, contract negotiation, preparing
bidding documents, etc. Several respondents stressed that training should be linked to existing
or future jobs. In addition, respondents felt that the CoE should coordinate/arrange internships
(on-the-job training) and should explore virtual/distant training.
With regard to access to lab equipment, most respondents felt that geological and geochemical
lab equipment for exploration should be available and based in the CoE, and that the CoE should
collaborate with other East African countries in exploration of their resources. Also, software
for data analysis and interpretation are needed. It was recommended that software a ccess be
available via the CoE along with assistance in data processing and database management.
c. CoE Sustainability
Many respondents felt that funding would be a major challenge for CoE sustainability. Other than
government and donor support, students and/or student sponsors need to make some form of
contribution, in which fees will be needed to cover a portion of actual costs to ensure
sustainability. Additionally, training, lab and other services should be charged to users,
encouraging the CoE to satisfy its customers. It was also recommended that once geothermal
resources are developed in member states, they could levy a small tax on geothermal power
generation for geothermal-related training and capacity building.
1.6 Sustainable Framework for the Center or Excellence
The PI Team evaluated other Centers of Excellence in Kenya and overseas. The Geothermal
Centers of Excellence in Indonesia and El Salvador are based at universities. In our desk review
and discussions with people actively involved in geothermal activity in those regions, our team
concluded that the local universities are not in a position to undertake a capacity building role.
Geothermal being a specialized area, no lecturers have trained nor do they have professional
experience to effectively train in geothermal courses, as they are not actively involved in solving
industry problems and therefore have very little practical experience to offer. In addition, the
Indonesia and El Salvador CoEs are different in nature than that proposed for East Africa. In
Indonesia, capacity building is well-advanced within the university structures, therefore the role
of the CoE is more oriented towards public relations. While the model of several Central America
countries seeking to develop their resources is similar, the speed of development as well as the
financial and capacity building involvement of stakeholders is vastly different. Over the last
decade, due to this need for trained personal, partnerships have formed to create a sort of make-
shift CoE in which educational institutions, donor agencies and regional institutions have sought
to fill this urgent need.
The UNU-GTP course is a more sustainable match to the needs of a CoE in the East Africa
region. One of the reasons the UNU-GTP has proved very popular with many trainees is that it
tends to emphasize more practical training than theoretical. Placing students in ongoing projects
in which they are tasked with solving practical problems with data collected from local projects,
the students are able to learn more. It was found that students who took the New Zealand
courses, which were more theoretical, preferred also taking the UNU-GTP training. Our
27 | P a g e
questionnaire analyses clearly demonstrate that specialized training is required through an
interdisciplinary approach. Given the number required to be trained is large and the regional
needs, the UNU model of short practical/technical courses should be pursed as the core-courses
of the CoE. Additionally, to address these large and diverse needs, the CoE should be linked
with other schools and/or universities (locally, regionally and internationally) offering geothermal
courses.
We recommend that the CoE follow the basic structure of the UNU-GTP model as it has proven
to be sustainably operational. UNU-GTP was established at the end of 1978, in which a contract
was signed between the UNU and Orkustofnun - National Energy Authority of Iceland (OS) under
the Ministry of Industry on behalf of the Government of Iceland. OS hosts and run the UNU-GTP
(much like a CoE). Like GDC, at that time OS was the main geothermal research institute in
Iceland and on state budget in which UNU-GTP was looked at as a special project within OS with
special financing from UNU (50%) and Government of Iceland through the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs (MFA) (50%). This was more or less the status for the first 20 years. The original contract
between UNU and OS was for 5 years, but was regularly extended for additional 3-5
years. Beginning in the early 2000s, OS went through an organizational change, in which UNU-
GTP was keep within OS, but given more independence status. This has led to the current status
which is working quite well in which UNU-GTP is a semi-autonomous department within OS,
based on what is now a 3-sided contract renewed for 5 years, between the UNU, the Government
of Iceland (MFA) and OS (which is under the MoE much like GDC is under the MoEP). UNUs
base finances come from the MFA, with additional finances come from services and training
covering about 30-40% of its budget. OS, on the other hand, receives its financing from the MoE,
as before, but there is a very clear line between OS and UNU-GTP in this. The Director of UNU-
GTP is under the Director General of OS, but also under the rector of UNU. The majority of their
teachers come from OS and Iceland GeoSurvey (ISOR), with the rest coming from the
universities, engineering offices and municipal energy companies etc., in line with the needs of
UNU-GTP at each given time. The regular staff (now 5-6) are employees of UNU-GTP / OS and
are not UNU employees as such, but basically all teachers are contracted by UNU-GTP either
from their company or as individuals for the teaching/training at each time. So formally there is
no direct connection between UNU-GTP and ISOR, but there is a contract with ISOR to provide
teaching/training as needed. With this system it is easier to run UNU-GTP in an independent
way. It is recommended that the UNU-GTP model is adopted and modified for the Africa
Geothermal Center of Excellence. In lieu of the partnership with the UNU, we recommend that
AUC and UNEP/ARGeo could fulfill this role as representing Africa at-large. More detailed
recommendations on this approach are given in Section 5 of this report.
1.7 CoE Proposed Mission & Objectives
The main tasks of this assignment were 1) to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional
geothermal training center for Africa, in Kenya, and if so, 2) to provide a framework and
recommendations, including: facility, training programs, activities and equipment. Based on the
findings of the desk reviews, questionnaires and interviews, the PI team confirmed that there is
a need for a CoE, and have outlined the needed framework in the following mission and
objectives discussion as the cornerstone for the CoE.
1.7.1 CoE Proposed Mission

The proposed mission of the CoE is to facilitate and accelerate the development of geothermal
resources in Africa by serving both common and country-specific capacity building needs.
28 | P a g e
1.7.1.1 CoE Objectives and Value of Results
Objective 1: Develop curriculum and CoE Country Training Plans that can be re-used
and customized to satisfy country-specific needs.
Anticipated results:
Reduce Member-Country training costs
Rapidly scale-up and maintain skilled geothermal workforce
Objective 2: Provide access to shared, specialized equipment, facilities, and technology.
Avoid duplicated high upfront expenses
Share competencies and skills among Member-Countries
Objective 3: Facilitate stakeholder collaboration on data management and knowledge

sharing.
Help coordinate multiple donor agencies
Expand and build data- and knowledge-bases
1.7.2 Steps towards achieving CoE Objectives
1.7.2.1 Objective 1: Develop curricula and CoE Training Plans that can be
re-used and customized to satisfy regional and country-specific
needs
Work with Member-Countries to develop individual Member-

Country tailored CoE Training Plans that build upon the results of
the ARGeo gap analysis.
Create, maintain and deliver core courses and targeted curricula.
Provide practical, real world training opportunities (e.g. hands-on

and internships) from the CoE-coordinated regional & international
geothermal community.
Foster academic relationships and curriculum development with

universities and other training institutions located in Member-
Countries and overseas (e.g. PhD candidates carrying out
doctorial research at the CoE lab using real data).
Provide e-Learning capabilities to be used by both CoE students

and graduates (on-the-job training, continuing education) that
leverage a worldwide network of geothermal experts.
29 | P a g e
1.7.2.2 Objective 2: Provide access to shared specialized equipment,
facilities, and technology
Coordinate access to lab capabilities present at the CoEs lab as

well as collaborate with Member-Country lab facilities.
Provide access to value-added services such as analytical

capabilities and expert consultants that may be located both
regionally and worldwide.
Facilitate access to shared field equipment on a loan, rental, or

other arrangement.
Provide a state-of-the art e-Learning platform to facilitate distance

learning, data acquisition, and knowledge sharing.
1.7.2.3 Objective 3: Facilitate stakeholder collaboration on data

management and knowledge sharing
Based on Member-Country specific training needs, tap into donor

provided training and support programs (with CoE locations in
Kenya or on-location in other Member-Countries).
Develop and provide simulator-based training in drilling and power

plant operation/management; coordinate training of these shared
tools.
For CoE-supported modeling tools (e.g. ARANZ Geo Limiteds

Leapfrog modelling products), negotiate licensing arrangements
for Member-Countries; provide re-usable tool training courses; and
facilitate on-going, best-practice use and analytical support.
Facilitate the development, use and maintenance of a dynamic

common internal data management and sharing capability. In
developing such as system, this will allow for the data to easily be
provided to selected potential developers, investors, and/or
stakeholders.
Establish drilling and geothermal resource testing codes to standardize

exploration practices and provide a common regional vocabulary and
method of calculating geothermal resource capacity to promote project
investment/development.
The following sections provide additional details with regard to the proposed CoE training
framework, laboratory set-up, and e-Learning structure as well as proposed governance and
budgets for sustainability.
30 | P a g e
CoE Needed Curriculum Framework
As noted in Section 1.7, the CoEs mission should be to facilitate and accelerate the development
of geothermal resources in Africa by serving both common and country-specific capacity building
needs. To carry out this mission, this section addresses objective: 1) development of curriculum
and CoE Training Plans that can be re-used and customized to satisfy regional and country-
specific needs.
2.1 Overview of Geothermal Training for the Region

Over the last few decades geothermal training opportunities have been predominantly overseas,
including the United Nations University in Iceland, the University of Iceland, Pisa Univer sity in
Italy, Kyushu University in Japan, the Geothermal Institute of Auckland in New Zealand, and
National Geothermal Academy in Reno, Nevada USA.
Recently, Dadan Kimathi University of Technology (DeKUT) in Kenya launched a 2-year MSc
Geothermal training program; an effort that is envisaged to address, not only geothermal energy
technology transfer, but also research on real problems encountered by industry during their
operational activities. Already the first group of 20 students from KenGen and GDC who would
have been sent to training institutions abroad (e.g., Iceland and New Zealand) are undergoing a
2-year MSc training at DeKUT saving the cost of foreign training. The program is also envisaged
in the near future to attract students from other East African countries. 17
UNU-GTP is one of the main international programs offering specialized technical training in the
needed fields of geothermal science and engineering. Their geothermal and intensive on-the-job
training is offered in nine fields (Geological Exploration, Borehole Geology, Geophysical
Exploration, Borehole Geophysics, Reservoir Engineering, Chemistry of Thermal Fluids,
Environmental Sciences, Geothermal Utilization, and Drilling Technology). UNU-GTP has
provided training since 1979, with roughly 600 scientists and engineers from 58 countries having
completed their annual six-month specialized courses over the last 35 years. Of these, roughly
200 were from Africa. 18 Training overseas is expensive and therefore the number of those
completing this training has to be limited, hence the need to have additional local training.
Since 2005, initially through the Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen) and more
recently through the Geothermal Development Company (GDC), both have worked jointly with
the UNU-GTP to conduct annual short courses on exploration for geothermal resources for
participants from Africa, coming to Naivasha, Kenya for the 3-4 week event. Over these past 10
years, 478 trainees from 21 African countries have benefitted from these 2-3 week courses. 19
The three institutions have provided both the financial resources and the bulk of the facilitators
for the program. Trainers have been hired from Iceland, Philippines, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania,
Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Eritrea. Most of the African lecturers are former UNU Fellows. Table 2.1 is
a summary of these short courses and the participating African countries.
17 Status and Challenges in Training on Geothermal Energy in Africa, Nicholas O. Mariita, Geothermal Energy
Training & Research Institute, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology (Kenya), Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April 2015.
18 The UNU Geothermal Training Programme: Training Activities Offered On-Site in Developing Countries, Ldvk S.
Georgsson, Ingimar G. Haraldsson, Mlfrdur marsdttir and Thrhildur sberg, Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April 2015.
19
UNU Geothermal Training Programme in Iceland: Capacity Building for Geothermal Energy Development for 36
Years, by Ldvk S. Georgsson, Ingvar Birgir Fridleifsson, Ingimar G. Haraldsson, Mlfrdur marsdttir, Thrhildur
sberg, and Mara S. Gujnsdttir, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April
2015.
31 | P a g e
Table 2.1: Short Courses and participating African Countries
Year Program Title Total Country Comments

Number of
Participants
2005 Workshop for 20 Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda The objective of the workshop was to increase
Decision Makers on the cooperation between specialists in
Geothermal Projects neighboring countries and to enlighten top level
and their decision makers on issues concerning
Management geothermal utilization
2006 Short Course 1 - 23 Djibouti (2), Eritrea (3), Ethiopia (3), Kenya (10), The purpose of the Short Course was to give a
Surface Exploration Tanzania (2), Uganda (3) state of the art overview of the possibilities and
for Geothermal status of surface geothermal exploration in East
Resources Africa
2007 Short Course II - 30 Algeria (1), Comoros (2), Djibouti (1), Egypt (1), The objective of the course was the same as in
Surface Exploration Eritrea (2), Ethiopia (1), Kenya (13), Rwanda 2006, but with more lectures and lecturers.
for Geothermal (2), Tanzania (2), Uganda (3), Yemen (2)
Resources
2008 Short Course III - 37 Burundi (2), DRC (1), Djibouti (2), Eritrea (2), Similar to the 2 previous years, the training
Exploration for Ethiopia (2), Kenya (18), Rwanda (2), Tanzania consisted of field work and lectures on classical
Geothermal (2), Uganda (2), Yemen (2), Zambia surface exploration environmental science,
Resources (2) reservoir assessment and geothermal drilling.
The last phase was 4 days of project work using
data from Kenyan geothermal fields
2009 Short Course IV - 45 Burundi (2), Comoros (2), Djibouti (2), Ethiopia The structure of the course was similar to 2008.
Exploration for (3), Eritrea (2), Kenya (21), Tanzania (3), Facilitators were from Iceland (UNU-GTP),
Geothermal Uganda (3), Rwanda (3), Yemen (2), Zambia (2) KenGen, GDC and neighboring
Resources countries, most of them former UNU Fellows in
Iceland
2010 Short Course V - 56 Burundi (2), Comoros (3), DRC (2), Ethiopia (1), The structure of the course was similar to 2009. A
Exploration for Malawi (3), Morocco (1), Mozambique (1), few more lectures were introduced, resulting in an
Geothermal Rwanda (3), Tanzania (3), Uganda (2), Yemen extra day to the course.
Resources (2), Zambia (3)
2011 Short Course VI - 58 Algeria (1), Burundi (1), Comoros (2), DRC (1), The course was similar to that of previous years.
Exploration for Djibouti (3), Eritrea (2), Ethiopia (3), Kenya (30), Kenya continued to attract the greatest number of
Geothermal Malawi (3), Mozambique (1), participants since the country has great plans for
Resources Rwanda (4), Tanzania (2), Uganda (2), Yemen geothermal utilization in the immediate future and
(1), Zambia (2) hence the significant need for capacity building
2012 Short Course VII - 61 Burundi (2), Comoros (1), DRC (3), Djibouti (2), This course was attended by participants from 14
Exploration for Ethiopia (3), Kenya (28), Malawi (2), countries with Kenya, one again contributing the
Geothermal Mozambique (2), Nigeria (2), Rwanda (6), largest number of participants and facilitators
Resources Sudan (2), Tanzania (3), Uganda (3), Yemen (2)
2013 Short Course VIII - 70 Burundi (2), Cameroon (1), Comoros (1), Djibouti This was attended by participants from 19
Exploration for (3), DRC (3), countries. This is the first time Cameroon and
Geothermal Eritrea (3), Ethiopia (2), Malawi (3), Kenya (32), Niger have participated in the course
Resources Mozambique (1),
Nigeria (2), Niger (1), Rwanda (3), Sudan (3),
Tanzania (2),
Tunisia (1), Uganda (2), Yemen (2), Zambia (3)
2014 Short Course IX on 58 Burundi (1), Cameroon (1), Comoros (2), Congo This was attended by participants from 19
Exploration for (2) Djibouti (2), countries. This is the first time Congo and
Geothermal Eritrea (1), Ethiopia (3), Kenya (30), Malawi (1), Zimbabwe have participated in the course
Resources Mozambique (1),
Nigeria (1), Rwanda (2), Sudan (2), Tanzania
(3),
Uganda (3), Yemen (1), Zambia (1), Zimbabwe
(1)
33 | P a g e
While UNU has played an important role and can continue to provide a supporting role in the
training of geothermal professionals, there remains a need for increased capacity building to meet
the geothermal development needs in East Africa at-large.
In addition, several bi-lateral and regional donor agencies have been active in capacity building
by providing workshops, training curricula, equipment donations, training materials, trainers for
regional workshops/conferences, transportation and per diem costs, as well as providing in-
house technical assistance consultants towards geothermal development. Here is an overview
of such initiatives:
The Japanese development agency JICA is presently providing technical assistance by

supporting GDC in capacity development, and at the end will come up with a training
program with materials so that GDC will be able to continue and keep improving their
internal training. JICA is also active in Ethiopia, Djibouti and Rwanda and feels these
materials can be used in training other countrys practitioners.
The USA in 2013 under EAGP developed 9 one-week modules for GDC, a one-day
workshop in Rwanda, and a week-long drilling workshop in Ethiopia -- all conducted by
US geothermal industry experts. EAGP also expressed interest in continuing to contribute
curriculum, sponsor instructors for on-site training, and sponsor East African trainees for
travel to training programs outside the region. Additionally, under US Power Africa there
are several technical advisors in the region providing advice on topics which may include
EPC contracts, financing agreements, fuel supply agreements, PPAs, transmission &
wheeling agreements, and environmental permits.
The UKs DIFD recently in 2015 started their 3-year EAGER technical assistance project
to provide policy and regulatory assistance in the region to attract more private and public
investments
The German development agency BGR has been actively building capacity in Djibouti,
Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania by providing survey technical assistance to their
geothermal development agencies.
UNEP-ARGeo has provided technical assistance to accelerate development of

geothermal resources in the East Africa Region, in which Phase I targeted Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Tanzania, where they have signed MOUs to
jointly implement action plans of geothermal activities. Phase II will increase to 13 total
countries. ARGeo has also carried out a few donor-funded short course trainings in the
region and has provided technical assistance for surface exploration studies at
Silali/Kenya Tendaho/Ethiopia Geothermal Prospect and has proposals under review for
Rwanda and Tanzania.
AfDB purchased a drilling simulator for CoE and GDC use and has provided $1.5M USD
for training of GDC staff. In Tanzania, AfDB is providing technical support for policy
development and capacity building of the newly formed Tanzanian GDC through the
Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program (SREP). Additionally, up to $25M USD is
available for technical assistance with regard to subsurface studies and exploration
drilling to leverage JICA and BGR surface and subsurface work.
Further details on past and future bi-lateral and regional assistance can be found in meeting
notes in Appendix 1.C as well as in budget Section 6.6, Projected Financial Contribution.
2.2 Conceptual Framework of the Types of Training to be
offered by the Proposed CoE
The proposed curricula of the CoE will be based on the CoEs objectives, which are to provide
relevant and cost-effective training that addresses a Member-Countrys capacity needs, as well
as access to shared equipment and laboratory services, while facilitating enhanced collaboration,
knowledge, and data sharing.
Training course content and frequency will be demand-driven and tailored to the needs and
personnel requirements of Member-Countries and active private developers needing trained
manpower. CoE staff will work closely with Member-Countries as well as private developers to
develop a coordinated CoE Training Plan that meets their respective governments geothermal
master plan objectives. It is expected that each countrys needs will be different, depending
upon the countrys resources development stage.
1) Countries with plans to generate power from

geothermal energy resource in the next 5 Years:
Kenya
Ethiopia
Djibouti
Comoros
Tanzania
2) Countries with plans to identify geothermal

prospect areas including drilling in the next 5 years:
Rwanda
Burundi
Eritrea
Zambia
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Malawi
Mozambique
Uganda
The CoE will offer training in high-demand aspects of geothermal technology disciplines,
according to the countrys specific needs. As outlined in Section 1.2, the ARGeo gap analysis
categorized the needs into three stages:
Stage 1: Pre-feasibility - detailed survey and exploration drilling,

Stage 2: Feasibility - appraisal drilling, reservoir evaluation and feasibility study, and
Stage 3: Development - production drilling, well testing, detail design and construction.
Given the outcome of the study, it is expect that 57% of the training course needs will be at the
prefeasibility stage, 41% at feasibility stage and roughly 2% at the development stage within the
first period of years (2015-20). The CoE will offer training in these high-demand aspects of
geothermal technology disciplines.
The CoE will provide training of personnel from each Member-Country, giving priority to those
that have previous training and/or experience in the geothermal domain or related energy sectors.
The courses offered by the CoE will be practically oriented with a strong interdisciplinary
35 | P a g e
approach to ensure that students receive a grounding in key geothermal-related topics. The
success of this approach requires academic and field experience on the part of instructors and
close cooperation between government, industry and participating training institutions. Practical
hands-on training in various aspects of geothermal technology will be a high priority for personnel
who are currently or who plan to be involved in geothermal work in their home countries but who
lack the necessary experience.
The CoE Staff will work closely with Member-Country counterparts to develop demand-driven,
tailored CoE Training Plans, which will include:
1. Core-Courses based at CoE facilities:
a. Short duration (1 to 2 weeks2 months at CoE)

b. Medium duration (2-4 months at CoE and affiliated institutions)
c. E-Learning (Blended Learning and on-demand online courses; supported
by a cloud-hosted Learning Management System (LMS))
2. Courses based at Partnership & Affiliates in which CoE recommends candidates

(UNU and universities programs), or provides placements (Internships):
a. Long duration (4 months1 year at affiliated institutions)

b. Internships (regional/international with public and private sector
developers)
c. University linkages (giving certificate level accreditation towards bachelor
and advanced degree programs in geothermal energy as well as providing
a venue for master or doctorate level researchers)
d. Establishment of a Joint-Degree Diploma Course
This interdisciplinary approach will provide students with broad perspectives on technical issues
related to geothermal energy exploration, development, generation, O&M, direct-use, etc. It will
also include the social, political, economic, legal, environmental , and safety aspects as well as
the roles of government, academia, research laboratories, vocational technical training institutes
and industry in the various aspects of geothermal exploration and development.
The CoEs core-courses will be based at GDC in Nakuru and at KenGens facility in Naivasha as
needed. CoE courses will be provided by GDC, KenGen and other regional trained trainers. The
CoE-based trainers will be predominantly locally and/or regionally sourced, in which there will be
training-of-trainers where gaps exist to facilitate ongoing training. In addition to CoE core-
courses, CoE staff will work in partnership with affiliated universities and training institutions as
well as other public or private entities willing to host internships in order to fulfill the Member-
Countrys CoE training plans. The next section includes more detail on this interdisciplinary
approach
2.3 CoE Interdisciplinary Approach
2.3.1 Core-Courses based at CoE

During the initial five-years of operations, the core-course will be based at existing facilities within
GDC in Nakuru, with some specialized courses such as Power Plant simulation, within KenGens
existing facilities. This initial five-year period will allow the governing committee to better
understand the training needs in the region. Funding for these courses will come from GoK,
36 | P a g e
donor agencies and membership subsides, training fees (see Section 6, on budget, for details).
During this initial five-years, based on the needs and gap analysis done in Section 1, the following
core-courses are proposed:
a. Short duration (1-2 weeks 2 months) - ongoing, regularly scheduled training for which
Member-Countries can enroll their personnel in advance. These short courses will be
established in response to country priorities as indicated in the countrys CoE Training
Plans, building upon the findings of the ARGeos gap analysis. Short courses will be a
combination of theoretical and practical hands-on training (with emphasis on the hands-
on practical work), mainly for practicing professionals and specialized technicians. Part of
the course time will be lectures, while the majority of time will be devoted to hands-on
workshop or internship/attachment practical training. Instructors for hands-on practical
work will be predominantly drawn from East Africa. Additionally, on specialty topics that
do not include hand-on training, instructors will come from private sector companies and
other geothermal training institutions abroad. Certificates will be provided to participants
upon successful course completion.
Courses will be provided based on Member-Country needs. Depending on the

development phase of the country, the following will be high-demand training topics:
Combination of theoretical and practical hands-on training:

Pre-Feasibility Phase
Geology (field studies and sampling)
Geochemistry (field sampling and laboratory analysis)
Geophysics (field surveys and data analysis and interpretation)
Exploration drilling
Feasibility Phase
Reservoir engineering, testing and field operations
Conceptual modeling
Reservoir modeling
Geothermal data management, including collection, processing, sharing and
storage
Applied research initiatives with regional applications
Appraisal drilling engineering
Safety issues related to geothermal project exploration
Power plant development and operations and maintenance (O&M).

Production drilling engineering
Well testing
Safety issues related to geothermal project development and O&M
Transmission line planning and construction
Power plant design, management, operation and maintenance (O&M)
Direct use applications, planning, implementation
Specialty topic theoretical training:

Environmental studies, policy, climate change issues
Regulatory issues
Models for public and private sector participation
Geothermal project management
Business principles, economic analysis, and finance issues
Project formulation, preparation, appraisal, approvals, financial record-keeping
and management
37 | P a g e
Business principles, economic analysis, finance and PPAs
Proposal tendering & contracting
IT-based distance learning
The schedule for short term training will be established 4 months in advance of each
program with Member-Countries invited to submit the resumes of nominated candidates.
b. Medium duration (2-4 months), - scheduled according to requests from country

members and based on specific country needs, these courses will be provided by the
CoE as well as donor affiliates (e.g. UNU, Japan, Italy, etc.). The courses will include
theoretical & practical (hands-on) training with classroom, workshop and field components
offered in areas such as geosciences, drilling and reservoir engineering, well field
management, power plant design/O&M, environmental and safety issues and project
management. Lectures, fieldwork and applied, practical projects will be included using
data and other information from the participants home countries (along the lines of the
UNU model). To facilitate these types of training, a drilling simulator shall be procured
subject to funding, by AfDB for GDC. Additionally, a proposal is pending for a power plant
design/operation simulator. Instructors (both theoretical and hands-on) will be drawn from
East Africa, as well as universities, private sector companies and other geothermal
training institutions abroad. Certificates will be provided to participants upon successful
course completion.
At the end of the program, graduates will:
Have solid knowledge of multi-disciplinary geothermal energy technology that will

support geothermal energy program development and management in their home
countries.
The schedule for medium duration training will be established 6 months in advance of
each program and Member-Countries invited to submit the resumes of candidates
nominated.
c. E-Learning provided by an Internet-based, cloud-hosted Learning Management

System (LMS). Offered as part of the training curriculum, this widely used and supported
open-source technology will allow the Africa Geothermal community to have access to
online classes and course materials; instructors, experts, and specialists using video
conferences and live-training feeds; and, self-service access to videos, papers and
presentations, blogs, and forums. It will also enable experts, teachers, and industry
specialists located internationally to effectively provide remote assistance, training , and
distance learning guidance to African governments, private companies, and their
personnel. Additionally, cloud-based instructional services will be used to manage
training costs, achieve rapid startup of CoE training activities, and archive training
modules for future reuse.
The schedule for structured e-Learning training courses will be established in relationship
to each CoE course outlined above and shall be available 24-7 upon students request;
the LMS system will be also used to manage all course registration. Member-Countries
will submit applications (using the LMS) for qualified student candidates.
38 | P a g e
2.3.2 Courses based at Partners and Affiliates
As outlined in Section 1 of this report, the PI team research demonstrated a broad-based need
for training. To reach this need, it is recommended that the CoE build partnerships and affiliations
with other universities, training institutions and public or private internship placements. For these
non-CoE core-courses, CoE Staff will provide guidance to Member-Countries with regard to
placement at affiliated programs (such as UNU), partnering universities (such as Kenyatta
University, University of Djibouti, University of Dar es Salaam, etc.). Funding for these
placements would come from tuition fees and/or donor financing/subsides. The CoE staff should
also coordinate internship placements. In addition to internships with GDC, KenGen, MoEP, etc.,
the CoE should coordinate internships with both public and private sector geothermal entities in
the region and internationally. Funding for this training should be from donor CoE member tuition
fees and/or from donor financing/subsides.
a. Long duration (4 months 1 year) tailored for research-oriented students with focus
on geothermal sciences and engineering. These trainees will be recommended by the
CoE for placement with affiliated institutions, such as: UNU-GTP in Iceland, Geothermal
Institute of Auckland in New Zealand, Kyushu University in Japan, or Pisa University in
Italy. It is likely that field trips and excursions will be included to view the geologic context
of both magmatic and structurally controlled systems, and binary and flash power plants.
These training institutions provide certificates and/or credit toward university or vocational
school degrees/diplomas to participants upon successful course completion.
At the end of the program, graduates will be able to:
Apply the acquired knowledge and skills to identify problems and provide solutions
through relevant data collection/analysis and interpretation for geothermal energy
exploration & development.
Participate in practical, sophisticated geothermal energy decision-making
discussions and effectively communicate key elements and reasoning for
geothermal energy or direct-use program development projects.
The schedule for long duration training will be established in advance in accordance with
affiliated institution for each program. Member-Countries will be invited to submit the
resumes of candidates.
b. Internships (local/international with public & private sector). Also known as

attachments and mentorships, these appointments allow participants to work on a
supervised basis with affiliated private companies or government agencies on actual
ongoing or planned projects for short-medium term (generally 1-6 months) periods in
close collaboration with experienced professional teams or individuals. The number of
interns accepted by a company or government agency is usually limited to 2-3 per year;
be paid or unpaid, and can include housing, office space, and admittance to research
facilities or corporate facilities. Internships may be limited to graduate or undergraduate
students in geosciences, engineering, or business that relates to power generation and
direct use. By close collaboration on actual projects, the participants receive real-time
coaching, are able to ask pointed questions when they encounter problems, and are able
to gain practical hands-on experience that allows them to pro-actively participate in
projects, rather than simply receiving information on a passive basis.
During the course of this feasibility study, internships within the framework of the CoE
were offered by companies based in Iceland, US, Japan and Italy. Internships offered
were from drillers, corporate developers, power plant design and power plant
management companies. It is anticipated that Internships will be supported partly by the
39 | P a g e
private sector and additional costs (travel, per diem, etc.) through sponsorships from
donor agencies such as AFD, JICA, World Bank, KfW, USAID, BGR, UNU/GTP, etc.
From questionnaires received and conversations with East African stakeholders, the PI
study revealed a strong interest in internships to complement theoretical, classroom
training programs for scientists, engineers and technicians. As a result, the CoE will place
an emphasis on the identification and financing of internship opportunities for trainees,
both within East Africa and overseas, and will identify and organize internship training
based on country and/or student training needs.
Opportunities for internships with public and private entities will be sought by CoE staff
on an ongoing basis and, when identified, will be advertised to CoE Member-Countries
by email and through the CoE monthly e-newsletter.
c. University Linkages - certificate level accreditation and credit towards advanced

degree programs. University linkages should be provided by the CoE so that the above
noted short-, medium-, as well as affiliated long-term courses, internship and distance-
learning courses can count for credit toward a certificate or diploma. Discussions have
been underway between GDC and the University of Nairobi (UoN) and Dedan Kimathi
University of Technology (DeKUT) as potential key partners in providing accreditation of
CoE certificate programs. Such partnerships with these universities would be ideal as
students would be able to gain a recognized certificate, diploma or degree. Likewise,
university collaboration with GDC and KenGen would facilitate industrial attachment to
their students in gaining hands-on experience, allowing matriculating students to gain
organized academic training in the field. CoE/University collaboration allows for sharing
of facilities and know-how.
Many African universities have limited resources, in areas such as laboratory equipment,
relevant data and computer software. A CoE/University Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) to UoN, DeKUT as well as other regional universities could provide reciprocal
advantages. For example, university students would be encouraged to write theses using
actual data from the various disciplines of previous and current geothermal development
projects. Other potential CoE/University collaborative activities could include: (i) sharing
of manpower resources related to classroom and on-site training programs related to
geothermal exploration, drilling engineering, reservoir management, power plant O&M,
(ii) enhancing geothermal development efficiencies through practical, applied research
that could have near-term use; and (iii) enhancing university staff skills and awareness of
geothermal challenges through training, staff seminars and other interactions and
exchanges of experience and information including occasional conferences and/or
lecturers from the industry.
As GDC and KenGen have done over the last decade with certificate programs with
UNU, we recommend that MoUs between additional educational institutions and the
CoE be established. As noted in Section 5, a training/education committee should be
formed which includes training/education specialists to help establish these CoE
linkages (see Section 5.6: Framework for the CoE Governance and Administration).
CoE/University partnerships should be made with universities that have undergraduate
engineering degree programs (e.g., University of Nairobi, Addis Ababa University of
Ethiopia, Universit de Djibouti, University of Dar es Salaam, etc.) as well as master
level engineering degree programs (e.g., DeKUT, UNU-GTP/Iceland, Bochum
International Geothermal Center/Germany, Stanford University/USA, University of
California/Berkeley USA, Geothermal Institute of Auckland/New Zealand, Pisa
University/Italy, and Kyushu University/Japan).
40 | P a g e
Establishment of a Joint/Minor-Degree Diploma Course. In addition to the
engineering degree university partnerships, it was stated several times by donors that
other academic degree programs (JD, MBA, etc.), should be linked with practical
internship-based training at GDC, KenGen or other in the geothermal energy industry.
The CoE could be the focal point for such a program with one or more Kenyan or other
universities in Africa at-large (e.g., Kenyatta University, Addis Ababa University of
Ethiopia, Universit de Djibouti, University of Dar es Salaam, etc.), providing a geothermal
joint or minor-degree program to be combined with other academic degree programs such
as Law, Business, etc.. For example, a law student at Kenyatta University may seek
practical experience in IPP Contract Negotiation and therefore work with GDC legal team
under an internship with academic credit. The CoE could provide a linkage with
universities in Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and other countries in the region planning to
develop their geothermal resources. Such CoE partnerships would create a 'knowledge
& think-tank' of Geothermal Energy Technology for Kenya and other countries in the
region planning to develop their Geothermal Energy resources.
2.3.3 Representative Core-Course Descriptions for CoE

Training Categories
While it is pertinent to develop country-specific CoE training plans, it is anticipated high-demand
topics which could be included in CoE core-curriculum will be:
a. Introduction to Geothermal Energy Utilization - An introductory course that presents

the fundamentals of geothermal resource exploitation for power generation and direct use.
Students shall gain a general understanding of the basic steps in the development of
geothermal resources, including financing, surface exploration, drilling, reservoir
modeling/testing, plant design, construction, O&M, reservoir management, and the
importance of public outreach and acceptance to maximize returns from the resource on
a long-term basis.
b. Geothermal Geology and Geochemistry - Presents information on the location, size,

and exploitation potential of the resource. Instruction shall cover the geologic settings of
geothermal systems, sampling, analysis of major components, water rock interaction,
hydrothermal alteration, geothermometry, fluid geochemistry, and results interpretation.
c. Geothermal Geophysics - Presents exploration methodologies and tools used to find and
characterize geothermal resources, interpretation of their results, and how they are applied
to form a synthesis of potential reservoir characteristics. Topics shall include heat flow,
thermal gradients and conductivity, electrical, magnetic, gravity and seismic techniques of
exploration, well logging and case histories.
d. Drilling Engineering - Covers the development and planning done for each well to expose
students to the decisions that are made and how other geothermal resource decisions
interact with the drilling design, planning, and operations and well cost. The course shall
also deal with the selection of drilling equipment, well design, casing programs, cementing
techniques, cleaning, stimulation and repairs of production wells. GDC has acquired a
drilling simulator that will help facilitate this training.
e. Reservoir Engineering - Covers the methodology needed to obtain information on the

hydrological characteristics of geothermal reservoirs, including reservoir physics, and
performance monitoring. Reservoir characterization methods shall be presented as well
as the elements of managing the resource. Topics shall include the fundamentals of
reservoir properties and flow mechanisms, analysis of well measurements, reservoir
41 | P a g e
physics, resource assessment and well performance characteristics. The course shall also
include well and reservoir modeling, reservoir simulation and the design and management
of reinjection wells.
f. Power Plant Design and Construction - Covers the fundamentals of geothermal power
plant design and construction. Topics shall include power plant design for dry steam,
single- and double-flash, and binary systems including major plant components i.e.
turbines, separators, flashers, piping systems, heat exchangers, control systems,
corrosion and scaling. Advanced energy conversion systems shall be described including
several versions of binary plants, combined and hybrid cycles, and total-flow systems.
Environmental impacts and a case study could also be included. We recommend that the
CoE acquire a simulator to facilitate this training (see Appendix 4 for Power Plant Simulator
- Model).
g. Environmental Studies, Policies and Business Principles and Development

Includes environmental monitoring, EIAs and environmental auditing, possible biological
impacts, pollution, mitigation measures, and occupational safety. A second portion of this
module shall provide a review of public policy matters that shall be considered by policy
makers when considering geothermal program promotion, award of concessions, and
other practical steps to be followed for successful implementation. A third component shall
include the economics of a geothermal project to understand and predict project
profitability. Students shall gain an understanding of how a projects managerial,
organizational, and operational structure and effectiveness contribute to timely project
completion and profitability. Project management, environmental and legal issues,
government and electric utility interactions shall be included.
h. Direct Use Applications - Covers the basic principles of geothermal direct use
applications including industrial and agricultural uses, basic facility designs, equipment
descriptions, cooling processes, etc. It shall also include the necessary geological,
geophysical and geochemical survey results, completion reports on wells drilled, including
history and wellbore configurations, production zones intersected, and static downhole
temperature/pressure surveys for wells drilled. This information will enable a developer to
prepare a strategy for accessing the geothermal resource, its use, re-injection of the waste
fluids, marketing of the final products, and financial implications. Field trips, if possible, to
sites where direct uses have been implemented would be a plus. Likely forms of direct-
use application that are being considered in East Africa include:
Greenhouses
Dairy processing
Small and large-scale crop drying
Laundromats
Spas and related therapeutic uses
Canneries
Meat Processing
Hides and skins processing
Mushroom cultivation
Honey processing
Egg hatcheries
Soda ash drying
Cement drying
Mining
Fish farming
42 | P a g e
i. Team or Independent Projects Allows students to use data from geothermal projects
in their home countries, downloaded publically-available information, or other topics based
on suggestions from instructors. Students can meet weekly to discuss progress and
hurdles in developing geothermal projects associated with technology/science issues,
case studies, or systems analysis. Students can also use teleconference and online e-
Learning module instructors, academic or industry experts to facilitate project development
and design.
It is recommended that the CoE assist each CoE Member-Country on developing their CoE
Member-Country Training Plans. Feedback from initial pilot courses will be used to evaluate
and revise the curricula for future courses. The curricula should provide pragmatic, results-
oriented direction and guidance to ensure training program usefulness for public and private
sector developers, geoscientists, policy makers and utility companies.
2.4 Conceptual Model of CoE Core-Courses; Partner and

Affiliated Courses
As reviewed in Section 1, studies conducted by AUC, JICA, ARGeo and over the last decade
confirm that the development of geothermal resources is expected to rapidly increase over the
next fifteen years; however, there remains a lack of needed local technical and professional
expertise to meet future demand. These studies, done in 2005, 2010 and 2015, validated the
growing need for African trained personnel in the region. According to the ARGeo 2015 analysis,
by 2020, 2025, and 2030, the total number of geothermal scientists, engineers, and technicians
needed will be 2943, 3951, and 4325 respectively, based on yet to be confirmed resource and
project development. However, regionally conducted trainings to-date have produced less than
100 trainees per year. While ambitious, the PI team believes through an interdisciplinary
approach, it is recommended to train 1000 students (technicians, scientists and professionals)
by year 2020 and an additional 1420 students by year 2025; if CoE Member-Country Training
Plans require more needed training, it is recommended to scale up these numbers to meet this
demand.
In anticipating the training needs in the near-term next five years, and the mid-term following five
years, we divide the training program for the proposed Center of Excellence into three types in
terms of program duration: 1) short-term (4 weeks), 2) medium-term (12 weeks), and 3) long-
term (24 weeks) with ten students per year studying at affiliates and partners institutions which
includes UNU-GTP, internships and universities. The short-term programs are projected to have
20 students ten time per year (200 student/year) and medium-term programs are projected to
have 20 students four time a year (80 student/year), while long-term study will have 10 student
per year. From 2016-20, The CoE will have a total of 250 students trained each year. Starting
2020 and 2021 (years 6 and 7) with the construction of the new CoE Facilities, the training
numbers will fluctuate due to the new building but the overall increase in students will be roughly
40%. We have forecast 1,000 students after first five years will have been trained within existing
infrastructure as well as partners and affiliates, and another 1,420 students in the following five
years at the new CoE facility.
The cost for the training program is mainly divided into 2 parts. One is student program costs
including existing campus, onsite CoE facility, e-learning, and extra cost for long-term study
students; the other one is instructor cost, including both local in-country and international
instructor cost. Because there will be fewer students during the first five years the average
student cost projection will be higher, which will be approximately $5,562, while the average
student cost of second five years will be $3,582.
43 | P a g e
During the initial year of commencing the CoE, it is planned that 50% of all instructors would be
from international sources. This percentage would be gradually decreased from 2017 onward
(through the training-of-trainer program incrementally increasing the number of local instructors
each year). At the end of 2023 the percentage of international instructors could reach 10%. To
summarize the cost differential between international and local instructors, for the short-term
course (4 weeks) taught by international consultant at existing facilities, the cost will be $21,900
per year, while the e-Learning would cost would be $8,500, as they will have no travel and per
diem expenses. Once the CoE facility is built, the cost for international instructors will be $14,340.
For in-country local instructors at existing facilities the cost would be $6,030 per year, and for e-
Learning the cost would be $2,720 yearly. Once the CoE facility is built, it will be $4,140 per year,
Likewise, the medium-term courses (12 weeks) taught by international consultant will cost
$117,400 per year, while the CoE onsite and e-learning will cost $72,040 and $47,000
respectively. While for in-country local instructors at existing facilities the cost would be $33,260
per year, and once the CoE facility is built it will be $21,920 per year, and for e-Learning the cost
would be $15,040 yearly.
Tables 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 compare the costs for international and in-country instructors with the
relative courses. This is for comparison purposes only; it should be noted that many bi-lateral
development agencies have expressed interest in providing international consultants at no-cost
to the CoE.
Table 2.4.1 International Consultants Cost
Table 2.4.2 In-Country Instructor Cost
44 | P a g e
CoE Needed Laboratory & Equipment
Framework
needs. To carry out this mission, this section addresses objective 2: Provide access to shared
specialized equipment, facilities, and technology.
3.1 Overview of Existing Geothermal Laboratory Facilities

Both GDCs and KenGens existing laboratory facilities are predominantly used for business
purposes, however, these lab facilities could also be utilized for postgraduate and post diploma
courses on geothermal technology. The GDC has offered to provide their existing lab facility for
training purposes, and stated that they can provide:
Experienced staff as trainers

Supervision of laboratory analyses
Supervision of student projects
Analyses of samples
Research assistants
Generally administrative functions like security, cleaning services , support services,
computer services, etc.
Classes are expected to be small at any given time. However, highly specialized equipment would
be necessary to facilitate research as this would also be a core function. Appendix 12 lists GDCs
present laboratory equipment, comprising: 1) Geology Equipment, 2) Geophysics Equipment, 3)
Geochemistry Instruments, 4) GIS Instruments, 5) Drilling/Workshop Equipment, and 6)
Reservoir Engineering.
The GDC laboratory facilities can also be available for training in which some payment should be
made to help maintain the facilities and for chemicals (excluding equipment costs in which the
appropriate cost of use of equipment will need to be worked out between GDC and management
of the CoE). Researchers from other countries will be able to access the facility, with some
compensation for use of the equipment as discussed above. Discounted rate charges for
regional countries would be in line with agreements reached by the Presidents of Northern
Corridor countries (Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan).
In addition, UNEP has been supporting ARGeo countries to procure some geophysical
equipment, e.g. Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Eritrea. In this regard, the countries would
carry out their surveys using their equipment and GDC could offer technical support for the teams
to be fully acquainted with their equipment through joint field campaigns. For example, GDC has
plans to support Uganda with TEM and MT surveys in this same manner. In addition, highly
specialized equipment bought for the CoE can be handled by GDC for surveys in the region.
The GDC equipment can be made available both for demonstration and use. Trainees would be
expected to be capable to use the equipment without supervision at the end of their training. As
an example, during recent GDC training, the trainees analyzed their own samples and those in
geophysics collected their own data which they processed and interpreted. The trainee will need
to touch and adjust the settings on the equipment as necessary under guidance. The idea is to
ensure that the trainees are able to undertake similar analyses on their own without supervision
after the course.
45 | P a g e
3.2 Conceptual Framework for Laboratory & Equipment
A major feature of the proposed Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence is a state-of-the-art
accredited laboratory facility designed to allow for both training purposes as well as research and
value-added analysis of field gathered samples and survey data. The facility is envisioned to
provide for geochemical analysis of liquid and gas samples, petrographic analysis of rock and
clay samples from field surveys as well as samples from drill cuttings and cores and interpretation
of geophysical MT, TEM, gravity, magnetic and seismic surveys. As the CoE training lab facility
has yet to be built, it is recommended for continuity and sustainability that GDC host the main
training laboratory at their Nakuru lab facility.
It is also envisioned that the CoE will serve as a clearinghouse for loan or rental of geophysical
survey tools and geochemical sampling and field testing equipment. In order to best serve the
requirements of providing training as well as research/analytical facilities it is recommended that
the equipment be located at GDC and that associated consultants carrying out these studies be
provided by GDC. Serious consideration should be given to how the lab can best be designed
to meet these needs while preserving the integrity of the requirements p laced on GDCs
professional facility to maintain accreditation of the geochemical lab. In addition, we recommend
that the laboratory facility provide independent space for sample (rock/clay) preparation,
petrographic studies, and geophysical data analysis and interpretation.
3.2.1 Geochemistry
For geochemistry, the CoE laboratory should be equipped for water and gas sampling from both
natural manifestations (springs and fumaroles) and geothermal wells and field analysis - pH,
conductivity and temperature as well as such things as CO2 flux measurements, radon, etc.; for
the complete analysis of water and gas samples, and for the determination of the stable isotopes
of H, O and C.
Field equipment should provide for the collection of steam and water samples under pressure
from a discharging geothermal well and include an iso-kinetic steam sampling probe, and a
Webre-type separator. Provided equipment should include: manometer, thermometer, Klinger
level gauge, a cooler for the separated liquid, a cooler-condenser for the separated vapor, a
gas/condensate separator, a water-displacement gas-meter, with level gauge and thermometer,
valves, insulated pipes, etc.
For field sampling from natural manifestations, the CoE should have available modified
Giggenbachs glass flasks, vacuum pumps, an assortment of polyethylene bottles, filters,
volumetric pipettes for sample acidification, etc.
Additional instruments for field sampling should include digital thermometers, portable digital mV-
pH meters equipped with glass electrode, Pt electrode and temperature probe, portable digital
conductivity-meter, as well as portable instruments for measurements of diffuse CO 2 flux from
soil to include a detector-less flux-meter with accumulation chamber and equipment for radon
measurements.
Ideally, this equipment should be available in each participating countrys geological survey
department. Whether the equipment should be available from the Center of Excellence or how
such equipment should be made available has to be determined. In general terms, we
recommend that basic equipment which is used repetitively should be provided to the Member -
Country governments; whereas, equipment that is only used periodically should be shared or
borrowed via the CoE. Presently, ARGeo is conducting a needs/gap analysis of equipment and
facilities in each ARGeo study country. Depending on the results of that study, there could be
46 | P a g e
some potential significant savings if the equipment could be purchased in bulk through the CoE
and then made available for loan, rental or purchase by the participating countries.
The geochemical analytical laboratory equipment should minimally consist of the following:
o Atomic absorption (AA) spectrometer complete with hollow cathode

lamps for the determination of Li, Na, k, Mg, Ca, B, Si, Mn, Fe, and As;
appropriate reagents and standard solutions, etc.
o ICP-OES Inductively Coupled Plasma Optimal Emission Spectrometer,

for the determination of cations and metals.
o ICP-Mass Spectrometer (dependent upon requirement-could be considered)
o Ion chromatography system complete with IonPac AS14 anion

exchange column for the determination of F, Cl, NO2, Br, NO3, PO4,
and IonPac CS12A cation exchange column for the determination of Li,
Na, NH4, K, Mg and Ca, including an electrolytic suppression system
for anions and cations, standard solutions, etc.
o UV-Visible Spectrophotometer for the colorimetric determination of

silica (ammonium molybdate method), boron (curcumine method),
ammonia (Nesslers reagent or Bethelots reagent, compete with
reagents and standard solutions, etc.
o Automated potentiometric titration system supporting 2 burette dosing

pumps with the ability to perform back titrations complete with reagents
and standard solutions for analysis of the alkaline solutions collected in
the modified Giggenbachs flasks as well as the determination of other
aqueous solutes.
o Gas Sample Introduction System needed for GC/TCD
o pH-mV meter which allows reading to 0.001 pH-unit and 0.1 mV,
equipped with glass-electrode for pH determination, and fluoride- and
ammonia- specific electrodes, reagents and standard solutions, etc.
o Gas-chromatograph for the analysis of geothermal gases CO 2, H 2S, H 2,

CH4, CO, He, Ar, N2 and O2 including three thermal conductivity
detectors, four valves and five packed columns, complete of carrier
gases (N2 and He), standard gases, etc.
o Ammonia Analyzer for the determination of ammonia in CCG,

condensate, and brine samples.
o Total Inorganic Carbon NDIR Flow Injection Analysis System for the
determination of CO 2.
o Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry-IR-MS (all requirements for isotope

analysis to be developed)
o Top-loading balance to weigh solid material with a precision of 0.01 g.
47 | P a g e
o Analytical balance to measure masses with a precision of 0.0001 g.
(Note: The analytical balance must be positioned in a separate room on
a special anti-vibration table.)
o System for the production of demineralized water (reverse osmosis) or

equivalent.
o System for the production of ultrapure water.
o Gravity Convection Oven with temperature range of 15oC to 225oC.
o Heavy duty magnetic stirrers.
o Centrifuge
o In addition, the laboratory must be fully equipped with:
Safety equipment
A full inventory of glassware and common laboratory items (list
to be provided later).
High purity analytical grade chemical reagents.
Technical grade chemical reagent.
Solid reactants (powders) for colorimetric determining of silica.
Buffer solutions.
Gas tanks and carriers.
Fume cabinets.
Separate storage rooms for samples and reagents, standards, etc.
Power stabilizer for sensitive equipment
Refrigerator facility or room.
3.2.2 Petrography
The petrographic facility within the CoE must be designed to meet the needs of both students
and analytical personnel. It should thus provide for adequate equipment for multiple students and
higher quality resolution equipment for those that require greater precision. The facility should
be designed with a dedicated room for sample preparation including thin section preparation and
a separate room for analytical work.
o The sample preparation facility should have at a minimum the following equipment:
Rock milling machine and accessories

Metron abrasive cutter and cut off saw
Auto precision lapidary machine
Thin sectioning machine
Muffle furnace
Balance
Ventilation hoods
Wash facilities
o The analytical facility should be equipped with:
Student and professional binary microscopes

Student and professional petrographic microscopes
48 | P a g e
Fluid inclusion heating-freezing microscope stage
Digital camera equipment that interfaces with microscopes
X-Ray Diffractometer
X-Ray Fluorescence
3.2.3 Geophysics
The CoE should have a full range of geophysical field survey equipment available on a loan or
rental basis including:
o Magnetotelluric (MT) sets
o Transient Electromagnetic (TEM) sets
o Gravimeters
o Magnetometers
o Microseismic (MEQ) multi-station sensors and recorder sets
o The center should have the capability of providing all required hardware and
software for the analysis of all geophysical survey data.
Other CoE Laboratory related requirements:
o It is imperative that in addition to hardware and software for geophysical survey

analysis that the CoE also have available programs for 3-D conceptual modeling
(e.g. Leapfrog) and for numerical modeling (e.g. TOUGH2).
o Many of the items specified above for geochemical and petrographic analysis
have accompanying software programs available from the manufacturer of the
equipment and should be acquired at the time of purchase of the equipment.
o In addition to the field equipment specified above for conducting field studies,
sampling of surface manifestations and conducing geophysical surveys , there is
a need in all instances for access to accurate GPS equipment, mapping software
(e.g. Arc Info), plotting equipment, data management software, etc.
From questionnaires received and conversations held with both students and stakeholders, the
PI study revealed a strong need for lab and field equipment. In the CoE Detailed Lab Budget
(see Appendix 10), our team has made recommendations as to what lab and field equipment is
required, and how many of each should be made available through the CoE to Member-
Countries. A breakdown between professional and training lab equipment has also been
specified in the budget; however, implementation protocols should be clearly established prior to
CoE scheduled training. (It is recommended in Section 5, that a Lab Committee be created as
part of the CoE structure responsible for all CoE lab-related issues).
49 | P a g e
3.3 Conceptual Model of Proposed CoE Laboratory Training
Framework
As noted above in Section 3.1, the existing laboratory facilities of GDC and KenGen are
predominantly used for internal company analytical purposes; however both these laboratories
are well suited to meet the needs of postgraduate and post diploma courses on geochemical
analytical techniques as well as serve the analytical needs of researchers throughout the region
once fully accredited. GDC, as CoE host, has committed to providing their laboratory for CoE
training purposes. In this regard, trainees would be required to hold degrees or diplomas and
have had received initial instruction relative to proper laboratory procedures.
With regard to laboratory training facilities, the laboratory budget (see in Appendix 10) for the first
five years is half that for the second five years. The budget is to accommodate training within
GDCs existing facilities. During the mid-term following the first five years, the CoE facility is
expected to be built, in which the full training lab and workshops will be equipped, including:
GeoChem Lab (8 pH-mV meters, top-loading balance, analytical balance, demineralized water
system, ultra-pure water system, 8 gravity convection oven and other laboratory supplies,
glassware, sample bottles, reagents, buffers, safety equipment, gas tanks, power stabilizer, etc.),
Petrography Lab (rock milling machine, abrasive cutter and cut off saw, auto precision lapidary
machine, 2 thin sectioning machines, 2 muffle furnaces, 2 balances, ventilation hoods, wash
facilities, student binary microscopes, student petrographic microscopes, fluid inclusion heating -
freezing microscope stages, and digital camera equipment for microscopes), Geophysics Lab
(magnetotelluric MT sets, transient electromagnetic TEM sets, gravimeter, magnetometers and
microseismic) and Computer Support (20 computers, 10 software licenses). Additionally, GDC
will be acquiring a drilling simulator for CoE training purposes. Likewise, it is recommended that
KenGen house the power plant simulator and carry out CoE power plant related hands-on
training.
In addition, the laboratory facilities at CERT in Djibouti as well as other laboratories throughout
the region can be used for country-based training as well as the carrying out of analyses if and
when these laboratories are fully accredited. The CoE Training Plan should include training that
assists Member-Countries in the accreditation process in order to further develop capacity
throughout the region.
As a Center of Excellence for the region, there will be an opportunity to offer value-added services
from consulting and/or sharing of resource assessment instruments. As a model for the CoE, an
existing facility that carries out a similar sharing function is the PASSCAL Instrument Center (PIC)
of the US-based Incorporated Research Institutes for Seismology (IRIS). Similar to the CoE role
in Africa, IRIS is an educational organization founded to support the US and world community of
scientists working on seismology. IRIS established the PIC in order to make available and
support advanced, high cost, seismic equipment to the seismology community. The instruments
housed at the PIC were originally purchased via a US government grant to IRIS, with additional
support coming from several other interested agencies and industrial partners. The instruments
are available on a 1-week-to-1-year free loan basis to the seismology community. The PIC has a
staff of 6 to 8 full time technical, operational, and research-and-development experts in
seismological data collection for hire. These individuals maintain and field the pool of instruments
and provide training, software and operational support on an as needed basis when these
fees/costs can be covered by a requesting client. If the cli ent does not provide these services
themselves, PIC clients must cover the fees/costs of fielding the instruments for a specific project,
as well as the fees/costs of reduction and analysis of the resulting data. These costs include all
fees related to time spent by the PIC staff for a specific project. This model for equipment sharing
has proven to be highly successful. It is recommended that the CoE Steering Committee set up
a Laboratory & Equipment Technical Advisory Committee to provide guidance over t hese value-
added services and hire legal counsel to prepare rental/consulting agreements in this regard.
50 | P a g e
CoE Needed ICT Infrastructure for e-Learning,
Data Management & Collaboration Framework
needs. To carry out this mission, this section addresses objective 3: Facilitate stakeholder
collaboration on data management and knowledge sharing.
4.1 Overview of Geothermal Data Management and

Knowledge Sharing in the Region
A consolidation of efforts has been made in data management and knowledge sharing i n
conjunction with the Geothermal Risk Mitigation Funds WebGIS hosted at AUC. With
financial support from the AUC, KfW, BMZ and European Union Africa, this geothermal
website aims at reducing the geothermal exploration risk in East Africa by sharing
information. On webpages displayed for each entry, documents can be downloaded giving
information on document format, size and date of publication. The information can be
searched by country or by document type. Additional information can be found in the
geothermal database sub-menu section via the provided links. GRMF covers the following
13 countries: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Please see:
http://www.grmf-eastafrica.org/
Additionally, UNEP - ARGeo has recently developed a website for geothermal related information
in the East African Rift Region, the Geothermal Inventory Database (AGID). It was developed
with a view of promoting the exploration, development and utilization of geothermal energy
resource by storing, compiling, and collating of geothermal related information in the region to
the end users: public and private entities. ICEIDA financially supported the development of the
database through the Icelandic Geosurvey (ISOR). UNEP ARGeos objective of is to catalyze
geothermal investment in the region by providing geothermal related data and information to
potential investors. AGID covers the following 13 countries: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Malawi, Rwanda,
Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Please see:
http://agid.theargeo.org/index.php
The AUC site focuses on providing links to documents about geothermal projects and information
that can be searched by country or document type. The AUC site is manually updated. The
AGID website contains a web application that can be used to search a database containing
information about projects, programs, sites, manpower, training, power plant information, and
other geothermal information from each member ARGeo country. This centrally located AGID
web database is manually updated by each ARGeo each member country. AGIDs underlying
database technology adds important data management, reporting, and analysis features. Both
websites utilized custom developed capabilities that require ongoing maintenance and
enhancement.
Prior to conducting this study, Partnership International had been in discussion with GDC, AUC,
and ARGeo to help further their efforts in geothermal data management and knowledge sharing.
As detailed in Appendix 5, PI recommends use of an advanced and proven geothermal data
sharing system (NDGS/USGIN) that is based upon internationally supported open source
technologies, standards-based data sharing methods (APIs and data formats), and advanced
data security managed by data source owners (ARGeo member countries) this system can be
integrated with both ARGeo AGID and AUC web sites to support and enhance their individual
51 | P a g e
site objectives. PI has proposed a three-tiered approach in utilizing this advanced data sharing
technology: 1) use of a central data sharing hub at the CoE to support training and data
management learning courses; 2) building a Kenya Hub with a GDC Geo Portal that can securely
and automatically share information with the CoE data hub as well as other stakeholder
participants, and 3) adapting the Kenya Hub (and Geo Portal) for use in other countries to form
an African Geothermal Data Sharing Network in which all data hubs, including the CoE hub are
interconnected.
The following sections cover the CoEs proposed ICT framework in creating an e-Learning
Management System, GeoScience Software Sharing and initial Data/Content Management
System.
4.2 Conceptual Framework of Proposed CoE ICT

Infrastructure
As noted in Sections 1-3 of this report, one of the primary CoE objectives is to accelerate
development of geothermal energy use in Africa for power generation and direct uses. This will
require initial and continued development of specialized human resource capacity in CoE
member countries. As depicted in Figure 4.2 and as further described below, the proposed CoE
ICT Framework will support this objective by providing enabling integrated capabilities in four key
areas:
Figure 4.2 ICT Infrastructure
4.2.1 Training
1. The ICT infrastructure provides a training platform Learning Management
System (LMS or e-Learning) that addresses current challenges in
52 | P a g e
providing cost effective specialized training and ready access to domain
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that are physically located across the world.
2. Flexible support will be provided for multiple types of learning methods:

onsite instructor-led courses, internships, distance learning, seminars,
conferences, workshop, lectures, others.
3. The LMS will support all courses mentioned earlier in Section 2. Both
instructors and students will receive training and ongoing support by CoE
staff to facilitate their use of LMS/e-Learning tools.
4. Support will be provided for blended learning methods that combine and
tailor successful elements of onsite instructor-led and online (e-Learning)
techniques to provide deeper and more engaging learning experiences.
This proven modern teaching method is widely used in other industries
such as health-care, academia (colleges and universities) and corporate
training/certification. For example, the health care industry leverages LMS
in both internships (clinical rotations) and core curriculum courses. Several
trade organizations use e-Learning tools (web conferences, virtual
classrooms, etc.) to reach geographically dispersed members.
5. ICT infrastructure supports both academic (job preparation) and continuing

education (on-the-job training).
6. It also supports creation of a repository of reusable training resources that

can be incorporated in future training activities and/or experienced
(replayed) by students not able to attend the original training event.
7. The ICT infrastructure provides tools for CoE administrator to track training
success, provides tools for instructors to increase instructional
effectiveness, provides student tracking of credits towards certification and
accreditation.
8. It will also provide integration between Collaboration, Content/Data

Management and Sharing, and GeoScience software application
capabilities that will provide deeper and more flexible learning
opportunities.
4.2.2 Collaboration
1. Facilitates interaction between a wide range of industry stakeholders that
include students, instructors, experts, NGOs, consultants, equipment
manufacturers, and government organizations. An Expert Network can be
used to augment student course resources and provide a valuable
knowledge repository that Member-Countries can tap based upon need.
2. Expected interactions will include problem solving, technical guidance,
experience-based responses to questions, best practices sharing, etc.
3. Builds a living knowledge base that grows in response to specific needs
of the CoE community and stakeholders that it serves.
4. Supports LMS, GeoScience software applications (user training, support,
best practice use, interpretation of results, etc.); Geo Lab (training,
interpretation of results, expert opinions, consultations).
53 | P a g e
5. Web-based collaboration tools provide anytime, anywhere interactions by
removing the location barriers with multiple ways to access this capability.
4.2.3 Content/Data Access and Management Network

1. Establishes a secure, open-data platform to share and leverage geothermal
content (documents, images, videos, etc.) and geothermal data (well/bore-
holes, temperature, chemistry, maps, heat flows, etc.) that is created and
managed by CoE members and affiliated stakeholders. Provides GIS and
GeoSpatial tools for 2D/3D and location-based visualization of geothermal
data and content.
2. Builds a living atlas of geothermal resources and grows related knowledge
assets.
3. Stakeholder surveys and interviews indicated a need for geothermal data
management training. The proposed platform contains a specialized
geothermal data management configuration that is especially suited for this
type of training.
4. Depending upon future needs of CoE members and stakeholders, the
proposed platform can be expanded for regional use to support both internal
organizational and commercial business needs. Appendix 5 includes
additional information.
5. Integration with other CoE ICT resources will ensure that knowledge
resources are fully maximized.
4.2.4 GeoScience Software Applications

1. Provides CoE member access to industry-leading applications under preferred
licensing terms and conditions. While use of open-source software systems is
recommended, license-based commercial solutions also play an important role.
2. A cloud-based ICT infrastructure will avoid the need for CoE members to establish
and maintain their own affiliated secure data centers.
3. A vehicle for CoE members to establish and adopt common use of open data
standards for import, integration, and exchange between CoE-supported software
applications will be provided. Use of a common data-management approach will
help drive down both upfront and on-going costs for CoE members. Section 4.5
(Recommendations) includes a recommendation that an ICT Committee be
created as part of the CoE structure responsible for all CoE ICT-related issues.
4. Enables software vendors to establish shared training and support programs that
can be more effectively delivered to CoE members; further efficiencies can be
achieved by leveraging the CoEs resources (Training, Collaboration,
Data/Content Access and Management).
5. Software application areas supported by the CoE include (software candidates
mentioned in parenthesis):
a. Drilling engineering
b. Geology, Geochemistry, and Geophysics
c. Conceptual modeling (Leapfrog)
d. Environmental management
e. Steam-field management
54 | P a g e
f. Numerical modeling
g. Project management
h. Power plant engineering
i. Power plant operation (CoE Power Plant Simulator)
j. Visualization, GIS, and Mapping (GeoServer)
6. Using CoE collaboration resources, allows for the use of best practices that are
specific to this region and can be shared valuable contributions to the CoEs
growing knowledge base.
4.2.5 Benefits of ICT Infrastructure
Provides secure access to other CoE ICT capabilities from the public Internet or
locally from the CoE via a WIFI or Local Area Network (LAN) wired connection.
Access will be supported using desktops, laptops, and mobile devices (depending
on communication speed/bandwidth and application requirements/capabilities).
CoE physical location (Kenya) high speed internet access, WIFI access (public
and private access), printers/plotters, local area network (classrooms, office, labs),
small data center (software applications that cannot be cloud-hosted), casual work
stations, video-conference facility and classrooms equipped with Internet access
and web conferencing capabilities.
Office and administrative support desktops (or laptops) with access to online
office software products and services will be provided. Both Google (Google Apps
for Work) and Microsoft (Office 365) offer established office product suites that
should be considered. As needed, these suites can be compl emented with other
online products such as file management (DropBox, Box, Google Docs, others).
Given the office location in Kenya, other country-specific online services such as
postal support (delivery tracing and tracking) are available.
Student computing each student would be assigned a laptop for use while they
are enrolled at the CoE. Student-owned laptops could also be used, subject to
CoE security restrictions.
Visitor computing (local) while at the CoE facility, secure-managed access from
casual workstations or approved visitor-owned laptops will be provided.
Remote computing most CoE IT capabilities will be securely accessible from the
public Internet using a web browser and mobile applications (via web services).
Based upon assigned access privileges managed by the CoE Systems
Administrator roles, most CoE users will be able to securely access resources
anytime, anywhere.
4.3 Content/Data Management and Sharing System

As currently envisioned and depicted in Figure 4.3, an Integrated System of content/data
management would be initially setup for CoE use in training and research activities.
As outlined in Appendix 5, this system could be expanded by the CoE to facilitate the use
of an open, shared Geo Data and Content Network that would be used by all CoE
55 | P a g e
members and other market participants such as government entities to manage, share
and disseminate geothermal data and content through a secure network. Such content
can be either publicly accessible or privately secured with permission-based access that
is controlled by content and data owners.
Figure 4.3 Integrated System
The CoEs Integrated System is expected to provide the following benefits:
1. Convenient and ready access to real project data that can be incorporated into
problem-based training methods that have proven to be a very effective teaching
methodology.
2. Forms an important element of the CoEs Geo Knowledge Bank (content and
data) that will be used by students in their class work and by workers in CoE-
sponsored continuing education (on-the-job training) and problem solving.
3. Educational content delivery for geothermal data management and best
practices.
4. Access to quality data using common methods and data formats consistent
amongst Member-Countries, enhancing their capacity building activities.
In the United States, the US Geo Science Network (USGIN) utilizes the National Geothermal
Database System (NGDS) platform. NGDS is a $22M USD project funded by the US Department
of Energys Geothermal Technology Office. NGDS is currently operated by the US Geo Science
56 | P a g e
Network (USGIN), a non-profit organization formed in 2013 with the goal of assisting agencies
and businesses build highly functional distributed data sharing systems. USGIN coordinates the
definition and extension of the standards, policies and frameworks used by organizations that
deploy NGDS.
The PI Team has looked at ways to adapt the USGIN/NGDS for use by the East Africa geothermal
community. This system is open source and is offered free there are no license fees required.
Based upon CoE governance and Member-Country policies, it would be possible to develop a
CoE system to share geothermal data for the region at-large. For example, data from
USGIN/NDGS users (from geothermal resources in the United States) has been collected and
curated and is made available through that interface. Similarly, a CoE African GDS node could
be developed. Presently, PI is seeking to assist GDC in developing such a node for Kenya. In
Appendix 5, the PI team has proposed a model for creating an Africa Geothermal Data System
(AGDS).
In addition, last October the USAs East Africa Geothermal Partnership continued its partnership
with GDC Kenya to identify best practices in geothermal data collection and management. It is
expected that continued collaboration will take place over the coming months with support from
the US Department of Energy.
4.4 Learning Management System (LMS, or e-Learning)

Both student and stakeholder surveys highlighted the importance of the CoE providing e-Learning
training opportunities to support geothermal capacity building efforts. These e-Learning
opportunities are intended to build and maintain a trained, skilled geothermal workforce in CoE
Member-Countries.
Figure 4.4 illustrates LMS as the management framework for all aspects of the learning process.
LMS is the infrastructure that delivers and manages instructional content, identifies and assesses
individual and organizational learning or training goals, tracks the progress towards meeting
those goals, and collects and presents data for supervising the learning process of the
organization as a whole. The Learning Management System delivers content but also handles
registering for courses, course administration, skills gap analysis, tracking, and reporting.
Appendix 6 contains additional details on specific capabilities and features found todays LMS
products.
Figure 4.4 An e-Learning / Learning Management System
57 | P a g e
The LMS is expected to deliver important benefits to the CoE:
1. Reduced training expenses. Distance learning enabled by the LMS reduces training
expenses by eliminating travel costs that both students and instructors would otherwise
incur when training is delivered using traditional in-person classroom methods. Reusable
training modules avoid the cost of unique training sessions traditionally offered in an in-
person classroom setting.
2. Collaboration with worldwide expert network. Geothermal expertise is highly

fragmented across the world. Online collaboration tools present in the LMS can be used
to enable anytime, anywhere access to these experts by students, CoE members, lab
technicians, and the extended geothermal business community in Africa. Experts include
other CoEs, NGOs, colleges/universities, scientists, manufacturers, consultants, etc.
3. Knowledge base. Over time, the LMS accumulates a valuable repository of training
modules, course materials, collaborations, and best practices a content library that
formulates a living Knowledge Bank that continues to grow. This knowledge repository
will become increasingly important in supporting student training and continuing education
(work-force skills and on-the-job-training).
4. Rapidly train more students. By leveraging distance learning techniques, such as

online web-based teaching, video conferences, online classrooms, the LMS can be used
to reach a greater number of students for courses and subjects that do not require hands
on training with lab equipment or direct personal contact with instructors. The LMS w ill
also enable modern training methods that have demonstrated deeper and more
meaningful learning experiences such as Blended Training (mix of in-class and online e-
Learning) and Problem-Based Training (use of actual project data from the Geo Data and
Content Network).
5. Measurable training results. LMS reporting tools can be used to chart the progress of
CoE training number of students, student test results and grades, teacher/instructor
effectiveness, surveys, etc. These results can be used to ensure that donor contributions
are delivering results while providing valuable feedback for CoE training improvements.
We propose that the CoE be involved with several types of training and learning opportunities:
A. Classes taught at the CoE. The physical CoE facility shall contain classrooms where
instructor-led courses are taught. Courses may be organized to form accredited and
certified curricula in cooperation with universities located in Member-Countries. As
currently envisioned, the CoE shall utilize a Blended Learning approach that utilizes a
mix of traditional in-person, instructor-led classes that are supported by web-based CoE
technology (refer to the Blended Learning section of this report). The LMS will enable
reuse of course materials and provide ready access to actual project data from the CoEs
Content/Data Management and Sharing system.
B. Internships at stakeholder locations worldwide. These short-term assignments
(typically 1-3 months and occasionally up to one year) shall be coordinated from the CoE.
Supported by the LMS, these learning experiences can involve students, instructors, and
experts that are not physically located with student interns. Students not able to attend
limited internship opportunities can also use CoE technology that captures these learning
experiences from a library of reference internship case studies.
C. Conferences and seminars. The CoE shall sponsor both full events and specific
workshops/classes at both local and regional industry events. The LMS will be used to
maximize the learning opportunities from these one-time events by extending these
learning opportunities to students not able to attend. Audio and video capture of these
58 | P a g e
learning experiences can add to the CoEs living repository of learning events. Use of
Blended Learning methods at conferences and workshops can provide a deeper learning
experience that spans beyond the event itself.
D. Continuing education. As students transition from academic training to a geothermal
industry paid employment, it is important for both the student (now career professional)
and their employers that their geothermal experience continues to grow. In partnership
with stakeholder entities (companies, trade organizations, equipment manufacturers,
government agencies and organizations, etc.), the CoE network of experts, instructors,
labs and technology can be leveraged (free and fee-based) to enable these continuing
geothermal-centric learning opportunities.
E. Affiliations and partnerships. The stakeholder surveys identified a large number of
geothermal resources (classes, instructors, experts, equipment manufacturers, content,
etc.) that can be made available to the CoE. LMS will be used to provide access to these
resources that are owned and managed by non-CoE entities. Using secure, permission-
based access and data/content sharing methods these learning resources can continue
to grow and be supported without direct CoE fiscal involvement. Remote training and
access to learning resources enabled by CoE technology will provide access to
resources that may otherwise be limited by costs and logistics needed to provide these
same resources onsite at the CoE. These opportunities may include:
a. Equipment manufacturers and suppliers such as Ormat and Baker Hughes may
collaborate with the CoE to offer a series of vendor-specific training classes that
are tailored for conditions present in CoE Member-Country projects;
b. Best-practice well-field operating course series funded by donors that spotlights
successful regional projects; and,
c. Resolution of on-the-job problems and decision support can be enabled using
CoE-sponsored access to peers, CoE network of experts, and CoE-provided
access to geothermal resources.
Appendix 7 contains information about LMS use in Africa (presently being used in Kenya and
South Africa). In general, use of LMS in Africa is in an early stage of adoption relative to other
developed nations because of several factors including (a) spotty Internet access, (b) slow or
unreliable Internet access in many locations, and (c) low availability of laptops and PCs typically
used to access the LMS (less expensive mobile devices are making significant inroads).
However, these barriers are beginning to be addressed, especially in the larger metropolitan
areas.
While these factors may be impediments for some students, the CoE Facility will be equipped
with high-speed Internet access, WIFI for convenient CoE campus access, and student
accessibility to work stations and/or laptops while on premise. When the student is in a location
where Internet access is not readily available (e.g., at home), the student will need to visit a
nearby location where access is available such as a university, arrangements with a local
business, or government facility.
4.5 Structural Recommendations

The following specific CoE recommendations relating to Content, Data Management, Sharing
system and the Learning Management System are suggested:
59 | P a g e
1. Governance. Establish and empower a CoE ICT Committee that is responsible for
coordinating the use and setup of the ICT systems.
a. Provide a clearinghouse for data management, sharing best practices, and

training curriculum support.
b. Establish policies and practices for required, recommended, and optional use of
the LMS. Where possible, use of the LMS to achieve objectives outlined earlier
should be mandated for most CoE training activities and events. Business use by
stakeholder CoE members to support ongoing continuing education (on-the-job
training) should be considered from a policy perspective.
2. Technology Selection. Based upon established CoE requirements, popular open-

source LMS (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard, Canvas, others) should be evaluat ed leading to
selection of a specific technology that best meets CoE needs. Preference should be given
to solutions that are cloud hosted to avoid both upfront and ongoing system maintenance
expenses associated with self-hosting.
3. CoE Systems Integration. Based upon CoE Training and GeoScience software
data/content needs, design and deliver software integration (or use manual methods as
a second choice) between the Learning Management System, Portal and designated
GeoScience software applications.
4. Training. One of the critical success factors will be helping instructors that are more
familiar with traditional face-to-face (F2F) instruction methods adapt their courses to
online and Blended Learning teaching methods. The CoE should consider hiring a fulltim e
LMS specialist that can assist instructors, CoE experts, and others in accelerating the
development of e-Learning products.
5. Course development. The CoE should consider partnering with other geothermal
training programs such as the GTP at UNU in Iceland to develop reusable online courses
that have the potential to educate a broader audience of students that may not be able to
directly attend sessions offered at the CoEs facility. These courses may be a combination
of direct teaching (class room setting) and online. For example, short in-person regional
workshops (a few days) may be followed up with longer online training modules (a few
months) the LMS is used for both of these teaching venues.
6. Expert Network. Capabilities present in the LMS and Portal can be used to setup an
online Expert Network that can be used to facilitate interactions between students,
teachers, consultants, manufacturers, NGOs, other CoEs, and others. Virtually located
worldwide, experts need to be solicited to actively participate using collaboration tools
such as forums (e.g., technical moderator), Wiki or Blog. Participation as an Expert can
be done as a volunteer or fee-based engagements (donor supported or paid CoE service).
4.6 Conceptual Model of Proposed CoE ICT Framework

During the first five years, implementing and enabling use of an e-Learning system will be
important to help manage costs and support scaling of human resource capacity building
efforts. This will involve selecting an e-Learning technology, system installation,
instructor/student training, and online course development. Collaboration capabilities present in
e-Learning can also be used to establish an Experts Network that can be used by students and
instructors to provide access to a global network of experts.
60 | P a g e
During the first five years, it will also be important to support the CoE's ability to offer Geothermal
Data Management courses -- a need that was identified in the survey work outlined in Section
1. This can be accomplished by installing a Geothermal Data Management System that can be
used "hands on" by students -- access to real world data from existing geothermal projects
uploaded to this system will deepen and enhance the learning experience. During this period,
developing courses and ongoing support for commonly used software applications in the
region such, as Leapfrog, is recommended. This centralized CoE support will help avoid
duplication of efforts in each country and enable sharing of best practices. Over time (later in the
near term first five years with increased use in the second mid-term five years), use of e-Learning
should be expanded to cover a larger number of courses to cost effectively reach a larger number
of students. As the Experts Network grows, integrating experts into the learning experience and
CoE domain expertise (e.g., virtual guest/expert lectures on specific topics, responding to student
questions, etc.) can be expected to increase. Integrating the e-Learning and Data Management
Systems with actual project data uploaded will allow a deeper and more
meaningful problem/example based learning experience to be offered. Should the Data
Management solution become adopted and used for commercial purposes by multiple countries
and market participants (e.g., a Geothermal Data Network working with existing AUC and ARGeo
networks, as described in Appendix 5), this will facilitate access to shared geothermal content
and data that will significantly enhance the CoE's ability to train/equip students and provide
regional geothermal domain expertise.
61 | P a g e
CoE Needed Governance & Administration
Framework
The previous sections provided a proposed CoE model with regard to its curriculum/training
framework, laboratory/equipment set-up, and e-Learning structure. In this section we propose a
governance and administrative structure to ensure the CoEs sustainability.
5.1 Location of the CoE

During the course of this study and the Validation Workshop, it was confirmed that t he CoE should
be established at GDC in Nakuru, Kenya for the following reasons:
Summit of the Northern Corridor Integration Projects, on 19-20 February and 28

November 2014 and there was an agreement between regional Presidents (Kenya,
Uganda, Rwanda & South Sudan) followed by their Ministers and Secretaries, in
which the President of Kenya committed to establishing an Africa Geothermal Center
of Excellence in Kenya, to be located at GDC, with the goal to help fast track training
for geothermal experts in the region (see Appendix 16).
Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Energy and Petroleum (MoEP) confirms that

it is the position of the Government of Kenya that GDC is the host of CoE for
geothermal training as previously communicated to the NCIP countries. (Note: letter
of confirmation requested to be added to Appendix 16).
AUC Action Plan and Roadmap, since 2010, the concept of a regional CoE has
been discussed in the region. More recently at the 3rd AUC geothermal donor
coordination meeting held in Iceland in May 2014, the participants agreed that there
is an urgent need for Regional Capacity Building Program to build the required
geothermal capacity in the region.
Existing practical training has been taking place at GDC with the staff of GDC,
KenGen, ARGeo and UNU.
Nakuru is close to studied geothermal well fields and power plants for practical
training in all aspects of geothermal development and availability of active geothermal
projects.
Experienced staff are available nearby from GDC, KenGen, Ketraco, ministries,
regulatory agencies, universities, IPPs.
Easy travel access by road/air for staff, students, trainers, conference attendees.
Progressive policies and regulations are in place in Kenya that encourage public,
private geothermal development as possible models for other countries.
Existence of facilities at GDC and KenGen that shall allow a quick startup of
activities by the CoE.

At the Validation Workshop, it was agreed that there is an immediate and certain need to establish
the Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence to address the regional geothermal skill gap. Toward
62 | P a g e
this goal, it was also agreed that the CoE, under the auspices of the Government of Kenya, be
based at GDC in Nakuru with a satellite campus at KenGen at the Olkaria Office in
Naivasha. These locations are in close proximity of geothermal developments at Suswa,
Longonot, Akiira, Olkaria and Menengai. The Nakuru and Naivasha areas have easy travel
access by both road and air and have developed infrastructure. Additionally, both GDC and
KenGen have laboratories, equipment and experienced operators that can enable the CoE to
begin training quickly. Given this existing infrastructure and current and upcoming projects,
learning opportunities can be easily arranged related to all aspects of geothermal development
including exploration geoscience, drilling operations, reservoir management, optimization
studies, power plant O&M and direct use.
5.2 Overall Proposed Structure of the CoE in its Formative

Years
As discussed in Section 1, for overall sustainability it is recommended that the CoE be model ed
after UNU-GTP in Iceland. In doing so, the CoE should be a semi-independent educational entity
based at GDC, governed by a regional Steering Committee (SC) to serve as voting-members
guided by the CoEs Bi-Laws. As part of a retained implementation consulting team, GDC should
retain legal counsel in establishing the CoEs Bi-Laws and contractual arrangements with GDC,
as well as other MOUs with affiliates agencies and contractual arrangements for CoE core-course
trainers, equipment leasing, consultants, etc.
During the Validation Workshop, it was agreed that the AUC will serve as founding Chair of the
SC, with assistance from UNEP, and will work collaboratively with GDC as host as well as
KenGen and other African government agencies, training institutions, donors/lenders, private
companies, host-country, regional and overseas universities in carrying out its mission. In this
regard, AUC and UNEP should have a MOU agreement with the GDC, stating that they will
continue to facilitate the institutional support and backstopping that is needed in its formative
years to establish the CoE, and will coordinate with other development partners for the overall
success of this Center of Excellence. Toward this goal, it is recommended that GDC as host
retain consultants to conduct a Near-Term Implementation Plan (2016-2020) along with CoE
Member-Country Training Plans to assist in setting-up the operations and training curriculum of
the CoE.
During the first year, the Steering Committee should oversee the CoE Implementation Team of
consultants. The Implementation Team should be tasked to develop a CoE Near-Term
Implementation Plan and work with individual countries to identify country-specific needs in order
to develop country-tailored CoE Training Plans. Based in these CoE Training Plans, the initial
core curriculum should be developed in collaboration with GDC, KenGen, as well as UNU-GTP
and other geothermal training institutions active in the region.
It was also determined during the Validation Workshop that the CoE will use existing training
facilities provided by GDC as host in Nakuru and KenGen as a satellite campus in Naivasha
during the first five years. The GDC implementation consultants shall provide a plan which
includes the utilization of these existing facilities to meet training needs. If deemed appropriate
by the SC during these initial years, the CoE buildings shall be constructed and completed at the
GDC complex in Nakuru.
Once the CoE is operational, it will be managed by a small, fulltime staff. Trainers will be drawn,
as needed, from among professionals within GDC, KenGen, IPPs, local universities and experts
from the region. This regional collaboration will help also create a resource of experts. Where
there are gaps, visiting lecturers from abroad will be invited to convene specialized courses.
63 | P a g e
During the PI teams interviews and Validation Workshop, several donor entities offered to
provide trainers (US Power Africa, JICA and New Zealand). In order to facilitate the Member-
Country needs, it is crucial that CoE work with affiliated partners for longer term training,
internships, e-Learning opportunities, and be linked to and accredited by universities approved
by the Steering Committee.
Below in Figure 5.2 is the proposed organizational chart for the Center of Excellence.
African Geothermal Center of Government of Kenya hosted by

Steering Committee Excellence GDC under the directive of
Managing Director MoEP
Two Regional Representatives Curriculum Manager (support

(AUC & UNEP. with AUC elected regarding curriculum and CoE
as Chairperson) Training Plans)
One Trainging Institution Technology Technician (Geo

portal systems. audio, visual,
(UNU-GTP elected) equipment, etc.),
Two Country Representatives Administrative Manager

(assistant, secretary, accountant,
(Djibouti & Rwanda elected) etc.)
Two Kenya Representatives ICT Learning Manager (e-

distance learning, data
(GDC and KenGen - permanent management and information
members) dissemination)
Geoscience Learning &

Technical Laboratory Manager (geology,
Advisory Committees geochemistry, geophysics
department head)
Training & Curriculum Engineer Learning Manager

Committee (course content, (hand-on training in drilling,
ICT & e-Learning Committee
standards and equivalency reservoir engineering & power
certificates and diplomas). pl
Laboratory & Equipment

Committee (standards for Power Generation and Direct-
accreditation, training facilities & Trainers
Use Committee
equipment leading to Member-
Countries)
Member Countries' Trainers/Consultants

CoE Training Plans CoE Core Courses
Countries with plans to generate Affiliates/Partners

power from geothermal energy
resource in the next 5 Years Non-core Courses
Countries with plans to identify

geothermal prospect areas
including drilling in the next 5
years
Figure 5.2 Organizational Chart for the Center of Excellence
64 | P a g e
5.3 Governance: Steering Committee and Technical
Advisory Board
The CoE Steering Committee shall oversee its operation and ensure its operation abides by the
CoE Bi-Laws. As with the UNU-GTPs board, the SC shall oversea finances and strategic
matters. The SC shall be responsible for advising on overall operations of the CoE, program
content, membership and assisting in raising overall finances. The SC will serve the CoEs
mission and ensure the CoEs program remains relevant to both public and private sector
geothermal member needs.
The founding SC shall consist of voting members. It was decided during the Validation Workshop
that this SC shall include:
Two representatives from regional institution, in which AUC and UNEP

were elected, with the AUC representative to serve as the initial
Chairperson.
Two country representatives one from a geothermal developing East
African countries (other than Kenya), in which Djibouti was elected; and
one from a resource potential country with active geothermal
development programs, in which Rwanda was elected.
One representative from international geothermal training institutions,
in which UNU of Iceland was elected.
Two Kenya representatives, one each from GDC and KenGen.
Chairmanship and voting membership will be revolving as determined by the CoEs Bi-Laws.
Technical Advisory Committees should also be formed to assist the CoE Staff and SC; these
committees should include specialists in the following areas:
Training & Curriculum Committee (course content, standards and

equivalency certificates and diplomas).
ICT & e-Learning Committee (e-Learning and Data Management
framework).
Laboratory & Equipment Committee (standards for accreditation,
training facilities & equipment leading to Member-Countries)
Power Generation and Direct-Use Committee (course content,
simulators workshops, internships, etc).
The Technical Advisory Committees shall be responsible for advising on the academic values of
the CoE, with experts geothermal representing each study line. The Technical Advisory
Committees should be appointed by the CoE Managing Director with assistance from the SC
(and the retained implementation consulting team in the initial year), taking into account the
academic and practical merits of the selected individuals in their field of expertise. Each Advisory
Committee should have no more than 10 members. Technical Advisory Committee members
should come from outside agencies, such as:
IPP developers active in the region (e.g. Reykjavik Geothermal, Ormat,

Akiira Geothermal, Ltd.).
Participating/supporting donor agencies.
Training institution and university with active interest in geothermal
power generation and direct-use.
65 | P a g e
Other committees and subcommittees may be formed by the SC as needed; committees should
be kept small in order to be effective.
5.4 Proposed CoE Staffing Structure

The CoE management team, led by the Managing Director, shall be in charge of daily operations
including working with Member-Country training representatives to address country-specific
needs, developing courses and instructor scheduling, signing contacts with donors and lenders,
training institutions, universities, private companies, etc. The Managing Director shall be
accountable to the Steering Committee and have proven training and management experience.
The CoE should consist of seven fulltime staff. During the formation of the CoE, it should have
a small staff supported by the retained implementation consulting team, including:
Managing Director (responsible for overall admin, curriculum, donor coordination

and assistance with country-specific master CoE Training Plans)
Curriculum Manager (responsible for support regarding curriculum and CoE

Training Plans)
In 2017, the staff should be increased:
Geoscience Learning & Laboratory Manager (responsible for geology,

geochemistry, geophysics training and equipment leasing/consulting)
Engineer Learning Manager (responsible for hand-on training in drilling,

reservoir engineering & power plants operations)
ICT Learning Manager (responsible for e-learning, data management and

information dissemination)
Technology Technician (responsible for Geo web site/Portal systems;

Audio/Visual, equipment, etc.),
Administrative Manager (responsible for duties as assistant, secretary,

accountant, etc.)
Additional support staff and consultants shall be hired as necessary on a short-term basis.
5.5 CoE Implementation Plan and Member-Country CoE

Training Plans
In the first year of operation, it is recommended that as host GDC retain an implementation
consulting team to assist the Steering Committee in expediting the establishment of the center.
Under the guidance of the SC, the consultants will develop a Near-Term Implementation Plan
and work closely with Member-Countries to develop country-tailored CoE Training Plans. In
developing these plans, the consulting team will work with the CoE Member-Country counterparts
and relevant private sector players to develop their 2016 CoE Training Plan and budget that can
best address each countries specific geothermal energy plans. In addition, the Near-Term
Implementation Plan will include anticipated CoE scaling-up Training Plans for the years 2017-
2020.
66 | P a g e
The CoE implementation consulting team will work with GDC and the initial staff (Managing
Director and Curriculum Manager) as well as KenGen and UNU and other training entities to
develop the CoE core-curricula that address each countrys geothermal development needs.
This may include regularly scheduled core-course training as well as additional training on topics
considered relevant to promote geothermal development in each Member-Country. In addition,
affiliation training will be established to address needs requiring long-term training, internships
and degree programs with universities.
During the first year, CoE operations will be assisted by the retained implementation consulting
team. Once in full operation, the CoE Staff shall manage and run the CoE training programs.
On a yearly basis, CoE staff will revisit country-specific CoE Training Plans and work with the
country representatives to make appropriate recommendations based on the countrys needs in
relation to geothermal development. The CoE Staff will work directly with the Member-Country to
revise CoE Training Plans to best address each countrys needs for present and future trained
personnel.
5.6 Subject Matter Experts and the Donor Community

Short-Term training personnel, such as technical subject matter experts, shall be hired and
brought in to the CoE or dispatched to a country when required to address Member-Countries
and private sector specific geothermal training needs. A high emphasis will be put on training of
trainers in the initial years, in order to develop critical mass of local trainers. These experts will
provide theoretical training, on-the-job training, e-Learning, laboratory training, etc., as needed.
The CoE Staff, Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Board shall work collaboratively with
donor stakeholders to decide on and coordinate the activities of the CoE with the interests and
priorities of Member-Countries, private sector developers and other geothermal stakeholders.
Such coordination shall ensure that activities are complementary to country-specific CoE Training
Plans and are not duplicative. This may call for stakeholder meetings from time-to-time to discuss
various issues pertaining to implementation of overall training activities in the region.
5.7 Student Selection for the CoE

Candidate students shall be required to have diplomas , degrees or work experience in
engineering, environmental studies, business management, geology, geochemistry, geophysics
and geothermal-related experience in a relevant field. Students should have a working
knowledge of English (however, other languages instruction will be provided on an as -needed
basis, i.e. French and/or Portuguese). Candidates will be given preference if sponsored or
employed by a geothermal-active agency, research institution, university or company in their
home country.
Member-countries institutions as well as private sector developers shall be invited to nominate

candidates for training. CoE course offerings will be publicized well in advance to allow time for
Member-Countries institutions to propose trainee candidates and for the CoE Staff to review and
approve candidates.
Candidate selection shall include applications and interviews by CoE Staff to ensure students
have sufficient interest and motivation, knowledge and/or experience, and advancement interest
in their country. The number of students who shall be accepted in the CoE program shall depend
on the training capacity of the CoE. The number of trainees per country will be based on the
CoE Training Plan developed with the Member-Countries within the CoE capacity. The CoE
67 | P a g e
Managing Director, or his or her designee, shall review and approve each candidate for
admission.
CoE students shall be selected from African Member-Countries that have planned or ongoing
geothermal development projects for power generation or direct use and are facing a shortage
of trained manpower. An active developer (public or private) may also propose candidates and,
if accepted, shall be required to fund (partial or whole) tuition of the candidate. Students from
outside the African Member-Countries shall be considered on merit on a case-by-case basis and
will be required to pay the full tuition.
Female students who apply to the CoE and are qualified shall be given priority consideration. In
the Auckland University geothermal training programs, from 2007-2014, there were an average
of 24% female students. This gender distribution is similar to that of all engineering students at
the University of Auckland from 2007 to 2014, which was approximately 22% female. It is the
goal that the gender balance in the CoE shall exceed historical averages of other such
institutions, with priority being given to qualified women candidates. It was recommended by US
EAGP to offer an incentive for institutions to send women to training, such as allowing two women
to attend a training but only charging one tuition fee. Also, given women bear a majority of the
responsibilities surrounding child care, women candidates should be able to receive grant
supplements to facilitate child-care while in training.
The Innovation Norway and the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems have
collaborated to promote best practices for increasing gender balance in the Nordic region. .
These include:
Networking and mentorship programs to improve recruitment, retention, and

advancement of women. These are especially important in industries with few women
(such as drilling and geoscience).
Using the Balanced Scorecard system to make gender diversity a part of strategic
planning.
Establishing monitoring procedures for measuring progress towards gender equality
goals.
Applied gender research, in which gender experts collaborate with engineers in
designing training programs.
It is recommended that the Steering Committee set gender targets, (for example 25% by 2020)
and develop a clear gender policy towards this goal.
5.8 Financial Management and Reporting Requirements

Financial reports shall be prepared by the CoE Administrative Manager, approved by the
Managing Director and submitted to the SC on a monthly basis with supporting bank statements
and receipts. Annual financial reports, cost projections and anticipated donor/IPP/country
member financial contributions/fees/subsides shall also be submitted quarterly to the SC by the
Managing Director.
5.9 CoE Core Course Performance Evaluation

Periodic and final examinations for all CoE Core Courses shall be given by training course
instructors and the grades submitted to the Managing Director.
68 | P a g e
Performance evaluation of consultants, contractors, suppliers, staff, participating geothermal
companies, trainers, universities, donors/financiers, GoK host institution, supporting agencies
and African government partners shall be carried out annually. These annual evaluations shall
be carried out by a team of outside evaluation experts proposed by the Managing Director and
approved by the SC. Organizational, operational and management strongpoints and weaknesses
shall be noted as shall social and environmental impacts, sustainability issues and gender
balance. Results of these performance evaluations will be applied to improve weak performance
by development and use of a performance improvement plan, as approved by the SC.
Ongoing SC oversight of CoE operations and planning shall be carried out through submission
by the Managing Director to the SC of monthly reports that describe the previous months project
activities and the coming months scheduled activities. The twelve monthly reports shall be
supplemented by an annual report which include plans for the coming year including proposed
revisions to training types, course content, frequency, location and assistance needed in relation
to internships, permanent staffing, external instructors, financing, etc. Additionally, stakeholder
site visits shall be encouraged with the support of donor agencies, IPPs, geothermal
equipment/service suppliers and Member-Country representatives.
5.10 Recommended CoE Facilities Long Term Proposed

Development
Depending on the results and success of the CoE in the first five years of operation, long-term
accommodations may be recommended for development and construction in the mid-term (i.e.
years 6 onward). If such a facility is found necessary, a fully equipped CoE stand-alone facility
based at GDC in Nakura shall, when completed, have one or more of the following facilities:
An administrative block, which shall house CoE administrative offices.

The administrative offices shall handle trainee applications, arrange
logistics for students and instructors, handle bookkeeping and financial
recordkeeping, including donor contributions as well as Member-
Country and student contributions. It shall also collect information and
publish a monthly CoE newsletter to provide registration alerts as well
as present planned training initiatives, application procedures,
deadlines, training programs accomplished, equipment provided,
credit to donors, scholarships and internships support, etc.
Geoscientific laboratories where research, testing/measurement and

analysis of samples and training shall be done. The laboratories shall
be well-equipped to cater to the needs and requirements for
geothermal users in the region. When equipping the laboratories, the
existence of equipment and personnel/equipment capabilities in
countries other than Kenya shall be taken into consideration. When
fully operational the laboratories shall generate income for the CoE by
serving customers from other countries/institutions.
Workshops where hands-on instruction shall be provided including the

use of drilling and power plant simulator equipment.
Lecture classrooms for theoretical student training.
Computer laboratory that can be used for training students in

geoscientific data collection, analysis and sharing using specialized
69 | P a g e
software. Also geothermal reservoir modeling, budgeting and cost-
benefit analysis.
Small onsite IT data center and Systems Administration work area for
support of locally installed ICT hardware (network, servers, backup
systems, etc.) and software (laboratory, student training applications,
etc.). Includes a Systems Admin work station for support of cloud
services that include (a) distance e-Learning (i.e. LMS) and library for
reports and other informational knowledge and (b) data bank (Geo
Data and Content Network) that contains regional country concession,
exploration, resource, power plant, direct-use, private sector
consultant, company and material supply information, and
policy/regulatory information.
Accommodation hostels for hosting students and staff during training.
Kitchen, dining room and recreational facilities.
Function room for conferences and social events which can also be
used as a visitors center where uses of geothermal energy shall be
demonstrated with the aim of informing potential users about the
benefits of using geothermal energy for power generation and direct
uses.
Given the Section 1 needs analysis, it is envisioned that the CoE shall merit the
development of a campus facility after the initial 5 years of training; the detailed budget
has already earmarked GoK financing for developing such a campus at GDCs facilities
in Nakuru. In Section 6, the budget and proposed roll-out for efficiently developing a
sustainable Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence is described.
70 | P a g e
CoE Projected Cost/Budget
In the previous sections, the PI Team ascertained the feasibility of establishing a regional
geothermal training center for Africa, in Kenya. We provided an analysis, framework and
conceptual model with description of the governance and administrative conditions under which
such a CoE would be feasible, including training programs and facilities, laboratory facilities and
equipment and ITC infrastructure. In this section, we provide the budget for the establishment
of an Africa Geothermal CoE, giving recommendations on the budgetary requirements of such a
center that can best serve the long-term sustainable requirements of the region as a whole.
6.1 Near-Term Project Cost by Expenditure Category and

Year
As decided at the Validation Workshop, the first five years the CoE will apply an existing campus
strategy by utilizing existing GDC training facilities as host and additional KenGen facilities, as
well as potential other training venues at Member-Country locations. The proposed budget is
based on the conceptual model was given at the end of Sections 2, 3 and 4. As outlined in
Section 5, if deemed needed by the SC during the first five years of operations, a CoE facility will
be constructed in the mid-term phase (in which construction is scheduled to begin in year 6 and
be completed in year 7). As shown in the Figure 6.1, during the first five years, $16.5M USD will
be required to operate the CoE, including both capital (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX).
All costs have been escalated using a 5% annual escalation factor based on the detailed budget
developed in 2015 (see Appendix 8).
5-Year Budget by Category

($16.5 M USD)
FACILITY,
PLAN, $1,971,766 , $322,410 ,
12% STAFF,
$1,650,253 , 2%
10%
TRAINING, PLAN
$6,284,489 , STAFF
38%
FACILITY
OTHER, ITC
$4,725,620 , OTHER
29%
LAB
TRAINING
ITC, $570,738 ,
LAB, $999,587 , 6%
3%
Figure 6.1 Near-Term 1-5 Year Budget by Category

The items below provide a high-level description of each cost category. Appendix 8 contains a
detailed budget estimate.
PLAN. Mobilization expenses associated with CoE formation and training

strategy/curriculum planning. Includes consulting services and associated expenses.
Also includes planning aspects of the future campus site/facility and lab planned to be
developed during the mid-term (years 6 to 10).
SITE. Includes purchase and operation of 2 vehicles for use by CoE for student field trips
and other CoE business needs.
LAB. Includes an allocated amount of $1.3M USD. This includes $325K USD to support
accreditation of existing lab facilities and agreement structure for lab equipment rentals
to Member-Countries. This also includes $1M USD for training-focused equipment that
will augment lab equipment located at GDC laboratories (50% was estimated of the
overall CoE facility projected costs for existing facilities purchase and installation of lab
equipment to support CoE training needs during the near-term phase. A full student lab
will be built in mid-term phase when the CoE facility is built. Please see detailed lab
budget in Appendix 10.)
STAFF. Salaries and benefits associated with full time CoE staff.
ICT. Learning Management System ($325K USD for setup, enhancements and cloud
hosting services) and Data Management Sharing System ($145K USD for setup ,
enhancements and cloud hosting services).
TRAINING. Covers all training-related expenses: local/expat teachers; short, medium

and long term outside instructor assignments; internships, attendance and
conferences/seminars, etc. The following key assumptions have been included in the
financial model:
o 1,000 technicians and professionals will each receive an average of 8 weeks

training using a mix of short, medium and long-term courses and internships.
o While e-Learning courses are the most cost effective method of course delivery,
limited use of e-Learning has been assumed. (It would be possible to drive training
costs down with increased use of e-Learning.)
o Training costs have been assumed to be managed by building in-country

instructor capacity with a train-the-trainer program. Initially, more expensive
international instructors will teach 50% of all courses. By year 5, more cost
effective in-country instructors will teach 70% of all courses.
o Student and instructor travel/lodging and per diem expenses have been included.
When the CoE facility is available in the mid-term (beginning in year 8), these
expenses will be reduced since many courses will be taught at the CoE where
dorms and food services will be available.
o Training facility costs are assumed to be provided in kind by GDC, KenGen and
other CoE Member-Countries. The financial model does not include costs to rent
training venues, conference rooms, class rooms, etc.
Please see Appendix 9 for details on training-related costs.
OTHER. Includes procurement of training simulators: drilling ($1.5M USD) and power
72 | P a g e
plant ($2.0M USD). Also includes allowance for consulting services and inclusion of other
CoE expenses that are not specifically covered in other expense categories.
It is also assumed that overall logistical ground support will be provided by GDC. Additionally,
GDC is presently undergoing laboratory improvements for its commercial services. While the
CoE can play a coordinating role and funding focal point for development of these important
capabilities, the current budget does not include line items for associated commercial laboratory
developments and ongoing support. It is assumed that GDC will cover these expenses in their
operational budget.
6.2 Near-Term Project Cost by Expenditure Type and Year

As shown in Figure 6.2, the CoEs 5-Year budget is estimated to require approximately $16.5M
USD for operating expenses and capital investment (such as lab, simulators and vehicles). An
annual operating budget (OPEX) of about $2.5M to $3.1M USD is forecast.
5-Year Budget ($16.5 M) by Expense

Type
$18.0
$16.0
Expense ($M USD)
$14.0 $5.3
$12.0
$10.0
$8.0 CAPEX
$6.0 $11.2 OPEX
$2.4
$4.0 $0.9 $0.1 $0.5
$2.0 $1.5 $3.1 $2.5 $2.7 $2.6
$0.0 $0.3
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
First 5
Years
Figure 6.2 Near-term 1-5 Year Budget by Expenses
By using an existing campus strategy, the high capital costs associated with building the CoE
facility are delayed until mid-term (years 6 to 10). Consequently, non-capital operating expenses
dominate the near-term budget.
Please note that the above budget does not currently include income that may be generated from
member fees, donor subsides, course registration, field equipment rental, etc. Income from these
sources would reduce the annual operating costs. Section 6.10, Sustainability Model, provides
our proposed funding model.
It has also been assumed that the CoE will not be exposed to local, regional or country taxes
such as a property or income tax.
73 | P a g e
6.3 Mid-Term Project Cost by Expenditure Category and
Year
Planning for the CoE facility begins in year 5 with construction beginning in year 6. By year 8,
the CoE facility will begin holding courses.
As shown in Figure 6.3, the facility will require $31.7M USD (includes both capital and operating
expenses) to build the CoE facility/lab and operate the CoE for years 6 to 10. All costs have been
escalated using a 5% annual escalation factor.
TRAINING,
$7,072,202 ,
Year 6 to 10 Budget by Category
22% ($31.7 M USD)
STAFF,
LAB, PLAN, $2,820,905 ,
$1,758,952 , $624,477 , 2% 9%
6%
PLAN
STAFF
FACILITY
FACILITY, ITC
$17,686,477 ,
56% OTHER
LAB
TRAINING
ITC, $621,941 ,
OTHER, 2%
$1,057,839 ,
3%
Figure 6.3 Mid-Term 6-10 Year Budget by Category
The items below provide a high-level description of each cost category. Please refer to Appendix
8 for a detailed breakdown of the budget estimate.
PLAN. As compared to the near-term phase, planning expenses are significantly less
and are focused on training/research needs.
SITE. Planning for the CoE facility began in year 5 (near-term phase) with construction
beginning in year 6 and completed in year 7 (mid-term phase). By year 8, the CoE facility
will begin holding courses on site. Note that 2015 detailed budget (Appendix 8) facility
costs are $12M USD but cost escalation increases costs by 30 to 35 % (5% annually)
when construction actually occurs.
LAB. With construction of the CoE facility during the mid-term phase, the full $1.8M
USD student lab will be included. Geochemistry ($223K USD), petrography ($276K USD),
geophysics ($421M USD), and supporting ICT hardware/software ($360K USD). These
costs are for the training aspect of the lab. As GDC will be hosting this Lab, it is assumed
that GDC will provide all support costs and that their technical experts will be made
available to the CoE. (Note that in the 2015 detailed lab budget (see Appendix 10) totals
74 | P a g e
$1.8M USD; with cost escalation, these expenses increase 5% annually to $3.7M USD).
STAFF. Salaries and benefits associated with full time CoE staff.
ICT. Learning Management System ($200K USD for operating and cloud hosting
services) and Data Management Sharing System ($160K USD for operating and cloud
hosting services).
TRAINING. Covers all training-related expenses: local/expat teachers; short, medium

and long term outside instructor assignments; internships, attendance and
conferences/seminars, etc. The following key assumptions have been included in the
financial model:
o Roughly 1,400 technicians and professionals will each receive an average of 8

weeks training using a mix of short, medium and affiliated courses. Note that
~40% more technicians are assumed to be trained in the mid-term (growth in
demand consistent with Skills Needs Assessment recently completed by UNEP).
o e-Learning courses will be increased to provide a cost effective method of course

delivery, helping drive training costs down.
o Training costs continue to be managed by building in-country instructor capacity

with a train-the-trainer program. By year 10, more cost effective in-country
instructors will teach 90% of all courses.
o With the CoE facility available beginning in year 8, about 50% of all training has
been assumed to occur at the new facility an existing campus strategy has
been assumed to remain to address the balance of training needs. For students
and instructors attending courses at the CoE facility, travel/lodging and per diem
expenses are lower. It would be possible to further reduce training expens es by
teaching more classes at the CoE facility, but with an increase of capital cost for
additional facilities.
o For existing campus classes, training facility costs are assumed to be provided
in kind by CoE members. The financial model does not include costs to rent
training venues, conference rooms, class rooms, etc.
Please see Appendix 9 for details on training-related costs.
OTHER. Allowance for consulting services and inclusion of other CoE expenses that are
not specifically covered in other expense categories.
6.4 Mid-Term Project Cost by Expenditure Type and Year

As shown in Figure 6.4, with CoE facility and lab construction occurring during this project phase,
capital expenditures are high ($17.9M USD). CAPEX includes construction of laboratories,
workshops, ICT, learning center, living space, kitchen, dining room, visitor demo center and
auxiliary support buildings. Training expenses are reduced as the facility begins to be used in
year 8. Deepening of the train-the-trainer with more local trainers along with increased use of
e-Learning have been assumed to also help manage operating expenses (OPEX between USD
$2.6M to $3M USD per year) despite the ~40% growth in training demand. The OPEX costs
mainly comprise staff, training, consultants, lab accreditation, ICT support and CoE O&M.
75 | P a g e
Mid-term Budget by Expense Type
($31.7M USD)
$35.0
$30.0
$25.0
Expense ($M USD)
$17.9
$20.0
CAPEX
$15.0
OPEX
$10.0
$10.8
$6.9 $13.8
$5.0
$0.1 $0.1 $0.1
$2.8 $3.0 $2.6 $2.6 $2.8
$0.0
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Years 6
to 10
Figure 6.4 Mid-Term 6-10 Year Budget by Expenses
As with the prior project phase, it is assumed that GDC will cover ground-related support costs.
Also, the above budget does not currently include income that may be generated from training
fees, donor subsides, course registration, field equipment rental, etc. Income from these sources
would reduce the annual operating costs.
It has also been assumed that the CoE as an educational institution will not be exposed to local,
regional or country taxes such as property or income tax.
6.5 Training Demand

As outlined in Sections 1 through 4 regarding analysis and conceptual models, PIs proposed
financial model is based on our feasibility findings for training demands and related costs
reflecting a need for roughly 1000 students in the near-term (years 1-5) and an additional 1420
students (technicians, scientists and professionals) in the mid-term (years 6-10) for a total of
roughly 2400 trainees over ten years. During the Validation Workshop, the Skills Audit and
Gap Study for the Geothermal Energy Subsector in African Countries was presented by
UNEP/ARGeo (Appendix 13). Their analysis estimates a need for 6858 trained geothermal
technicians and professionals over the next ten years. The PI team feels that this an ambitious
jump from the present training of less than 100 trainees per year. The comparison of our report
findings and ARGeos report are summarized in the Financial Model column of Table 6.5. The
ARGeo higher training need is reflected in the column UNEP Skills Assessment in the Table.
76 | P a g e
Table 6.5 Adjustments with UNEP Skills Assessment
Financial Model UNEP Skills Assessment

Technician/Professional training
demand
Near term (first 5 years) 1,000 2,943 (2.9x)
Mid-term (years 6 to 10) 1,400 3,915 (2.8x)
Estimated training costs (escalated)
Near term (first 5 years) $6.3M USD $18.2M USD (estimated)
Mid-term (years 6 to 10) $7.1M USD $19.8M USD (estimated)
UNEP training demands are almost three-fold (3x) higher than those determined by PIs study.
Should this greater demand for training be realized, program costs for the near term phase would
increase by ~72% (an increase from $18.2M USD to $28.5M USD). For the medium-term
program phase, total costs would increase by ~40% (an increase from $19.8M USD to $44.3M
USD).
The PI team recommends that the ARGeo study projections are verified by carrying out Member-
Country CoE Training Plans addressing country-specific needs/demand. Due to the financial
risks associated with the need and available financing for these high training costs, we
recommended that detailed country-specific CoE Training Plans are prepared and aligned with
Member-Countries resource development and management plans. In this way the CoE can
address both the needs and timing for specific skill-sets with greater accuracy and economic
efficiency. Based on these specific training plan needs and resources available, the CoE financial
model should then also be revisited accordingly.
6.6 Projected Financing and Contributions

6.6.1 Startup Near-Term Support
During the Validation Workshop, it was agreed that the use of existing facilities would help
expedite training, as well as allow for time to ascertain the country-specific needs/demand of the
region. Therefore, with the construction of the CoE facility delayed until the mid-term, the near-
term CAPEX for CoE formation will be much lower (roughly $5.3M USD which includes ICT,
simulators and student lab equipment at existing facilities). Additionally, the near-term OPEX will
be $11.2M USD. Therefore the entire capital and operating expenses that will be required in the
near-term are $16.5M USD (these expenses have been adjusted to include cost escalation at
5% annually).
6.6.2 Anticipated Ongoing Financial and In-Kind Support
A substantial portion of the CoE facilitys capital expenses is expected to be provided by the
Government of Kenya in the amount of $17.1M USD over the CoEs first ten years. A
sustainability financial model is explained in Section 6.10 of this report, addressing how these
GoK funds could be applied in the near-term ($5.8M USD) and mid-term ($11.3M USD). Other
near-term funding is expected from AfDB (simulators) and ICEIDA (laboratory). Additional startup
support funding is expected to come from GDC as host as well as income (training fees, donor
subsides, and equipment leasing fees), and multilateral, bilateral donor/lending agencies,
although it has yet to be confirmed. Indications of follow-on support received by the PI team
during personal interviews in June 2015 in Kenya, Djibouti, Tanzania and Ethiopia and during the
Validation Workshop include the following:
77 | P a g e
6.6.2.1 National Level Support
GoK, as part of the Northern Corridor Integration Projects countries,

committed to provide ongoing financial and in-kind support to the
development of an Africa Geothermal CoE for the region. Roughly
$17.1M USD has been committed by the GoK in which these funds will
be allocated toward GDC as host of the CoE (see Appendix 16).
GDC will provide near-term hosting facilities (workshop, drilling, data

center and laboratory for training facilities) as well as long-term facilities;
GDC has also acquired 100 acres of land in Nakuru near Kabarak
University, a portion of which has been offered for the site of the
permanent CoE infrastructure.
The Permanent Secretary of the MoEP and GDC board of directors

have indicated that GDC will meet part of the operational costs of the
CoE, (i.e. staff salaries, office management and support services).
Both GDC and KenGen agreed to provide staff for short-term training in
Kenya as well as collaborating in giving hands-on training for experts of
the region.
KenGen has also offered to provide facilities for training, as needed.
It is anticipated that each Member-Country will pay training fees and

also receive an annual training subsides (from donor agencies), which
will entitle the Member-Country to certain base services and reductions
in training, equipment rental costs and other service fees.
The Director General of Tanzania GDC suggested that in the future,

once geothermal resources are developed, that a small tax levy on
geothermal power generation be instituted to pay for capacity building
efforts such as training.
6.6.2.2 Donor Support
ICEIDA has committed finances for the accreditation of the GDC

laboratory, and this is on-going. Funding for curriculum development
will be considered.
Nordic Development Fund (NDF) noted that support could come

through the joint ICEIDA/NDF program.
JICA can possibly provide equipment and/or training to the CoE. JICA
has offered scholarships to African students for short and long-term
geothermal training and has restarted offering MSc, PhD and six
months geothermal scholarships. Currently, JICA is funding hands-on
training program to GDC on exploration, drilling and reservoir
engineering.
AfDB has committed $2M USD for a drilling simulator (purchased

already). AFDB can possibly also finance a power plant simulator from
78 | P a g e
the same loan. AFDB has an additional $1.5M USD set aside for
GDC training.
KfW supports the CoE in principle but could not, during the Feasibility
Study, commit to providing financial or in-kind support. They look
forward to the results of this study to better determine how they could
play a role.
BGR had bilateral agreements for surface studies with a number of

African countries including capacity building. It has made skills
transfer by way of purchasing of equipment and hands-on training on
use of the equipment and continue to support CoE efforts in this way.
International Geothermal Center (IGC) at Bochum/Germany pledged

their support with in-kind contribution and curriculum development,
and also expressed the need to improve on developing a feasible
business/sustainability model as well as inclusion of legal/policy topics
in the curriculum.
AFD is mostly a lending agency. 10M 100M Euros is their lending

range. They can, in addition, provide small grants to consultants
connected to projects in the 10,000 Euro range. AFD is interested to
follow the CoEs development and will consider possible support.
USAID and the USEAs EAGP presently has a small budget to support
the CoE through technical experts. In principle USAID supports the
establishment of the CoE. However, it was not clear how USAID
could support the CoE in the future. They look forward to the results
of this study to better determine how they could play a role.
The EU Kenya office only provides assistance directed towards

Kenya, however the Tanzania regional office could perhaps provide
assistance.
DFIDs Kenya representative is in favor of DFID support for the CoE

but a commitment must come from DFID/London office of Gareth
Martin.
New Zealand government representatives stated that they would b e

willing to contribute to curriculum development, training of trainers and
as advisory committee members.
The Italian Development Cooperation representatives suggested the

linkages to Universities.
In our discussion with the WB, loans geothermal and/or grants could
include CoE training allocations. Additionally, the WB trust fund
approach was suggested giving the example of University of
Strathmores Kenya Climate Innovation Center (CIC), a new business
hub for Kenyan climate technology entrepreneurs. CIC received its
start-up financing from the WB trust fund and other donor agencies.
79 | P a g e
6.6.2.3 Private Sector, University & Other Support
Internships have been tentatively offered in USA, Iceland, Italy and New
Zealand geothermal related power companies, engineering companies,
etc.
UNU, IGA, GRC, and other training providers have also expressed an
interest in providing trainers.
Dedan Kimathi University of Technology from Kenya indicated that

they are interested in developing a partnership with the CoE and are
holding an MSc program in geothermal energy technology currently
in its second year.
University of Nairobi has also been identified as a potential partner,

in which GDC has held discussion on developing a certificate
program in partnership with the CoE.
6.6.3 Member-Country Fees & Donor Subsides
As a basis for sustainability, member subsides for participating countries shall be

established according to a countrys geothermal training needs and ability to pay (to be
determined by the SC). It is proposed that such subsides should be assessed in the
amount of a flat annual subsidy according to the level of the countrys geothermal
resource potential, energy plan and training needs. Our financial model proposed
subsidies in the near-term being provided by donors in the amount of $780,000 USD
annually, and in the 5th year increase to $975,000 USD annually for the 13 proposed
Member-Countries. This is the annual allotment basis on 13 Member-Countries, in which
countries with active geothermal developments will be allotted more than those in initial
development stages. This annual subsidy will entitle the Member-Country to develop a
CoE Geothermal Training Plan with the CoE Staff and consultants in order to specifically
address the training needs of the respective Member-Country, as well as receiving a
training fee reduction of 50% in the cost of tuition and 25% on laboratory and other
services. Non-Member-Countries will pay the full cost of tuition.
6.6.4 Training Fees
Based on experience from geothermal training programs implemented in New Zealand

and the UNU-GTP/Iceland program, the majority of students received scholarships or
were sponsored by the companies or agencies that employed them. It is therefore
expected that companies and sponsoring agencies will provide financing for CoE
students participation in both CoE core-courses, affiliate, and partner non-core-courses.
Additionally, CoE candidates who qualify may receive partial cost scholarships. The
scholarships may cover portions of the tuition, living and travel expenses in Kenya and a
return ticket to their respective countries. Scholarship financing will be solicited by the
CoE from the sponsoring country governments, various multi- and bi-lateral
donor/investment agencies, and private companies. As noted above, Member-Country
trainee candidates shall receive a 50% fee reduction of the total tuition, living and travel
expenses. The CoE scholarship fund, if deemed needed, can be used to cover the
remaining 50% of costs for students from Member-Countries.
80 | P a g e
6.6.5 Value-Added Fees: Consulting, Rental & Equipment
As a Center of Excellence for the region, there will be an opportunity to offer value-added
services from consulting and/or sharing of resource assessment instruments. As with the
PIC model described in Section 3.3, the CoE can make available and support advanced,
high cost, seismic equipment to the geothermal community at-large. Like GDC, the
instruments housed at the PIC were originally purchased via grants, with additional
support coming from several other interested agencies and industrial partners. T hese
instruments are available on a 1-week-to-1-year free loan basis to the seismology
community. The CoE could provide instruments and training, software and operational
support on an as needed basis by Member-Countries. CoE clients must cover the
fees/costs of fielding the instruments for a specific project, as well as the fees/costs of
reduction and analysis of the resulting data. Member-Countries would be provided these
fees/costs at a 25% discount.
6.6.6 Tax Levy or Tax Royalty
In the feasibility study questionnaires, it was recommended by the Tanzania Geothermal

Development Co. Ltd. Director General that training costs be covered through a levy on
geothermal companies based upon production of electrical power from geothermal
energy. This levy could be ear-marked for geothermal capacity building and could
therefore be used for tuition or other fees that shall be charged for courses conducted by
the CoE, as well as other professional consultancy services. As taxes involves high-level
political decisions, such a levy may be difficult to implement and would need to be pursued
on the national level.
In Section 6.10 of this study we recommend a Royalty Tax, outlined in our Sustainability
Model for CoEs mid-term years 6-10. Royalty revenues are considered ordinary income
and are taxed as such. To off-set the GoK capital and operational costs in running CoE,
the government could ear-mark for the CoE a portion of the Royalty Tax on the production
of geothermal energy. Given the projected production, such a tax would make the CoE
sustainable.
6.7 Quarterly Implementation Schedule: Near-Term (1-5

years) and Mid-Term (6-10 Years)
In Table 6.7 is a breakdown over the next ten years of the near-term and mid-term project roll
out on a quarterly basis, with each X representing a quarter. Section 6.8 provides a more
detailed explanation on the outputs listed below.
81 | P a g e
Table 6.7 Quarterly Implementation Schedule over Ten Years
Outputs Comments 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Preparation of detailed Implementation

CoE Implementation consulting team
Plan with Country- retained by GDC
specific for 2016 CoE to develop X XXX
Training Plans, and Implementation
expected 2017-20 Plan and CoE
scaling up plans Training Plans.
GDC retained
CoE Bi-Laws and legal implementation
X X
agreements teams legal
consultant
2 initial (2016)
plus 5 additional
Permanent staff hired XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
full time staff
members (2017)
Implementation
consulting team
CoE Curriculum and
with GDC, XX X X X X X X X X
training activities
KenGen and
affiliates
SC implementation
Review of above
plan, training plan,
conducted by XX X X X X X X X X
approval of staff hired
SC
& curriculum review
XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Materials preparation,
Per 5 year
local/expat instructors
implementation
hired, ST, MT, LT e-
plan, modified
Learning trainings,
as necessary
internships/attachments
In-country candidate Done by CoE

interviews & yearly CoE staff and/or X X X X X X X X X
trainee plan reviews consultants
CoE hosted at
GDC with
CoE site selected,
training facilities
furnished and/or XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
in existing GDC
equipped
and KenGen
facilities
GDC Lab
(commercial and
Lab training) XX XX XX XXXX
with ICEIDA
financing
Petrography Lab XX XX XXXX
Geophysics XX XX XXXX
Computer
XX XX XXXX
Support
Laboratory
accredited,
XXX X
assessment &
training
82 | P a g e
Equipment
lending
guidelines
established,
X
agreements
negotiated with
CoE member
countries
Drilling Simulator Based at GDC X
Based at
X
Power Plant Simulator KenGen
Purchase of 2 project One vehicle for
vehicles, insurance, student field XX X X X X X X X X
fuel, maintenance trips, one admin
LMS Setup and

LMS/e-Learning hosting costs; XXX X X X X X X X X
enhancements
Hosting services X X X X X X X X X
DMS Setup and
DMS hosting costs; XXX X
enhancements
Data Setup
Services to X X X
members
Hosting
X X X X X X X X
Services
Permanent site
GDC Site
selected, site plan,
selection. Site
architectural, structural,
plan prepared XXXX
roads, sewage, water,
by local general
etc. design completed,
contractor
permits obtained
Construction of
laboratories,
workshops, learning Local general
center, living space, contractor
XXXX XXXX
kitchen, dining room, supervised by
visitor demo center, CoE director
auxiliary support
buildings
Site Operations Utilities XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Communications XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Grounds XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Maintenance XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Dorms, Food
Service
ICT Service,
X X X X X X X X
Repair
Guided by
Direct use guidance & USAID based on
XX XXXX
demonstration center USAID direct
use studies
Done annually
External program
by outside X X X X X X X X X
evaluations
consultants
Consultants,
planning,
Miscellaneous procurement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
costs, admin,
local travel, etc.
83 | P a g e
6.8 Explanation of Items in the Above 10 Year
Implementation Schedule (Table 6.7)
Preparation of detailed CoE Implementation Plan and country-specific Member-

Country CoE Training Plans During the formation of the CoE, it is recommended that
GDC as host retain an implementation consulting team. The GDC retained
implementation consulting team will work with the Steering Committee to develop the CoE
Near-Term Implementation Plan (2016-2019). Member-Countries will work in
consultation with CoE consultants to develop their initial CoE Training Plan, and
anticipated plans up to the end of 2019.
CoE institutional framework as semi-independent entity of GDC with Bi-Laws .The

GDC retained implementation consulting team will provide legal counsel in developing the
CoEs Bi-Laws as well as contractual documents for hiring CoE trainers and MOU with
affiliates/partners. The UAC and UNEP will provide institutional support and backstop as
part of the Steering Committee in the formation of the CoE.
Permanent staff hired GDC retained implementation consulting team will help in the
hiring process of the CoE Managing Director and Curriculum Manager. In 2017, the full
CoE management staff will be hired.
CoE Curriculum and Training Activities Guided by the SC, the GDC retained
implementation consulting team will work with GDC, KenGen and UNU consultants to
develop the initial curriculum and pilot training activities as well as establish affiliated
partnerships for longer-term training, internships and academic degrees. (See Section 2
for details on the projected training make-up)
SC Training Plan and Curriculum Review Initially, the SC will review the GDC
retained implementation consulting team submitted CoE Near-Term Implementation Plan
and CoE Country Plans. Thereafter, scheduled annually, the SC will review the CoE
Directors proposed yearly curriculum and training activities.
Materials preparation, local/expat instructors hired, ST, MT, LT and e-Learning,

internships/attachments - Initially the retained implementation team of consultants will
provide CoE Implementation Plan and Training Plans, containing the proposed yearly
curriculum and training activities. These Plans will be reviewed yearly and modified as
necessary to fulfill the training plans and mission of the CoE.
In-country candidate interviews & yearly CoE trainee plan reviews The CoE staff
and their consultants will work with Member-Countries to update country CoE Training
Plans. Based on country-specific CoE Training Plans, trainee candidates shall be
proposed by host-country program managers, then interviewed by CoE Managing
Director or experienced consultant.
CoE site selected furnished and/or equipped In the near-term existing training
facilities shall be used at GDC as host, as well as at KenGen and any other existing
facilities. Additional office equipment/furniture and laboratory/workshop equipment shall
be purchased and installed, as needed.
Lab - Learning related laboratory/workshop equipment will be purchased and installed at

GDC (GeoChem, Petrography, Geophysics facilities); the laboratory facilities shall be
designed in compliance with ISO standards and laboratory accreditation, assessment &
training completed.
84 | P a g e
Lending equipment identified, lending guidelines established, agreements
negotiated with CoE Member-Countries It is recommended SC establish a
Laboratory and Equipment Technical Advisory Committee to provide guidance. It is
recommended that the implementation consulting team provide guidelines and
agreements for lending equipment and hiring GDC consultants, as needed.
Drilling Simulator AfDB has already purchased a drilling simulator for GDC for CoE
purposes valued at $1.5M USD.
Power Plant Simulator In Appendix 4 is a model simulator is proposed for placement

with KenGen (valued between $1.5- $2M USD).
Purchase of 2 project vehicles, insurance, fuel, maintenance One four wheel drive
Land Cruiser type, one mini-van for transporting students.
LMS e-Learning Management System setup, hosting costs and enhancements.
DMS Data-Management System setup, hosting costs and enhancements.
Permanent site selected, site plan, architectural, structural, roads, sewage, water,
etc., designs completed, permits obtained - It is proposed that in years 6-10, a fully
operational CoE facility is build and put into operation, guided by GDC and supervised by
CoE Director. According to GDC, a permanent site has already been proposed by the
GoK and land made available at GDC in Nakuru. This will require institutional
arrangements to be finalized, agreements signed, RFPs developed for preparation of a
site plan, infrastructure, building complex, etc., bids obtained, contractors/architect
selected, contracts signed, etc.
Construction of laboratories, workshops, learning center, living space, kitchen,

dining room, visitor demo center, auxiliary support buildings - As above, site
selection guided by GDC. Site plan prepared by general contractor supervised by CoE
Managing Director.
Site Operations - basic operations such as utilities, communications, grounds,

maintenance, dorms, food service, ICT service, repairs, etc.
Direct-use prefeasibility studies & demonstration center Direct-use prefeasibility

studies can be begun upon identification of projects and potentially interested
developers/investors.
External program evaluations - Done every 12 months, annually by outside consultants.
Misc. Additional consultants inputs for training, planning, procurement costs, admin,
local travel, etc.
6.9 Assumptions
GoK through GDC as host has the budget necessary to host office/workshop facilities
and provide ongoing support to undertake CoE training and laboratory analyses.
85 | P a g e
GDC will provide CoE support staff and training facilities, KenGen will provide
additional training facilities, and Member-Countries will provide additional training
facilities (as needed).
GDC, KenGen, Member-Countries, bilateral donor agencies and/or private companies

are able/willing to provide qualified instructors for training activities and/or laboratory
analyses.
Agreement is reached amongst SC and stakeholders on the feasibility, management

structure, location, schedule and activities to be carried out by the CoE.
GoK and other donors shall make their pledged contributions available on a timely
basis.
Member-Countries, bilateral donor agencies and private companies will pay training
fees.
Donors will provide financing for Member-Country annual 50% subsidized training
budget.
Member-Countries will work with the CoE team in developing country-specific CoE
Training Plans.
Member-Country governments and IPPs are supportive of their students to enroll in

both physical and online e-Learning programs in which their student candidates
express an interested.
GoK facilitates the importation of equipment purchased under the project and its
exemption from import duties.
Commercial production/provision of geothermal equipment shall not be considered as

a means of financial support for the CoE. However, provision of laboratory, equipment
and training services shall contribute to the financial sustainability of the CoE.
Donors are willing to coordinate with each others programs and provide financing
arrangements.
The GoK shall make the required logistical arrangements and make available the
required permits for contractors to carry out the construction work on the permanent
CoE facility according to schedule starting in year 6.
6.10 Sustainability
The CoE will require $16.5M USD during the first five years of operation ($5.3M CAPEX + $11.2M
OPEX). This expenditure will deliver an estimated 1,000 newly trained geothermal specialists
and technicians to support projected growth in Africas geothermal infrastructure. Below is a
Near-Term Scenario #1 and Mid-Term Funding Scenario #2. It is important to note that the
below scenarios are presented for illustrative purposes only. The actual sustainability plan will
vary based upon the goals and objectives outlined in forthcoming CoE Implementation Plan
established by the retained implementation consulting team, approved by the SC.
86 | P a g e
6.10.1 Near-Term Phase Funding Scenario #1: 1-5 Years
The following items in Figure 6.10 summarize Scenario #1s approach to CoE economic
sustainability based upon the funding and CoE framework outlined in this report. Scenario #1
assumes a combinations of funds from GoK (CAPEX and OPEX), donors (subsides, scholarships
and other OPEX donations), and income (course fees and equipment/service income). Please
refer to Appendix 11 for details with regard to this Scenario #1.
Near-Term Funding Sources

($16.5M USD)
GoK (CAPEX & OPEX) OPEX Contributions Course Scholarships
Course Income Membership Subsidies
Membership
Subsidies,
$3.3 , 20% GoK (CAPEX &
OPEX), $5.8 ,
35%
Course Income,
$3.9 , 23%
OPEX
Course Contributions,
Scholarships, $1.3 , 8%
$2.4 , 14%
Figure 6.10 Scenario 1: Near-Term 1-5 Year Funding Resources
Funds provided by GoK = $5.8M USD (CAPEX and OPEX required in the near-term).
This is a portion of the $17.1M USD that GoK has committed to make available for the
establishment of CoE. (The remaining $11.3M of the $17.1M USD contribution from the
GoK would be applied towards construction of the CoE facility and student lab planned
for mid-term phase).
CoE Member Subsidies = $3.3M USD averaging at $60,000 USD per country for 13
countries each year ($780K USD total per year), in which the subsidies increase in year
5 to $75,000 USD on average per country ($975K USD total per year).
CoE paying Member-Countries occupy 70% of all courses and non-paying Member-
Countries 30% of students.
Training Scholarships provided by Donors = ~$2.4M USD over 5-years
Operating Funds provided by Donors = ~$1.3M USD over 5-years
Member Training Cost Discount = 50% (Member-Countries only); Donor Training

Scholarships fund remaining 50% (on an as needed basis); income from the non-
subsidized student fees is projected at $2.2M USD over 5-years.
Non Member-Countries trainees do not get training discounts (except for CoE approved
hardship cases); income from non-subsidized student training is projected at $1.7M
USD over 5-years.
87 | P a g e
6.10.2 Mid-Term Funding Scenario #2: 6-10 Years
For the mid-term funding Scenario #2, it is assumed that CoE expenses could be covered by a
power production royalty assessed to each MWh of power produced by a geothermal project. If
this funding approach were used for the mid-term phase (beginning in program year 6), 100% of
all CoE capital and operating expenses could be covered by a royalty of $0.08 to $0.13 USD per
MWh using the following key assumptions:
$11.3M USD funding is available from GoK (balance remaining of $17.1M USD not
used during near-term phase).
Capital expenditures are funded by an interest free, ~$9M USD, 10-year loan. This
levels principal payments over multiple years making use of the royalty-financing vehicle
practical.
Geothermal power production levels estimated from the 2015 UNEP ARGeo Skills
Assessment report that indicates 3.643 GWe and 6.825 GWe for program years 2020
and 2025, respectively. An annual load factor of 0.8 was used to estimate annual
geothermal power production using these peak capacity values.
It is important to note that the above assumptions represent only one scenario that could be used
to accomplish the CoEs sustainability objectives. For example, an interest-free loan may not be
available a low interest loan, grant, or other combination of funding vehicle may be utilized.
When compared to current geothermal power purchase prices at $90 USD per MWh, the CoE
royalty payment ($0.08 to $0.13 USD per MWh) represents a very small enabling cost for this
resource to be utilized. The calculated royalty fee presented above is directly proportional to the
geothermal power production level estimates. For example, if the geothermal production is 50%
lower than forecast by the 2015 UNEP report, the royalty fee would need to double ($0.16 to
$0.26 USD per MWh). However even with this increase, the royalty fee is still proportionally small
compared to the power purchase price.
If Scenario #1 was used in the near-term phase (years 1-5) and transitioned to Approach #2 in
the beginning in the mid-term program phase (year 6-10), the CoE would operate as a self-
sustaining support vehicle.
Please note that both of the above options assume that $17.1M USD funds from GoK will be
available.
88 | P a g e
CoE Validation Workshop, Recommendations
and Conclusions & Next Steps
7.1 CoE Validation Workshop

The Validation Workshop on the Feasibility Study for establishing an Africa Geothermal CoE was
held at the UN Complex in Nairobi, Kenya on 12-13 August 2015. The workshop was hosted by
UNEP and co-organized by GoK, ICEIDA and AUC. The goal of the workshop was to provide
a collaborative platform for countries to contribute and discuss the vision of the CoE and foster
ownership and leadership among participating countries and donor partners in the establishment
and operations of the Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence. The workshop provided a venue
for stakeholders to: (i) review the skill audit and gap analysis of the region, conducted by UNEP,
which defined the needs and expectations of the region in terms of capacity building; (ii) review,
discuss and provide feedback on this feasibility study, conducted by Partnership International;
and (iii) allow participating donor agencies to express potential support of in establishing this
CoE.
The Validation Workshop was divided into 2 segments, each one day in duration. The workshop
consisted of:
Day 1: Country Representatives Meeting - August 12 Agenda

Day 2: Country and Donor (Joint Meeting) August 12 Agenda
During day 1, a total of 13 African countries with geothermal resources participated: Burundi,
Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Representatives of UNEP, AUC,
ICEIDA, NDF, UNU-GTP were also present. The details of the proposed CoE were presented.
Participants made concrete recommendations based on previous experience, need, and interest
in building human resource capacity for geothermal resource development. During Day 2 of the
Workshop, the revised feasibility study was presented with additional donor stakeholders
(ICEIDA, NDF, USAID/EAGP, AFD, EIB, DFID-EAGER, KfW, BGR, JICA, Italian Development
Bank and World Bank) and academia representatives. Approximately 80 participants attended
the two day Workshop. Participating countries and donor agencies gave their feedback and
provided several suggestions on the Feasibility Study, this included the following:
Day 1: It was decided that the Steering Committee of the CoE would be chaired
by the AUC and should also include representatives of UNEP, GDC, KenGen and
UNU. Additionally, it was recommended that two country-voting representatives sit
on the Steering Committee from countries other than Kenya. These positions
would be on a one-year rotational basis. During the meeting, the country
representatives elected Djibouti and Rwanda as the first two members of the
Steering Committee (one from a geothermal developing East African countries and
one from a resource potential country with active geothermal development
programs). The responsibilities of the SC members included assuring the CoE
(initially team of retained implementation consultants and later CoE Managing
Director and staff) work with individual countries to develop tailor-made training
programs.
Day 2: The AUC and UNEP agreed to provide administrative and coordination
assistance with support from other development partners to achieve the
89 | P a g e
establishment of the CoE. Specifically, the CoE will be hosted by the Kenyan
Government at GDC in Nakuru (under a directive of the Presidential Communique
under the Northern Corridor Integration Project, see Appendix 16) with satellite
campus at KenGen, Navisha. It was further decided that the support from
development partners and donor community is fundamental in ensuring the CoEs
sustainability, however, it should also charge training fees and develop creative
ways of generating revenue, such as equipment rental, consultancies and royalty
taxes, among others. It was also recommended that the private sector be part of
the governance structure, as part of the technical advisory committee and that the
legal status of the CoE be in place before funding is made. The Donor Agencies
also expressed their support and commitment for the creation of the CoE and
stated ways in which they foresee contributing towards its realization (see Section
6.6). Finally, the African countries voiced appreciation for the support provided by
development partners and the expectation that with such international support, the
Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence will successfully be established in the near
future.
Way Forward:
Based on the feedback from the Validation Workshop, the stakeholders confirmed
that there is an urgent need in establishing such a center in Kenya, and in order to
do so expediently, existing infrastructure should be utilized through in-kind support
for the Government of Kenya (hosted and based at GDC with a satellite campus
at KenGen) and other Member-Countries training facilities (as needed) should be
utilized. Towards this goal, development of CoE facility infrastructure was
postponed to year six to allow stakeholders to focus on providing for immediate
hands-on training needs and lab equipment, and therein develop a better
understand of the growing demand in the region and the country-specific capacity
building needs. In conclusion, the AUC, in coordination with UNEP, and with the
support from development partners will continue facilitating the institutional support
and backstopping that needs to be provided for the establishment of the CoE,
ensuring its overall success.
After completing the Validation Workshop, country representative and donor stakeholder
recommendations were incorporated into the final version of the Feasibility Report. Further
details on the Validation Workshop can be found in Appendix 15.
7.2 CoE Recommendations and Conclusions

This CoE Feasibility Study followed by the Validation Workshop confirms the urgent need and
the collective stakeholder support for establishing an Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence. In
developing this study, the PI team carried out a needs analysis review, and based on these
findings developed a targeted interdisciplinary curriculum framework with lab, equipment, and e-
Learning infrastructure to address the needs and support capacity building efforts in the region.
In addition, a governance, administration structure and financial model were proposed for
sustainability based on the CoEs proposed mission to facilitate and accelerate the development
needs. Below is a summary of the PI teams finding and recommendations for establishing a
sustainable Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence.
Section 1: Assessing the Need - Why is there a Need for an Africa Geothermal Center of
Excellence?
In Section 1, the PI team provided an analysis of the need for establishing an Africa geothermal
Center of Excellence. There were overwhelming arguments in favor of the development of the
center, such as:
90 | P a g e
East Africa region holds significant geothermal energy potential, generally estimated as
15-20 GW. Developing and operating these resources will require billions of dollars of
investment and several thousand trained geothermal professionals.
There are over 600 MWe of installed geothermal capacity in East Africa with an expected
3-fold increase to roughly 1700 MW of both public and privately installed capacity in East
Africa by 2022.
In 2010 the AUC conducted a survey to determine the geothermal human resource
needs/gaps existing in eleven East Africa countries. It was projected that from 2010-15,
458 additional staff (including geoscientists, engineers and drillers).
Also in 2010, an additional study was conducted by JICA, which estimated that 903
additional personnel would require training over the span of 10 years.
In 2015, ARGeo conducted a Gap Analysis to identify the needs and expectations of
thirteen African countries, looking at the 3 stages of geothermal development including:
Pre-feasibility - detailed survey and exploration drilling,

Feasibility - appraisal drilling, reservoir evaluation and feasibility study, and
Development - production drilling, well testing, detail design and construction.
According to the needs at each stage, it is expected that African countries would develop
about 10 GWe power from geothermal resources in the next 15 years and require 816
newly trained staff in 2015, 2943 in next 5 years (2015-20), up to 3915 by 2025, and up
to 4325 by 2030.
Also in 2015, IRENA carried out a study on the geothermal capacity building and the types
of expertise need. The study confirmed the various forms of specialized expertise
needed throughout the development stages, and in addition, stated a need for enabling
environment personnel involved in regulating, monitoring, supporting and advising
geothermal projects.
In 2014 and updated in 2015, USAID conducted a study titled the Multi-donor East Africa
Geothermal Strategy. Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda have
collectively allotted over $2.5B USD in donor financing for geothermal development to-
date. The study reveals that numerous donors are engaged in capacity building for
geothermal development but that there is a need for a more comprehensive approach by
developing a shared curriculum/approach to training.
An African-based CoE is further supported through PIs interviews and questionnaires

with national governments, regional and international donor agencies, private developers,
and technical advisors. Many stakeholders have expressed both a need and an interest
in supporting a CoE that can provide qualified African-based training in all aspects of
geothermal power generation and direct uses in a venue that enhances collaborative
synergies and further develops the regions geothermal potential and resources.
Based on the findings of the desk reviews, student and stakeholder questionnaires and interviews
with key national, regional, donor, and private sector stakeholder, the PI team confirmed that
there is a need for a CoE and proposed the following missions and objective to address the
reflected collective conditions under which such a center would be feasible:
91 | P a g e
The CoEs mission should be to facilitate and accelerate the development of
geothermal resources in Africa by serving both common and country-specific
capacity building needs. To carry out this mission, three objectives are proposed:
1) Development of curriculum and CoE Training Plans that can be

re-used and customized to satisfy regional and country-specific
needs;
2) Provide access to shared specialized equipment, facilities, and
technology; and
3) Facilitate stakeholder collaboration on data management and
knowledge sharing.
Having gone through the process of developing over 600 MW e of geothermal power, it has been
an expressed goal of the Government of Kenya to create a CoE facility that will help build capacity
in the region. During the Northern Corridor Integration Projects Presidential Summit in February
2014, there was an agreement between the regional Presidents in which the President of Kenya
committed to establishing an Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence in Kenya. The Kenya
presidential communique nominated GDC to host CoE with the goal to help fast track training for
geothermal experts in the region (see Appendix 16). This commitment by the Government of
Kenya is a significant pillar to the success of the CoE.
In the following sections we provided an overview of the framework for establishing a sustainable
Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence in Kenya with GDC as its host with a satellite campus at
KenGen, including the training, lab facilities, equipment and ITC infrastructure to address the
expressed needs for building human resource capacity in the geothermal sector in Africa.
Section 2: CoE Needed Curriculum Framework

In section 2, we address objective 1: development of curriculum and CoE Training Plans that can
be re-used and customized to satisfy regional and country-specific needs. The courses offered
by the CoE will be practically oriented with a strong interdisciplinary approach to ensure that
students receive a grounding in key geothermal-related topics. The CoE Staff will work closely
with Member-Country counterparts to develop demand-driven, tailored CoE Training Plans,
which will include:
1. Core-Courses based at GDCs CoE facility:
a. Short duration (1 to 2 weeks2 months at CoE).

b. Medium duration (2-4 months at CoE and affiliated institutions).
c. e-Learning (Blended Learning and on-demand online courses; supported
by a cloud-hosted e-Learning Management System).
2. Courses based at Partnership & Affiliates in which CoE recommends candidates

(UNU and universities programs), or provides placements (Internships):
a. Long duration (4 months, to 1 year at affiliated institutions).

b. Internships (regional/international with public and private sector
developers).
c. University linkages (giving certificate level accreditation towards bachelor
and advanced degree programs in geothermal energy as well as providing
a venue for master or doctorate level researchers).
d. Establishment of a Joint-Degree Diploma Course (with regard to Law, MBA
and other degree programs).
92 | P a g e
In anticipating the training needs in the near-term next five years, and the mid-term following five
years, we divide the training program for the proposed Center of Excellence into three types in
terms of program duration: 1) short-term (4 weeks), 2) medium-term (12 weeks), and 3) long-
term (24 weeks) with students studying at affiliates and partners institutions which includes UNU-
GTP, internships and universities. We have forecasted 1,000 students after first five years trained
within existing infrastructure as well as partners and affiliates and another 1,420 students in the
following five years at the new CoE Facility. This represent a significant increase compared to
the less than 100 per year presently trained; however, these numbers will be adjusted in
accordance with the findings of the country-specific CoE Training Plans.
Section 3: CoE: Needed Laboratory & Equipment Framework
In Section 3, we address objective 2: provide access to shared specialized equipment, facilities,

and technology. A major feature of the proposed Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence is a
state-of-the-art accredited laboratory facility designed to allow for both training purposes as well
as research and value-added analysis of field gathered samples and survey data.
With regard to laboratory training facilities, the laboratory budget for the first five years is half that
for the second five year. The budget is to accommodate for training within GDCs existing
facilities. During the mid-term following five years, the CoE facility is expected to be built, in which
the full training lab and workshops will be equipped, including: GeoChem Lab, Petrography Lab,
Geophysics Lab, and Computer/Software Support. Additionally, GDC will be acquiring a drilling
simulator for CoE training purposes. Likewise, it is recommended that KenGen house the power
plant simulator and carrying out CoE power plant related hands-on trainings.
As a Center of Excellence for the region, there will be an opportunity to offer value-added services
from consulting and/or sharing of resource assessment instruments. The CoE will serve as a
clearinghouse for rental of geophysical survey tools and geochemical sampling and field testing
equipment. This PIC model for equipment sharing has proven to be highly successful; it is
recommended GDC retain implementation team with legal counsel to prepare rental/consulting
agreements in this regard. The CoE Steering Committee should also set-up a Laboratory &
Equipment Technical Advisory Committee to provide guidance over these value-added services.
In addition, the CoE Training Plans should include trainings that assist Member-Countries in the
accreditation process in order to further develop capacity throughout the region.
Section 4: CoE Needed ICT Infrastructure for e-Learning, Data Management &
Collaboration Framework
In Section 4, we address objective 3: facilitate stakeholder collaboration on data management

and knowledge sharing. Given one of the primary CoE objectives is to accelerate development
of geothermal energy use in Africa, the proposed CoE ICT Framework will support this objective
by providing enabling integrated capabilities in four key areas: training, collaboration,
data/content management and sharing (including geoscience software applications). Both
student and stakeholder surveys highlighted the importance of the CoE providing e-Learning
training opportunities to support geothermal capacity building efforts. These e-Learning
opportunities allow for both building and maintaining (ongoing) a trained, skilled geothermal
workforce in CoE Member-Countries.
During the first five years, implementing and enabling use of e-Learning will be important to help
manage costs and support scaling of human resource capacity building efforts. This will involve
selecting e-Learning technology, system installation, instructor/student training, and online
course development. Collaboration capabilities present in the e-Learning can also be used to
93 | P a g e
establish an Experts Network that can be used b y students and instructors to provide access to
a global network of experts.
During the first five years, it will also be important to support the CoE's ability to offer Geothermal
Data Management courses -- a need that was identified in the survey work outlined in Section
1. This can be accomplished by installing a Geothermal Data Management System that can be
used "hands on" by students -- access to real world data from existing geothermal projects
uploaded to this system will deepen and enhance the learning experience. During this period,
developing courses and ongoing support for commonly used software applications in the
region such, as ARANZ Geo Limiteds Leapfrog modelling products, is recommended. This
centralized CoE support will help avoid duplication of efforts in each country and enable sharing
of best practices.
Over time (later in the near term first five years with increased use in the second mid -term five
years), use of e-Learning should be expanded to cover a larger number of courses to cost
effectively reach a larger number of students. As the Experts Network grows, integrating experts
into the learning experience and CoE domain expertise (e.g., virtual guest/expert lectures on
specific topics, responding to student questions, etc.) can be expected to increase. Integrating
the e-Learning and Data Management Systems (with actual project data uploaded) will allows a
deeper and more meaningful problem/example based learning experience to be offered. Should
the Data Management solution become adopted and used for commercial purposes by multiple
countries and market participants (e.g., a Geothermal Data Network working with existing AUC
and ARGeo networks), will facilitate access to shared geothermal content and data that in turn
will significantly enhance the CoE's ability to train/equip students and provide regional geothermal
domain expertise.
Section 5: Governance & Administrative Framework Needed for the CoE
At the Validation Workshop, it was agreed that the CoE, under the auspices of the Government
of Kenyan, be based at GDC in Nakuru with a satellite campus at KenGen at the Olkaria Office
in Naivasha. These locations are in close proximity of geothermal developments at Suswa,
Longonot, Akiira, Olkaria and Menengai. The Nakuru and Naivasha areas have easy travel
access by both road and air and have developed infrastructure. Additionally, both GDC and
KenGen have laboratories, equipment and experienced operators that can enable the CoE to
begin training quickly. Given this existing infrastructure and current and upcoming projects,
learning opportunities can be easily arranged related to all aspects of geothermal development
including exploration geoscience, drilling operations, reservoir management, optimization
studies, power plant O&M and direct use.
Towards the goal of establishing a CoE immediately, it is recommended that GDC as host retain
an implementation consulting team to conduct a Near-Term Implementation Plan (2016-2020)
along with CoE Member-Country Training Plans to assist in the setting up the operations and
training curriculum of the CoE. During the Validation Workshop, it was agreed that the AUC will
serve as founding Chair of the SC and will work collaboratively with GDC, KenGen, UNEP, other
African government agencies, training institutions, donors/lenders, private companies, host-
country, regional and overseas universities in carrying out the CoEs mission. In this regard,
AUC and UNEP should have a MOU agreement with the GDC, stating that they will continue to
facilitate the institutional support and backstopping that needs in its formative years to establish
the CoE, and will coordinate with other development partners for the overall success of this
Center of Excellence.
For overall sustainability it is recommended that the CoE be model after UNU-GTP in Iceland. In
doing so, the CoE should be a semi-independent educational entity hosted by GDC, governed
94 | P a g e
by a regional Steering Committee to serve as voting-members guided by the CoEs Bi-Laws. The
retained implementation teams legal counsel should establish the CoEs Bi-Laws, MOUs with
affiliates/universities and contractual arrangements for CoE core-course trainers, equipment
leasing, consultants, etc.
Once the CoE is operational, it will be managed by a small, fulltime staff. Trainers will be drawn,
as needed, from among professionals within GDC, KenGen, IPPs, local universities and experts
from the region. This regional collaboration will help also cr eate a resource of experts. Where
there are gaps, visiting lecturers from abroad will be invited to convene specialized courses.
During the PI teams interviews and Validation Workshop, several donor entities offered to
provide trainers (US Power Africa, JICA and New Zealand). In order to facilitate the Member-
Country needs, it is crucial that CoE work with affiliated partners for longer term training,
internships, e-Learning opportunities, and be linked to and accredited by universities approved
by the Steering Committee.
It is envisioned that the CoE shall merit the development of a campus facility after the initial 5
years of training; the detailed budget has already earmarked GoK financing for developing such
a campus at GDCs facilities in Nakuru.
Section 6: CoE Projected Cost/Budget
The proposed budget is based on the conceptual model was given at the end of Sections 2, 3
and 4. As outlined in Section 5, if deemed needed by the SC during the first five years of
operations, a CoE facility will be constructed in the mid-term phase (in which construction is
scheduled to begin in year 6 and be completed in year 7). As shown in the Figure 7.2.1, during
the first five years, $16.5M USD will be required to operate the CoE, including both capital
(CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX).
5-Year Budget by Category

($16.5 M USD) FACILITY,
$322,410 , 2%
PLAN, $1,971,766 , 12% STAFF,
$1,650,253 ,
TRAINING,
10%
$6,284,489 , PLAN
38%
STAFF
FACILITY
OTHER, ITC
$4,725,620 ,
OTHER
29%
LAB
TRAINING
ITC, $570,738 ,
LAB, $999,587 , 6% 3%
Figure 7.2.1 Near-Term 1-5 Year Budget by Category
Planning for the CoE facility begins in year 5 with construction beginning in year 6. By year 8,
the CoE facility will begin holding courses. As shown in Figure 7.2.1, the facility will require
95 | P a g e
$31.7M USD (includes both capital and operating expenses) to build the CoE facility/lab and
operate the CoE for years 6 to 10.
TRAINING,
$7,072,202 ,
Year 6 to 10 Budget by Category
22% ($31.7 M USD)
PLAN, STAFF,
LAB, $2,820,905 ,
$624,477 , 2%
$1,758,952 , 9%
6% PLAN
STAFF
FACILITY
FACILITY,
ITC
$17,686,477 ,
56% OTHER
LAB
OTHER, TRAINING
ITC, $621,941
$1,057,839 , , 2%
3%
Figure 7.2.2 Mid-Term 6-10 Year Budget by Category
A substantial portion of the CoE facilitys capital expenses is expected to be provided by the
Government of Kenya in the amount of $17.1M USD over the CoEs first ten years. A
sustainability financial model is explained in Section 6.10 of this report, addressing how these
GoK funds could be applied in the near-term ($5.8M USD) and mid-term ($11.3M USD). Other
near-term funding is expected from AfDB (simulators) and ICEIDA (laboratory). Additional startup
support funding is expected to come from GDC and income (training fees, donor subsides, and
equipment leasing fees), and multilateral, bilateral donor/lending agencies, as shown in Scenario
1 in Figure 7.2.3.
Scenerio 1:
Near-Term Funding Sources
($16.5M USD)
GoK (CAPEX & OPEX) OPEX Contributions Course Scholarships
Course Income Membership Subsidies
Membership
Subsidies, $3.3 GoK (CAPEX
, 20% & OPEX),
Course Income, $5.8 , 35%
$3.9 , 23% Course OPEX
Scholarships, Contributions,
$2.4 , 14% $1.3 , 8%
Figure 7.2.3 Scenario 1: Near-Term 1-5 Year Funding Resources
96 | P a g e
For the mid-term funding Scenario #2, it is assumed that CoE expenses could be covered by a
power production royalty assessed to each MWh of power produced by a geothermal project. If
this funding approach were used for the mid-term phase (beginning in program year 6), 100% of
all CoE capital and operating expenses could be covered by a royalty of $0.08 to $0.13 USD per
MWh. Please note that both of the above options assume that $17.1M USD funds from GoK will
be available.
7.3 CoE Next Steps

The outcomes of the Feasibility Study followed by the stakeholders Validation Workshop
confirmed an urgent need to establish a CoE in Kenya. Given the need to establish and launch
operation of the CoE as soon as possible, the PI team proposes the following steps be taken in
2016 by the Steering Committee through GDC as host:
Action Steps:
1) Dec 2015 Confirm the CoEs Mission and Objectives and overall Concept Model as
per the Feasibility Study and secure CoE start-up funding from GoK, GDC as host and
other immediately available donor funds.
2) Jan 2016 Retain implementation consulting team to:

a. Plan and begin carrying-out CoE Near-Term Implementation Plan (2016-2020) &
Member-Country CoE Training Plans.
b. Prepare CoE legal documents to form the CoE as a semi-autonomous educational
entity hosted by GDC governed by the SC, and prepare the CoEs governing Bi-
Laws as well as other legal agreements (trainers contracts, MOUs, equipment
rental/consultant agreements, etc.).
c. Assist the SC and GDC in hiring the CoE Managing Director (MD) and Curriculum
Manager (CM).
3) May 2016 Upon approval of SC, the implementation consulting team will assist the MD,
CM in working with GDC, KenGen, and UNU consultants to develop the needed curriculum
and training activities to address the CoE Training Plans, in order to begin implementation
of CoE training activities.
97 | P a g e
Appendices
98 | P a g e
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Meeting Notes
A. National Entities
Kenya - GDC
Peter Omenda and team
1. GDC believes its the appropriate host for the CoE as its strength is resource
exploration. It also has significant equipment/material and staff that can be used by
trainers.
2. Sustainability is the key issue to be addressed.
3. CoE should have lean staffing structure (manager and small administration). GDC can
be the host and can provide this staff.
4. Trainers can be regional and international.
5. 4-month certificate courses and 1-month attachments should be planned including those
companies and national labs that expressed interest at the recent GEA Summit in Reno.
6. GDC estimates it will cost about $12.7M USD for workshops, labs, teaching areas,
conference room, and computer lab.
7. GDC believes the best site for the CoE is Nakuru. They proposed that the CoE can be
located in Nakuru, next to Kabaranet University. A joint CoE/GDC complex is
envisioned. GDC can provide a part of the 100 acres as the CoE site. About US$3M
has already been earmarked by GDC for initial facilities.
8. No residence facilities are needed initially. Trainees can be housed in hotels in Nakuru.
9. Direct uses need to be included.
10. UNEP should play a role and be represented on the Board (steering committee).
11. The Northern Corridor project has training as part of the agreement and has support of
East African heads of state, with Kenya being the host of a Center of Excellence in
Geothermal.
12. University of Nairobi (UoN) is the most appropriate university to include as an affiliate to
the CoE. It is the oldest and the earth sciences well established over many years.
Kenyatta University is second. DeKUT has just introduced geothermal training at MSc
level only. GDC has had discussions with UoN regarding CoE accredited certificates
programs (4 months certificate hand-on practical training with enough theoretical to get
accredited).
13. GDC will submit a list of their presently-existing lab and other equipment along with their
questionnaire.
14. Key donors to be contacted as part of the CoE Feasibility Study include AfDB, UNEP,
UNU-GTP, AFD, WB, USAID, ICEIDA, NDF, JICA, KfW.
15. GDC can offer training in exploration, project management and drilling; GDC has
several 2000HP Drilling rigs which would support practical training in all aspects.
16. GDC preliminary design layout for Laboratories; undergoing ISO 17025 accreditation
process funded by ICEIDA.
17. The GoK has not yet committed funds to the CoE but it appears likely. We should
recommend GoK financial and in-kind support with the estimated total $17.1M USD as
the cost of developing a CoE.
18. The regional Presidents Summit under the Northern Corridor Integration Project
meetings in Feb and November identified and endorsed GDC as a host for CoE, (see
Appendix 16).
19. The Chinese should be contacted as potential financiers. GDC has not discussed CoE
with them.
20. AUC is a political organization but can assist in identifying financing sources.
21. Feasibility study should focus on sustainability of CoE and non-traditional sources of
financing.
22. UNEP should be on SC as well as 6 main UNEP ARGeo countries.
99 | P a g e
23. KES 300 M budgeted for short term developments of workshop and labs, master plan
process to commence after Feasibility Study in Oct 2015
Kenya - KenGen
John Karanja, Olkaria Operations Chief
Beatrice Soy, Human Resource & Admin Director
Sakwa, Sr Technical Assurance Engineer
1. Beatrice is HR and Administration Director and responsible for Trainings. She stated
that KenGen has always been interested in developing a CoE by upgrading its existing
Training center at Olkaria. Also, KenGen is able to provide its staff for training in all
aspects of Geothermal Developments, from resource to power plant management.
2. Beatrice Initially indicated KenGen would be best host for CoE but later thought that an
autonomous entity would perhaps be more suitable in which they could provide trainers
for fees.
3. KenGen has also been working with local universities to provide practical training for
students.
KenGen Olkaria Site:

Cyrus Karingithi, Ass Manager Resource Development
Moses Wekesa, Biz Dev Director
Abel Rotich, Geothermal Director
4. There is a brand new state-of-the art Administration building at Olkaria which is in its
final stages of completion. A part of this facility will be used for KenGen staff training.
Presently the Geochemical Lab and EIA Facilities at Olkaria are in the old building.
5. Close to this facility, there are several rows of housing for Olkaria staff. The fields are
in various location in a 30 mile or so radius.
6. The Spa Conference Center is a great public relations show for KenGen. Moses gave
an impressive overview of the accomplishments of KenGen to-date to the IRENA group
of International Geothermal experts. It was an impressive tour of their professionalism,
steam fields, business developments and power plants.
Kenya - Ministry of Energy

John Omenge, Chief Geologist
Barminas K. Murei, Chief Superintending Geologist
Paul Baraka, Sr Geophysicist
Joseph Ndogo, Senior Superintending Geologist
1. There are 2 existing CoEs that can be used as models: (a) Southern and Eastern Africa
Mineral Center (SEAMIC), based in Dar es Salaam, autonomous, has diplomatic
protection, operating many years, Kenya Ministry of Mining is a member; and (b)
Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD), located near
Safari Park in Nairobi Kenya, possibly self-sustaining.
2. Ed. institutions to be considered for collaboration with CoE include: polytechnics,
University of Nairobi, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology, Kisii University,
Southeast Technical University, Mount Kenya University, and Energy Center at Jomo
Kenyatta University (Prof. Mathu).
3. CoE should establish relationships directly with educational Institutions and not go
through Ministry of Education.
4. Kenya has a lot to teach the region on geothermal. Tanzania recently sent large geo
delegation to Kenya. Also South Sudan and Malawi.
5. Countries should participate financially, paying 50% of the cost of the training their
representatives receive.
100 | P a g e
6. Donors should provide financing into a single basket for the CoE.
7. John Omenge is responsible for geothermal budget for GoK and will propose a line item
for CoE each year.
8. CoE should be regional and autonomous, not attached to GDC or KenGen, but should
be able to draw human and material resources from both.
9. CoE should be located close to existing geo resources i.e. Olkaria or Menengai.
Naivasha is an attractive site for CoE.
10. MoE will be happy to comment on the draft FS if submitted to them. Report can be
submitted to MoE and GDC simultaneously.
Kenya Ministry of Education

Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET)
Peris Matioli, Deputy Director
Zachary Ooko, Principle Tech Ed Officer
Dr. Kipkirui Langat, Dir. Gen/CEO
1. Centers of Excellence exist in Kenya at: University of Nairobi CoE for Medicine, and Rift
Valley Technical Training Institute, Eldoret.
2. 78 training institutes in Kenya. 54 are operational, remainder being built.
3. 4 classrooms, 2 workshops cost 5M shillings ($51,400 USD) for construction only.
4. TVET can work in partnership with the CoE to provide space initially that will facilitate
training of TVET graduates. For example, the Rift Valley Institute for Science and
Technology, Nakuru, or the Tech Institute being built at Longonot town can provide
space with the CoE. It will be commissioned by end this year.
5. Tech schools offer 3 year Diplomas and 2 year Certificates.
6. 290 constituencies in Kenya, 47 counties.
7. 3 years ago 9 counties had no tech training institutes. Now all have at least 1 training
institute. Total 76 training institutes total. Average 800 students/institute. Some over
2,000.
8. Additionally many private training institutes exist that follow government education
guidelines.
9. GoK political will is there for CoE. 80% of planned 5,000 MW by 2030 to come from
geothermal.
10. GoK Treasury could set aside funds for CoE.
11. CoE should plan to be accredited.
12. DG says autonomous infrastructure will be needed eventually. Recommends Nakuru
area.
13. Initially CoE can be housed at Longonot TVET training institute.
14. CoE should plan big but start small.
15. TVET will have to approve CoE curriculum.
16. In business curriculum, women equal to men. In tech areas, women are usually 10%.
17. CoE training should be demand driven. What does industry need? CoE management
needs to define skills needed.
18. Threats should be included in our FS.
19. PI FS team should review Vision 2030, Energy Master Plan, and Climate Change
Action Plan. Also map of geo resource locations from GDC.
20. TVET will help with location planning of CoE in future. Nakuru is best area. Longonot
also a possibility.
21. Skills audits should be required of CoE trainees.
101 | P a g e
Ethiopia - Ministry of Water Irrigation and Energy
Sahele Tamiru Fekede (IRENA event)
1. From 1970-90s Ethiopia has undergone surface investigations, temperature-gradient

wells and test drilling in selected sites were conducted.
2. The first pilot plant was Aluto Langano in 1998 (7.2 MW), and the expansion of the Aluto
Langano site begun in 2010, in which 70 MW is expected by 2018 financing is from
GoE, GoJ, WB, SREP, ICEIDA
3. Corbetti, Tulu Moye and Abaya sites are licensed for exploration by a private firm.
4. Geothermal project presently being undertaken:
- Aluto Langano geothermal expansion 70 MW (expected in 2018 with financing
from GoE, GoJ, WB, SREP, ICEIDA)
- Tendaho Alalobeda 1st phase 25 MW (expected in 2017 with financing from GoE,
WB, ICEIDA
- Tendaho Dubti shallow reservoir 12 MW (expected in 2018 with financing from
GoE, AFD, EU ITF
- Corbetti Geothermal Power 1st phase 500 MW (expected in 2018). Private
developer - PPA signed with Reykjavik Geothermal in which detailed PPA
negotiations are ongoing as a candidate under Power Africa initiative (USA)
5. Geothermal technical assistance in Ethiopia is being provided by JICA, USAID/Power
Africa, UNEP ARGeo, and GRMF.
6. Geothermal potential in Ethiopia is 4,200 MW 11,000 MW
7. Geothermal in the long term power development goal is 2,500 MW by 2030, 5,000 MW
by 2037 (comprising 30% of energy generated in the grid) with expected 40,000 GWh
and capital cost 4,000,000 $/MW costing $20B billion USD over the next 25 years.
8. There is need for professional skills (scientific, technical, commercial, legal)
Ethiopia Geothermal Survey of Ethiopia - Geothermal Directorate

Soloman Kebede Haile
1. HR Capacity building is the most important, followed by access to geothermal resource

information.
2. Ethiopia has geophysical, geochemical, and 3-D modeling software; no need for such
tools at CoE;
3. Internet access is low speed in Ethiopia, not reliable.
4. The CoE financing should come from host countries, donors, trainee fees, and potential
consulting/service fees
Dijbouti - Sec. General of Ministry of Energy

Aboubakar Doualeh
1. Geothermal is critical for Djibouti. 40 MW imported from Ethiopia is uncertain and

sometimes decreases to 20 MW.
2. FIT for geo is planned.
3. Previous 6 wells drilled at Assal were expensive. People skeptical.
4. Port needs 3,500MW in 3 years, new port being built, train needs 70-80 MW, and
Geothermal is the solution.
5. ODDEG is under the Presidents office.
6. Wanted Ormat to come but Ormat didnt show up.
7. Chinese will build a coal-fired power plant if no geothermal solution is found.
8. GROD will send techs to Kenya for CoE training.
9. Univ. of Djibouti has geothermal specialization.
10. 8 engineers going to China for 2 months geothermal training. 3 people going to Iceland
for 6 months UNUGTP training.
11. ODDEG is point of contact for the CoE.
102 | P a g e
12. CoE could be autonomous or connected to other institutions.
Djibouti - CERD
Dr. Awaleh, Geochemist
1. CERD has done geology, geochemistry and geophysics studies at Lac Abaye, Ghoubet,
and Obock sites. Thermal baths could be arranged at Obock.
2. 1999 Djibouti started distance learning Universit de Djibouti. University became
substantive in 2008.
3. Trained people are needed. No question about employing them.
4. Trainee selection process must be transparent. Exams should be administered to select
trainees so no suspicion of favoritism.
5. The GROD can obtain financing from bilateral donors to train Djiboutians at the CoE.
Part of an AFDB resilience fund could be used now for this purpose.
6. Dr. Awaleh will send geochem equipment list and European agency that provides
chemical accreditation.
Djibouti - ODDEG
Hamoud Cheikh, Chef de Service of Planning, Development and EIA,
Hassan Mohammed Magareh, Geophysicist, Interim Director
Djibouti - Abdoulkader Khaireh Allaleh, Planning Director
1. Language will be a problem. Translation to French will be required.

2. Complaints were made about USAID program that it concentrated solely on transaction
support with no training.
3. Concession rights at Fiale, including Assal 5, are closed for the WB project.
4. ODDEG is receiving a refurbished 40 ton drill rig and consumables in Sept. from Turkey
that can go to 900m for 2-3 wells. Can be used at Assal to test the shallow resource.
5. ODDEG will complete their CoE questionnaire ASAP.
Djibouti - CERD
Jalludin Mohammed, Director
1. CERD is under the Ministry of Higher Education.

2. CoE should be decentralized and make use of geo equipment and personnel throughout
the region.
3. CERD has excellent organic chemistry lab facilities.
4. The CoE should include a scientific advisory council to advice on technical training
matters.
5. GDC should be the host agency.
6. CERD has done 3 geo prefeasibility studies between 2009 and now at Lac Abaye,
Ghoubet, and Obock sites and can do similar studies under the CoE in other countries.
7. Djibouti will soon have a climate change laboratory under IGGAD. See the Ecosummit
website for additional information.
8. The University of Djibouti has approximately 7,000 students. Graduates approx.
1,000/year. The engineering school has been established in collaboration with Turkey.
9. The U. of Djibouti started with online courses. But they were stopped due to the
expense of using them and interaction with instructors was missing.
10. The CoE needs to be able to provide practical training in an academic/educational
framework.
11. CERD will respond to a recent RFP from Rwanda for g eoscientific services.
12. Jalludin will send us CERDs equipment list and personnel needs and will complete the
questionnaire.
103 | P a g e
Tanzania - Ministry of Energy and Minerals - Renewable Energy Commission
Mr. Jacob William Mayalla
1. Electricity, Petroleum, Gas and Renewable Energies are under MoEM

2. Geothermal explorations started in 1976, however there has been more activity recently
(2006-09). BGR has been actively exploring.
3. From 2010-12 the GoT formed a Geo Task Force.
4. Have already sent trainees to Naivasha to get trained by GDC in which they paid fees =
$2,000 USD along with travel and stipends.
5. They have completed trainings for 8 in Geoscience, 1 Enviro, 1 Social, and 5 Electrical
and Rig/Drilling
6. Support the idea of a GoE feel it would be very useful.
Tanzania - Geothermal Development Co. Ltd.

Boniface S. Njombe Managing Director
1. In July 2014, T-GDC was formed under Tanesco to undertake Geothermal Development
in the country.
2. Presently T-GDC is in formative year and ICEIDA is providing pre-feasibility and training
3. In Oct 2015 there will be General elections in Tanzania, and GoT is in the process of
writing Geothermal Law, so unlikely that much developments will happen until late 2016.
4. Presently conducing resource assessments and trainings with JICA and BGR
5. EAGER providing legal and regulatory support
6. Supports the idea of a CoE, but need representation of Member-Countries needs to
have rotating board so it is not sovereign. Ex: AUC, EAU.
7. Have signed MOU with the Kenya-GDC as well as University of Dar es Salaam for
trainings
Rwanda - Energy, Water, and Sanitation Authority (EWSA)

Ms. Uwera Rutagarama
1. There is a need for HR Capacity Building and Geo Resource Information, followed by
the need for Project Financing, Geoscientific Equipment and Legal, Regulatory and
Environmental policy development
2. Rwanda is still at an early stage of exploration however, the lessons learned from
exploration in this part of the rift (western branch) can be shared with geothermal
institutions/companies in the region. Technical data and reports on geoscientific surveys
and drilling are available. A Geothermal master plan exists and a draft on geothermal
policy for private sector participation is being finalized. A draft of geothermal law is
available. Papers presented in different regional and international forums are available.
3. The organization can participate in providing instructors to share on site Rwandas
experience in geothermal development. Energy Development Corporation Limited
(EDCL) have trained most of its staff and should be able to provide professionals
(geophysicists, geochemists and geologists) on site to work with other countries in the
region for the exploration of their geothermal resources.
4. Rwanda will really benefit from this CoE for future geothermal training. EDCL has not
organized any training in the past but has beneficiated in capacity building from
geothermal training institutions.
5. Presently, EDCL do not have experience with online distance learning
104 | P a g e
6. I believe that geological and geochemical laboratory equipment for exploration should be
available and based in the CoE. The software for data analysis and interpretation are
equally needed and it will be good if they can be assessed remotely in case the CoE could
not provide licenses to countries.
7. The CoE should be a campus with library, dormitories, kitchen, class and computer
rooms, laboratory, library, and recreation areas. However, while waiting for the
construction of the CoE, GDC and KenGen may avail rooms and laboratory in their
respective buildings for classes to start.
8. No financing has been made up to now but this may be discussed with countries in the
region.
9. I would propose that a meeting be organized on this purpose by ARGeo since it is the
umbrella for African countries involved in geothermal. All those countries shall all be
involved in this project
10. In my opinion the factors that can affect the sustainability of the CoE are:
Lack of funds; Funds are required throughout the project. For this reason,
mechanisms must be put in place to assure funding of the CoE. Donors, ARGeo
countries and private developers should all be involved in financing the CoE. Later,
the CoE shall charge a fee for any services (laboratory analysis, data analysis and
interpretation, etc) to be provided to public and private companies.
Lack of ownership of the project: If countries feel that this project is meant for Kenya
only, they will not be involved. I therefore recommend that representatives of all
ARGeo countries be part of the establishment of this CoE in order to own this project
Poor training program: The training program should correspond to the need within
the region and should be flexible
11. Performance review once a year by the board of Directors which should comprise
representatives of ARGeo countries. This should be measured by the number of people
trained and the level of geothermal exploration and development in each country
12. The yearly short course in Kenya and the geothermal training in Iceland are successful
program. Those programs give an insight on geothermal in general but also in different
fields of geothermal expertise. However, training on project and contract management is
missing. For the CoE, I will suggest similar training but with an emphasis on practical
sessions (field work) but also project and contract management. Training on project
financing is also needed.
Uganda - Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development -

Vincent Kato
13. There is a need for HR Capacity Building, followed by the need for Project Financing,
Geoscientific Equipment and Legal, Regulatory and Environmental policy development
14. Also, database management is needed there is a lot of data available but not
organized in an accessible way.
15. There is also a need for a standalone Institution to drive geothermal development, to
provide Information and awareness.
16. Software needed: Leapfrog, WATCH, SOLVEQ, OASIS MONTAJ, MS Project, ARC
GIS,
17. Lab equipment needed: Ion Chromatography, AAS, ICP-OES, Gas chromatography, LI-
COL Gas analyzer, Portable XRF, portable XRD, Hg Meter, Hydrogen Sulphide Meter,
GNSS, Magnetometer, Gravity Meter, MT, TEM Micro-seismic, DC Resistivity meter,
portable soil flux meter, Digital 2 k-type Thermocouple Thermometer, ORSAT, Multi-
parameter meter
18. Have geoscientific reports, documents, maps, laboratory data, photos
105 | P a g e
19. Have undergone hands on training in field every three months, this is on-the-job
training; also we have had training seminars and workshops Geothermal science,
exploration methods, health and safety, environment, mapping; Geological Survey
Department Entebbe, 50 participants.
20. Can contribute about USD 10,000, training allowances, FY 2016/17
21. Recommended that CoE income generating programs, like consultancy. Needs
government buy-in as well as donor financing.
106 | P a g e
B. Regional Agencies
ARGeo UNEP
Meseret Teklemariam, Project Manager
Moses Mbego
1. UNEP-ARGeo provides technical assistance and some financial support to help

encourage both Private and Public developers to accelerate development of geothermal
resource in the East Africa Region.
2. Phase I, targets Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania where they have
signed MOUs to jointly implement action plan of geothermal activities.
3. Phase II will increase to 13 total countries.
4. ARGeo launched a database of information on resources to help increase collaboration.
5. ARGeo has carried out a few donor-funded short course trainings in the region.
6. ARGeo provides Technical Assistance for surface exploration studies at Silali/Kenya
Tendaho/Ethiopia Geothermal Prospect and has proposals under review for Rwanda
and Tanzania.
7. ARGeo has been carrying out a country-specific geothermal skill Gap Analysis for the
CoE to be presented at the Validation Workshop
8. CoE should be based in Kenya but have regional focus.
We should prepare criteria and duties of Board of Trustee members. Number of
Board members should be limited (2 from each Member-Country, selected by the
countries). Auxiliary committees should be considered.
Should have a goal (what do countries have, what do countries need), the goal will
lead us to a structure and implementation plan.
Need to be a solution provider.
Should have phased startup.
UNEP is doing a skill gap analysis which should be used in the FS, available July,
the CoE should address the gaps.
Include mix of training durations and types. Define training needs, outputs, then
back into training processes/components.
For planning/budgetary purposes, we should assume no instruments/equipment
exists in Kenya. Then deduct as we learn what exists and is available for CoE use.
Potential roles for UNEP in the CoE can be gleaned from the ARGeo 2014 highlights
report which Meseret will send us.
AUC can lobby for rules and general procedures for operation of the CoE that each
country can sign.
African Union Commission

Philippe Niyongabo, Head of Division, Infrastructure and Energy Department
Rashid Ali Abdallah, Energy Expert
1. AUC runs the Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility (GRMF) comprising 30m Euro from
European Investment Trust 20m Euro from Germany (BMZ) and 47m Pounds from
DFID and $.5M USD from the AUC, used to help mitigate the risk of geothermal
investments by:
Infrastructure grants: Up to 20% of the costs for infrastructure for surface studies
drilling programs (access roads, water, power)
Surface studies grants: Up to 80% of the costs (excluding infrastructure costs)
Drilling grants: Up to 40% of the costs for the exploration drilling and testing
program for reservoir confirmation wells (excluding infrastructure costs)
107 | P a g e
Continuation Premium: Up to 30% of the developers share for the drilling and
testing program in case developers wish to continue with project (depending on
the availability of funds).
2. AUC can provide CoE with political support, mobilize funds for sponsorship, and
mobilize funds for establishment.
3. CoE should be hosted by regional political institution such as AUC, Comesa, EAPP and
managed in collaboration with professional institution such as UNU, other East Africa
university and operated in partnership with GDC and KenGen
4. CoE should be non-sovereign, manage by professional institution (UNU as example).
5. CoE should be linked with international institution (UNEP, UNU, AUC, GEF) for long
term relationship.
6. Position CoE as international institution and accept international student with fees.
7. Some countries may not able to pay for their student to attend the training, i.e.
Scholarship should be available.
AfDB
Gabriel Negatu RRC Director
Solomon Asfaw Kenya
Babu Ram Tanzania
1. AfDB has provided loans of up $140M USD for training, drilling, construction and
consumables
2. Support IPP developments e.g. Agil, Akiira, Ormat and Sosian
3. Provided $17M USD grants via the Climate Investment Fund for SERP scaling up of
renewable energy in low income countries
4. Purchased drilling simulator at $1.8M USD for CoE-use for GDC for trainings
5. Provided $1.5M USD for training of GDC staff.
6. CoE should be modeled after other regional programs, such as the East Africa Power
Pool, where chairs are from each country.
7. In Tanzania, AfDB is providing technical support for policy development and capacity
building of the newly formed Tanzanias GDC through the Scaling Up Renewable
Energy Program (SREP). Up to $25M USD is available for subsurface studies and
exploration drilling to leverage JICA and BGR surface and subsurface work. An
additional $30M USD will be reserved for financing geothermal projects in the future.
8. AfDB feels that GDC would be a good location (although maintaining autonomy of
ownership by region); expressed an interest in support of the CoE and looks forward to
the outcome of the study.
108 | P a g e
C. Donor Agencies
KfW
Martin Schubert
Olive Muthoni
Wesly Urena Vargas
1. Olive is a relatively new energy project officer. Martin Schubert and Wesly Urena
Vargas (Geothermal Expert at KfW) prepared their questionnaire.
2. Martin provides guidance for overall funding mechanisms, while Wesly is the
geothermal expert who understands the geothermal needs. KfW believes that a CoE is
needed in the region and should be set up in Kenya.
3. Martin feels the CoE should provide a link between CoE, Investors and Project
Developers
4. Recommended that the CoE have grant funding to co-finance scholarships.
5. Olive gave overview of KfW Kenya; KfW comes in at early stages of geo development;
they are presently lending (15+ year loan) 80M to GDC for 15 years to drill 20
exploration and appraisal wells at Bogoria-Silali towards producing 200 MW of steam,
construct water supply systems and engage transaction advisor consultants. No
training is included in this financing.
6. KfW has another 17.3M program for training of which 2M of this total is from the GoK.
GDC has good personnel but is a young organization, and therefore low on learning
curve.
7. Godwin Mawongo is acting GDC CEO. Caleb Indiatsi is the KFW contact at GDC.
8. GDC not presently doing seismic monitoring. It should be done, as many loans need
this as part of the approval process. If it has not been done, a loan cannot be approved.
9. KenGen is exploring drilling-related Public Private Partnerships (PPPs).
10. Olive could not respond re. potential KfW financial support for the CoE but KfW supports
it in principle and would like to be included in the Validation Workshop
11. In principle, Olive believes that GDC would be a good host for the CoE as they have
goodwill from Government and Financiers, trained people and facilities. KenGen is
managed efficiently, but is a partly privately owned company. Kenya in general is a
good venue for a CoE.
12. Olive was not sure about grant possibilities from KfW. Wesly would need to respond.
13. Bilaterally, for the government of Germany, energy is not a priority. Priorities include
water, health, agriculture
14. DEG is the private sector arm of KfW, working with Private Sector Geothermal
Developers.
15. Olive believes that virtual training would be an important aspect of the CoE, including
post graduate programs.
16. Wesley recommended that whereas GDC could provide lab analysis and training;
KenGen could provide SEIA analysis and training.
European Investment Bank

Kurt Simonsen, Regional Representative
Kiragu Mugwe, Energy Sector Engineer
1. Energy and finance are main elements of their program totaling about 400M, especially
renewable energy.
2. EIB can lend to government and government agencies with good balance sheets. EIB
can lend to GoK, which then on lends (or grants) to KenGen. EIB can give direct loan to
GDC, as they are 100% government owned.
109 | P a g e
3. Have been involved since the 80s in geo at Olkaria. Now Olkaria I extension and
Olkaria IV (119M). Remaining funds from previous loan to be used possibly for Olkaria
I Unite 6. We are also looking at Olkaria VI (as a PPP).
4. Considering financing for Akiira in Kenya, Corbetti in Ethiopia and Rwanda. Have
priority in Renewable Energy.
5. Standalone grants not available. Only in conjunction with loans. Grant funds can be
applied for from European bilaterals. For example, 27M was planned as grant to GDC
via a loan subsidy to the GoK (which earmarked this money to GDC). The grant
subsidy was an instrument implemented through the EU Infrastructure Trust Fund.
6. EIB knows Amanda Lonsdale and suggested we work with her on various donor
interests that could be helpful to CoE, especially JICA and DFID.
7. CoE should be E. Africa regional in focus. Endeavor to balance E. Africa country
participation and overcome hesitancies
8. It is good that GDC is driving the CoE concept.
9. CoE should have link to Kenyan universities.
10. Should talk to East Africa Community (EAC), based in Arusha. Kurt feels they would be
strongly supportive and could help sustainability. EAC includes 5 countries, is well
developed, has good policies, and is a good model of regional collaboration. East Africa
Power Pool is also a good sustainable model for collaboration between countries.
11. Talk to JICA and DFID. DFID has a lot of money for energy projects.
12. EU has grant money and strong interest in geothermal in the EA region.
13. Realistic to ask for 10-year commitment from donor agencies and host country
governments to ensure sustainability. Challenge will be sustainability after 10 years.
14. Believes private sector will continue to increase participation in geo development in the
region.
15. Tanzania focused on natural gas. Little interest in geothermal. Not familiar with GPT
situation.
16. Uganda focused on hydro. Little interest in geothermal.
17. Rwanda interested in many energy sources including geothermal.
18. Like CoE concept to develop geothermal sector. Felt that KenGen is excellent client of
EIB and could be good trainers for CoE.
19. CoE training must be connected to jobs.
USAID
Hans Jaoko
William Madera
1. Djibouti recently passed an IPP law.

2. Tanzania has formed its GDC, but no advancements so far. General elections are
forthcoming this year.
3. Rwanda have reduced enthusiasm at higher levels due to the recent poor results from
their 2 exploration wells.
4. Uganda is planning to withdraw all geothermal concessions because of inactivity by the
holders.
5. USAID gives Technical Assistance but not grants. USAID, via EAGP, can support CoE
curriculum development, provide experts, finance OJT, IT/Virtual Trainings and staff
exchanges.
6. Autonomous CoE would be best. Also possibly decentralized.
110 | P a g e
USEA EAGP
Andrew Palmateer
1. HR capacity building and geothermal resource information are the two greatest needs in
the region, followed by the need for geothermal equipment.
2. EAGP has developed several training courses targeted at capacity building in the
region. We can contribute curriculum, sponsor instructors for on-site training, and
sponsor East African trainees for travel to training programs outside the region.
3. Topics have included: Geothermal Geology and Geochemistry; Geothermal
Geophysics; Environmental Policy; Drilling Engineering; Geothermal Project
Management; Reservoir Engineering and Field Operations; Plant Design, Construction,
Management and Transmission Considerations; PPA Policies and Considerations; and
Data Management Best Practices.
4. These trainings have included participants from Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Tanzania,
Rwanda, Uganda, Comoros, Zambia, Mozambique, Eritrea, Malawi, Burundi, and
Democratic Republic of Congo. The majority of our trainings have taken place in
Kenya, Ethiopia, and Tanzania.
5. EAGP can sponsor delegate travel for trainings at the CoE as well as instructor travel
and honorariums.
6. We have not been involved with online distance learning.
7. We will be providing regular bimonthly or quarterly updates on major developments in
geothermal in East Africa on an ongoing basis. We are happy to include CoE news and
information in these updates. We can also include any relevant tenders in our weekly
tender newsletters.
8. We are told repeatedly that Leapfrog is a need for most geothermal organizations in
East Africa along with GIS modeling training, ArcGIS, etc. These programs do require a
software license, but there are many options for free/open source software that serve
this purpose.
9. It is important for the administrative offices to be in a centralized location that is always
staffed. Classrooms and computer labs that a variety of trainings can be held in should
also be a top priority. If the CoE is planning on having longer trainings (more than 1
week in length) then dormitories and kitchen facilities would be useful, however if the
focus is going to be on 1 week or shorter trainings these wouldnt be as important as
long as there are hotels nearby.
10. Both donor funds and charges to country participants should be considered. It is not
feasible to rely solely upon donor financial support for the long term. If donor support is
strong in the beginning, there should still be a nominal charge to institutions for sending
participants to trainings to establish this as practice and to build a solid financial base for
the CoE.
11. Programs should be evaluated on a yearly basis by a panel of international industry
experts.
12. Gender inequality is one of the biggest problems in geothermal, especially in East
African countries outside of Kenya. It may be beneficial to offer an incentive for
institutions to send women to trainings, such as allowing two women to attend a training
but only charging one registration fee.
Power Africa
Amanda Lonsdale
1. In 2014, Amanda completed a study on the activities of donors in the Geothermal Sector
of East Africa. The title of the study is: Multi-Donor Strategy for Geothermal
Development in East Africa.
2. She was presently carrying-out an update (every 6 months) on the study
111 | P a g e
3. The study focuses on six countriesDjibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and
Ugandathe existing opportunities (i.e., transactions) in each country, as well as the
additional assistance needed to encourage more private sector investment in
geothermal developments.
4. She suggested that the CoE Draft Report states how it can solve problems for donors
so that donors can see a benefit from giving financing to the Center. Donors will want to
see how they fit, and what value it brings to their giving.
5. Budget should be CAPEX vs OPEX, so the donor can see the dollar value of the
training. Recommended renting space first, as donors will want to see value of such as
Center before investing in brick and mortar.
Power Africa Nexant Transaction Advisor

Stephen Meyer
1. Nexant is hired under a Power Africa contract to provide Transaction Advisory Service
in the Energy Sector to help bring MW online
2. Stephen is responsible for Kenya. He assists companies seeking to advance IPP
projects in the energy sector. He assists in power projects that are in an advanced
stage of development to overcome hurdles that are delaying or preventing their projects
from achieving financial closing. This may involve working with off-takers, financing
parties, developers, lawyers, advisers or other parties.
3. Technical advisory may include things such as EPC contracts, financing agreements,
fuel supply agreements, PPAs, transmission & wheeling agreements, environmental
permits.
4. In Ethiopia, Ned Girma is assisting the Corbetti Geothermal with the drafting of a PPA.
USAID Djibouti
Nasser Djama Abdi
1. USAID is working with GROD to prepare a geothermal law.

2. The WB Assal project is not advancing.
3. Private sector can generate power but EdD still controls transmission, distribution and
electricity prices.
4. Recently announcement was made on TV that a Moroccan company was given
geothermal concession rights at the Assal area.
5. USAID will support the CoE.
6. USAID can finance 2 people to participate in the Newberry drilling training offered by
AltaRocks Susan Petty. Nasser suggests one person from CERD, one from ODDEG.
US Department of Energy
Blair Pasalic
1. DoE is very interested in the Data Management and feels it can eventually play a role in
providing financing and technical assistance in this regard.
2. DoE would also be interested in facilitating the US University links to the CoE
3. DoE could play a role in course development at the CoE.
112 | P a g e
JICA
Naoya Kuboshima, Geothermal Development Promotion Advisor
Minori Chitani, Regional Representative
1. JICA financed part ($30M USD) of Olkaria I, units 4 and 5 (total 140 MW) with KenGen.
Also provided TA to GDC.
2. Considering additional loan to KenGen for Olkaria V (140MW). An appraisal team is
coming next month to consider possible $350M USD loan.
3. Loan funds remaining from Olkaria I, units 4 and 5, may be used for Olkaria I unit 6.
4. JICA has focused on drilling training for GDC at Menengai and provided 4-months
worth. Petro Canada drilling training given to KenGen drilling staff previously is their
model.
5. CoE fee structure is key. Fees is needed to finance CoE for sustainability.
6. We should use the needs assessment for planning CoE courses which should probably
emphasize geoscience.
7. JICA is currently supporting GDC in capacity development, and at the end we will come
up with the training program with materials so that GDC will be able to continue and
keep improving their internal training. These materials can be used in training other
countries practitioners. Plus training in Japan, equipment donation, curriculum and
materials.
8. Training in Japan is for 6 months mainly at Kyushu University on geosciences and
reservoir engineering. From this year well start drilling course (1 month) and executive
course on decision makers (2 weeks) as well. Participants are from Asian, African and
Latin-American countries. We are also doing OJT for GDC on geosciences and drilling.
9. JICA is doing a geothermal master plan for the Government of Ethiopia. May study 1 or
2 areas in Djibouti. Also possibly Rwanda assessment of possible direct uses.
10. JICA can make only 3-5 year commitments.
11. Implementing agency of the CoE needs to be strong. Minori was of the view that
managing CoE may be too much for GDC as they have many other critical
responsibilities and are a young agency.
12. PI team should inspect GDC lab facilities, equipment, staff and procedures. GDC lab
facility appears shabby but operational.
13. JICA can possibly provide equipment and/or training to the CoE. Not infrastructure.
14. PI team should talk to Chinese.
JICA Djibouti
Yuichi Morimoto
1. Yuichi has worked for 2 years in Djibouti.

2. Supply of power from Ethiopia is becoming more problematic due to increased demand
within Ethiopia itself. Price is very low.
3. JICA has funds only for consultants. No other funds available.
4. JICA plans to study geophysics at Hanle beginning May. Present results by end of
2016. If results positive, will drill 1 well to 2000m. If that is successful, JICA may follow-
up with further support but not certain.
5. Under the new energy law, private power generation is allowed but must sell to EdD
which sets the price. EdD has no competition so electricity price will stay high.
6. Solar users can power their own houses and be backed up by EdD but cannot sell back
to EdD.
7. ODDEG personnel need geo training in francophone countries.
8. English language of CoE will be a problem for Djiboutians.
9. Grants are needed to develop Djibouti, not investments. No laws to protect investors.
10. Japanese investors prefer Kenya due to English.
113 | P a g e
11. Japanese universities of Tohoku and Kyushu have geothermal courses and could
participate in the CoE.
12. PI should email Yuichi the CoE presentation.
IFC
Joseph Rodriguez - Kenya
Bernadette Tabeko - Kenya
Alisa Roskach- Kenya
1. 60-65% of IFC financing in Kenya goes to power sector. Focus is on private sector.
Working in partnership with WB.
2. IFC is looking to invest in geothermal sector in EA. Interested in Ethiopia and Djibouti.
Working to set up framework for advisory services in Ethiopia.
3. IFC presently in policy dialogue with GoK focused more on power generation than
steam development. It is waiting for IPPs to materialize.
4. IFC Infra-ventures Fund can provide up to $4M USD in equity on 50/50 shared basis
with private developer.
5. Although there is a need for the CoE, IFC cannot invest or donate to the CoE. IFC
Advisory Group can possibly be link to other donors.
World Bank and IFC Advisory Group

Kyran O'Sullivan - WB
Panos Vlahakis IFC Ethiopia
1. The newly formed GDC-like entity in Ethiopia and new Geothermal Law will require
capacity building. In Ethiopia, IFC is providing this assistance.
2. It was proposed that potentially, the Center of Excellence (CoE) would be a demand-
driven center that can take such a role to help each countrys needs from agencies such
as from US, JICA, DFID, etc.. A sort of filter of all the development agencies.
3. Kyran mentioned the WB trust fund approach that was done with University of
Strathmore in Kenya. See: http://www.strathmore.edu/oldsite/News.php?NewsID=912
He could point us in the right direction to a Trust Fund to present what we feel is the
best model to reach the regional stakeholders collaborative goals.
World Bank ESMAP

Thrainn Fridricksson, Geochemist
1. HR building is the most important need followed by legal/regulatory and project

financing.
2. Need for Data-management system needed (such as LeapFrog, GOLAD-PETROL) for
3-D visualization, equipment for liquid/gas sampling, and basic equipment for chemical
analysis of liquefied steam.
3. CoE should have labs, workshops computer room, etc.
4. Important for CoE to be located near physical geothermal projects such as Olkaria or
Nakuru.
5. There should be a clear cost/individual for training. UNU-GTP is a successful model.
6. Evaluations of CoE should be by an external entity
114 | P a g e
DFID
Virinder Sharma, Climate Change
1. Provided $10M out of $20M USD for Scaling up

2. Work in partnerships with other development banks and World Bank on Geothermal
Energy Developments
3. Supportive of Direct Heat/Cooling
4. DFID Geothermal Risk Mitigation 10m Pounds of funding and planning 50m
Pounds
5. Started East Africa Geothermal Energy (EAGER) project to provide policy and
regulatory assistance in the region which will allocate 40 M Pounds over the next 5
years through technical assistance thru Adam Smith consultants.
6. Provide technical support for carbon NAMA climate fund
7. Providing 30 M Pounds over 5 years for green mini-grid development under the
SE4ALL.
DFID (Adams Smith)

Matt Blythe, (Magnus, John Health and team of about 5 corps with EARER)
1. Based in Kenya focus on Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania

2. 3 years start in May with scoping
3. Policy, Regulatory technical assistance to attract more private and public
investments
4. Undertook in May scoping trip for 3 weeks, vary
- Governments role and mandate of their geothermal agency
Kenya with GDC and Tanzania (define exploration, steam development, or oversite)
Ethiopia and Uganda also planning.
- Legal and Regulatory work (Kenya is developed and IFC developing one for
Ethiopia)
- Rwanda is small and so isnt sure that it needs . Perhaps only need
concession basis.
- Geothermal in electricity markets
- Ethiopia (IFC generation licenses and GDC-type framework we could help in
running aspect)
- On-the call over a few weeks.
5. Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda dont have a geothermal database (UNEP is the
only public database) doesnt provide geological information on each country with
investors can find. Governments dont want to have it public, they want to manage
it themselves.
6. 2 weeks to 6 months technical assistance is given will break down request to
specific tasks.
European Union
Dorian Kivumbi
1. Dorian is responsible for the Kenya. As the CoE is a regional initiative, it would be
under Fabio di Fefano based in Tanzania.
2. For the EU to support such an initiative, the request would have to go to the regional
office. Otherwise, it could go through a specific development banks (DFID, KFW, EIB,
etc.) and be solicited from the European Trust Fund.
115 | P a g e
AFD
Arthur Honoree
1. AFD very supportive of energy initiatives. They are smaller than KfW but operate
similarly.
2. AFD financing is untied. They only provide financing, not implementation.
3. They are providing 650M Euros in electricity sector over 15 years. Last year 140M
Euros.
4. Financing KenGen through Proparco (like IFC) Lake Turkana wind, Olkaria IV. Also
Nairobi-Mombasa transmission line via Ketraco. 10% of Ethiopia-Kenya transmission
line, which is a total 1 billion Euro project.
5. Works with public and private entities.
6. Doesnt require govt guarantees. Will lend to KenGen, not GDC.
7. Small grants to consultants connected to projects in 10,000Euro range.
8. Have offices in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda.
9. 10M 100M Euros is their lending range.
10. Financing grant for business plan to GDC done by GeothermEx.
11. Ministry of Education could be a client. Decision who is loan recipient to be made by
GoK.
12. EU, JICA, KfW are best bets for CoE support.
13. Could involve French drilling company SMP Drilling.
14. AFD is interested to follow CoE evolution and could consider possible support.
BGR
Georg Mayer Ethiopia
Florian Fritzsche Tanzania
1. BGR is working in Djibouti, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania.

2. Mayer proposed that the curriculum offers a complete wish-list everyone can agree with.
3. He feels that the Center should not become a GDC-extension, GDC should be one of
the stakeholders, while the Center needs to become a regional/all-African institution,
open to students from all over Africa.
4. Mayer proposed that UNU, UNEP and AUC should have a strong representation and
position on the board of the facility
5. GEF could become a reliable long-term supporter
6. BGR very active in providing technical support in Tanzania to TGDC working within
AfDB Roadmap.
7. Fritzsche agreed that a regional model was crucial with membership buying into X
number of trainees per year. Recommended a cost-recovery model.
Belgian Technical Agency (BTC) - Rwanda

Benoit Piret
1. BTC is not a donor but an implementation agency, which is a kind of technical service
supplier whose first responsibility is to ensure project management of the Belgian bilateral
aid projects. Belgium had decided in 2011 to invest 27 M in geothermal exploration in
Rwanda but changed its mind in 2014 after the disappointing results of 2 deep exploration
drillings in Karisimbi. BTC just got involved in the formulation of a support program that
has now been cancelled. Belgium has decided to stay away from geothermal energy in
Rwanda, at least until end 2018.
2. HR Capacity building is the most needed, followed by Geothermal resource information
and Legal and Regulatory expertise
116 | P a g e
3. From what I have seen in Rwanda, there is a lack of conceptual modeling capacity in
the first place.
4. Training and other services should be charged to users this will encourage the CoE to
perform and to satisfy its customers. A part of subsidies by donors firstly, regional
governments secondly, will be needed.
5. Evaluation should be every 5 years by ESMAP or a consortium of experts like ISOR and
others, could be tied to success rate of participating countries in their exploration
endeavors and subsequent developments
Sweden International Development Assistance (SIDA) Tanzania

Samer Fayadh
1. Funds allocated under appropriation item 9 Africa in the Swedish International

Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) appropriation directions for each financial year.
The strategy will apply for the period 20132019 and comprises a maximum of SEK 5.5
billion
2. Sweden will contribute to more young people and women having employment that
provides an adequate income with which they can support themselves and their
households.
3. The Swedish energy support has during the last decade been focused on rural and peri-
urban electrification, reforms as well as capacity building among the responsible
authorities. Sweden is also providing support to investment projects in both generation
and transmission under the development loans instrument. In addition to this Swed ish
support has also been given to private sector initiatives involved with renewable energy.
117 | P a g e
D. Private Sector Companies
Ormat
Ernest Mabwa
1. Bob Sullivan is the key international person to contact (based in Reno). Nissan Yamin
reports to him.
2. OrPower 4 Inc. started work in Kenya in 1988 at Olkaria III. Put 8 MW online in 2000.
Now about 110 MW net. Expanding to 150 MW by 2020 if reservoir conditions allow.
3. Adopted local school. Paid for teachers. Provided park maintenance support, fence
maintenance, and support for womens education in surrounding areas. Also tried
health-related assistance, which did not work out.
4. They found it difficult to employ locals due to lack of education but were able to do it as
part of drilling operations, cleaning and security. Training for plant personnel seemed to
work only when a new plant was being put online.
5. Presently OrPower 4 Inc. employ 43 people. 30 of 43 are technical. Initially they hired
well qualified degree candidates, but the attrition was 50%. Started to hire more
Diploma level Technicians, and now only lose/replace about 3/year.
6. Questionnaire sent to Bob Sullivan, Reno.
7. Ormat needs are generally less sophisticated than GDC because they mainly require for
plant O&M.
8. Ernest asked about the impact of UNU training. What were its shortcomings? Focus is
needed on lower level technicians for Ormat, not upper level. Need policy framework
training. Government has to be more of a stakeholder.
9. Advocacy training should be included to encourage government to promote policies
related to generation mix.
10. Ormat geoscience work done by Reno-based Ormat employees or US contractors (i.e.
Thermochem).
11. CoE labs should be the starting point. Thermochem has done geo chem and geo
physics and should be consulted. Ormat continues to use them, as they want to keep
the results consistent.
12. Recommendations should include protocols, equipment, skill levels. Also TORs for lab
personnel carrying out various analyses so that good results can be assured.
13. Ormat/Reno can define lab evaluation criteria used for in their analysis. See Bob
Sullivan.
14. Amanda can help PI by providing projects planned from which we can extrapolate
people needed. Also Meserets personnel gap report due by early July.
AkiiraOne Geothermal Project

Dr. Stephen Onacha
1. CoE should be very clear what problem it is trying to solve. It should not teach things
that can be best be done at University. It should therefore provide those skills that are
not currently available at the universities and colleges but are necessary in the
geothermal sector.
2. CoE needs to provide training on transaction advisory services (lawyers) to facilitate
negotiations for PPAs or SSAs. Local lawyers need CoE training as none have
geothermal experience.
3. Local bankers need geothermal lending training as well so that they see opportunities in
lending to the industry.
4. Kenyans need to train on how to address unexpected problems i.e. scaling, resource
interference, etc. Also resource mapping.
5. Training in identification of various sources and types of financing.
118 | P a g e
6. Gathering system design which are up to now done by overseas consultants.
7. Direct uses by local communities including how to handle required community problems
like relocations.
8. CoE should not be part of GDC but should be located close to GDC.
9. CoE points of contact should be identified in each participating country.
10. Some thought should be considered where countries have conflicts (e.g. Ethiopia and
Eritrea) where these differences may affect decision on location of or establishment of
CoE.
11. Akiira would be keen to have its geochemical analyses done at such a CoE instead of
establishing its own laboratory.
119 | P a g e
E. Others (Capacity Building)
Geothermal Resource Council (GRC)
Steve Ponder, Executive Director
1. The purposes of the GRC is exclusively scientific and educational.

2. GRC would be interested in helping the Center in the following ways:
a. The GRC has the largest (over 27,000 publications) geothermal library in the
world and it is staffed by a full time librarian. All this information is available
at no cost to any GRC member.
b. The GRC could help organize the provision of members for CoE instructor
and training needs. They are developing a Distinguished Lecturer Panel.
c. Also GRC members such as Haliburton have classes that could be taught at
the CoE, e.g.: Health and Safety Training.
d. GRC could provide assistance with Internships with US geothermal
companies.
NGDS & USGIN

Lee Allison
1. The US National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) is a free and open source built on global
standards, so can be deployed anywhere in the world with content targeted for other
regions. USGIN provides support with regard to the framework to the NGDS infrastructure.
2. NGDS team conducted regional workshops funded by the US DoE to train on NGDS
specifications, practices, and operation to integrate their data into the system and develop
capabilities to host their own nodes, transform their existing data and metadata into
standard formats, and prepare databases for web service publication, as well as workflows
to manage GIS-enabled databases and to publish the data as OGC-compliant web
services. Also, online training webinars supplement face-to-face workshops.
3. USGIN is proficient in online communication and collaboration capabilities through
partnership with the Arizona Geological Survey.
4. Lee recommended that the CoE be distributive rather than central to benefit from the
wealthy of information.
a. Ex: IRIS is a network of scientists in which they rotate yearly to participating
institution in which lab result are sent and analyzed.
b. Ex: Pascal equipment is deployed to a member as needed with support from
membership
c. Ex: National Earthquake Association provides training thru a network of
universities.
He recommends that there is similar structure between GDC, KenGen, Djibouti, Ethiopia,
etc.
5. Data Opportunities suggested that geological survey data is made available. Or, as oil
and minerals after a certain period of time be made public.
6. USGIN/NGDS has over 10 million records online for free viewing and downloading,
including documents, maps, structured data (i.e. spreadsheets and databases), and
standardized structured data (common exchange/interchange formats).
University of Utah - Energy & Geoscience Institute

Joe Moore, Geo Scientist
1. Joe is a research professor at University of Utahs Energy and Geoscience. Institute

Reports and also provides consulting internationally.
120 | P a g e
2. He has project data detailing geothermal exploration and development from projects around
the world dating back over 30 years.
3. He is an active participant in the US Geothermal Resources Council and National
Geothermal Academy, as well as training programs for industry most recently including a
short course for Chevron Geothermal Indonesia.
4. He was a consultant to the development of a Center of Excellence for Chili which was within
the University and serves as a lab training institute.
a. He stated that the training aspects and affiliation with the university was very
effective; collaboration with a University allows for easy accreditation, qualified
teachers, dormitory/means infrastructure.
b. Lab was not able to secure consulting jobs; believes it will be the same for GDC.
c. Feels donors/developers have standing obligations to their own labs, ex; JICA
samples are sent to Japan.
d. Regarding Equipment suggested renting out equipment with qualified
consultants to provide these services and manage the equipment.
121 | P a g e
Appendix 2: Stakeholder Questionnaires
Stakeholder Questionnaires from 40+ respondents:

The questionnaires were sent to the following key stakeholder: National Entities (Ministries,
Geological Agencies, etc.), Regional Entities (AUC, AfDB, etc.), International Donors, Private
Sector (developers and service providers), and Other (CoEs, Universities, Associations and
Geothermal training facilitators)). Individual respondents of the Stakeholder Questionnaires can
be found in Appendix 2.
Due to the size of this document A full package of respondents to the Stakeholders
Questionnaires is a separate attachment, please see:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v5b66d39ixlm1gk/AAClZ2LjHKS6y3Zy8gZY5jQ0a?dl=0
122 | P a g e
Appendix 3: Student Questionnaires
Due to the size of this document A full package of respondents to the Stakeholders
Questionnaires is a separate attachment, please see:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v5b66d39ixlm1gk/AAClZ2LjHKS6y3Zy8gZY5jQ0a?dl=0
SUMMARY - STUDENT/PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE

Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence
Regions: Total 34
Asia 10
Latin America 5
Europe 3
Africa 16
Gender:
Male - 28
Female - 6
Please indicate your level of interest in receiving training in the following fields (circle 0 for no interest, 5
for high interest)
Geologic field mapping 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 7 8 3 10
Structural interpretation 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 6 8 4 13
Field sampling 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 8 3 7 9
Hot springs 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 0 4 9 7
Fumaroles 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 9 4 8 7
Soils 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 9 5 7 8
Geochemical laboratory analysis

and data interpretation 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 5 7 5 10
Geophysical survey planning and field work 0 1 2 3 4 5
123 | P a g e
1 1 5 4 4 12
MT 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 5 3 4 18
TEM 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 6 3 4 14
Seismic 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 5 5 3 10
Aeromag 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 9 6 3 10
Gravity 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 6 5 6 10
Resistivity 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 7 3 5 10
2 meter surveys 0 1 2 3 4 5
2 3 7 4 3 6
Geophysical survey data interpretation 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 5 3 2 16
MT 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 5 1 4 15
TEM 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 5 2 5 12
Seismic 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 4 6 8 9
Aeromag 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 5 3 7 11
Gravity 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 7 2 4 13
Resistivity 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 7 1 5 12
124 | P a g e
2 meter surveys 0 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 6 1 4 10
Conceptual geological modeling based on: geology,

geochemistry and geophysics (2D and 3D) 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 4 4 5 17
Exploration drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 1 6 6 17
Temperature gradient wells 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 1 8 9 17
Core holes 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 2 6 9 9
Slim holes 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 3 4 9 15
Reservoir confirmation wells 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 3 2 10 16
Well field development drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 1 1 5 16
Reinjection well siting, drilling, testing 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 1 5 5 18
Planning, budgeting,
managing drilling operations 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 1 4 5 18
Drilling data acquisition and analysis 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 1 5 7 16
Understanding required drilling Codes of Practice 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 1 5 5 16
Reservoir engineering 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 2 2 10 15
Well field numerical and conceptual modeling 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 3 4 10 14
Power plant development 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 4 4 7 12
Conversion technology selection 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 3 5 5 12
Power plant design 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 1 3 5 13
125 | P a g e
Power plant economic modeling 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 1 2 7 11
Power plant construction 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 3 6 5 14
Power plant operation and maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 4 5 5 12
Well field operation and maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 3 4 7 10
Utility requirements 0 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 2 6 7 10
Transmission line studies, requirements 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 3 4 5 10
Power purchase agreements and tariffs 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 2 4 5 15
Environmental & social impact studies 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 4 3 8 14
Preparing proposals for funding 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 4 3 6 17
Preparing feasibility studies 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 0 4 7 16
Financing power generation projects 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 4 1 9 12
Preparing bidding documents 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 2 1 1 9 10
TORs 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 3 0 12 13
EOIs & RFPs 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 2 1 9 11
Contract negotiation 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 2 10 14
Direct uses & direct use project development 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 2 9 13
Financing direct use projects 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 2 3 2 7 13
Please indicate your level of interest in short term (1-3 month) internships with private geothermal
companies in the following areas (circle 0 for no interest, 5 for high interest):
126 | P a g e
Geochemical sampling and analysis 0 1 2 3 4 5
2 3 3 8 7 7
Geophysical field surveys 0 1 2 3 4 5

2 2 1 5 11 8
Geophysical survey data interpretation 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 3 2 3 4 15
Geothermal drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 2 2 5 21
Power plant design and construction 0 1 2 3 4 5

2 0 5 3 2 15
Power plant operation and maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5

2 0 4 4 2 13
Direct use projects 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 1 4 7 12
Please indicate your short term (1-3 month) training preferences (circle 0 for no interest, 5 for high
interest):
Classroom, laboratory & on-site training in Kenya 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 3 0 9 13
Training elsewhere in E. Africa 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 2 0 10 12
Overseas training 0 1 2 3 4 5
2 1 3 2 8 14
Remote training via electronic media 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 3 2 2 11 7
Please indicate your interest in long-term (1-2 years) degree-focused (BS, MS, PhD) training in the
following areas:
Geoscience (geology, geochemistry, geophysics) 0 1 2 3 4 5

4 2 0 3 6 9
Electrical Engineering 0 1 2 3 4 5
5 4 3 4 1 4
Mechanical Engineering 0 1 2 3 4 5
4 4 3 5 4 7
Drilling Engineering 0 1 2 3 4 5
2 0 3 1 3 12
Sociology, Environmental Studies 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 5 6 4 6
127 | P a g e
Other ( ) 0 1 2 3 4 5
Planning/Finance
Geo Physical data interpretation (2)
Reservoir Engineer (3)
GIS (2)
Directional Drilling
Automation
Please indicate your level of interest in the following areas relating to web-based access (circle 0 for no
interest to 5 for high interest):
Internet Access (enter 0 for no or 5 for yes)
You own a PC or laptop 0 5

2 29
You have ready access to Internet 0 5

3 28
You have access to high speed Internet 0 5

3 28
You use Internet only at school 0 5

6 8
Distance Learning (e-Learning)

Self-service training modules 0 1 2 3 4 5
3 1 1 6 9 10
Instructor led courses 0 1 2 3 4 5
3 1 0 4 12 14
Collaboration (instructor, other students) 0 1 2 3 4 5

4 1 2 3 9 12
Live/streaming classes, seminars 0 1 2 3 4 5

4 0 0 4 9 14
Class, course completion certificates 0 1 2 3 4 5

3 0 2 2 6 13
Other: ___________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
Collaboration
Ask the Industry Expert (chat, forum) 0 1 2 3 4 5
3 0 1 5 7 14
News Letter (email, subscription based) 0 1 2 3 4 5

2 1 3 8 5 9
Topical forums (moderated by expert) 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 0 3 9 4 11
Topical content (wiki, blogs, news) 0 1 2 3 4 5
128 | P a g e
1 0 3 9 4 9
Notifications of new content (email) 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 4 6 10 7
Commenting (all types of content) 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 5 3 10 10
Other: ___________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
Online Library
Case studies 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 4 1 5 20
Current industry news 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 5 1 5 18
Legal, regulatory 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 4 5 6 17
Environmental 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 5 3 5 12
Economics 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 2 4 2 8 14
Research, development 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 5 3 8 17
Well drilling, maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 5 1 5 14
Ability to comment on content 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 6 2 5 13
Ability to rate/review content 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 4 5 6 8
Other: ___________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
Applications (online, download)
Project economics 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 3 1 9 11
Mapping, visualization 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 2 6 4 13
Modeling (well field, power generation) 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 0 1 4 7 15
Other: ___________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
129 | P a g e
Calendar
Seminars, conferences, trade shows 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 1 4 6 16
e-Learning schedule 0 1 2 3 4 5
2 3 1 1 7 14
Other: ___________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
130 | P a g e
Appendix 4: Potential Power Plant Simulator for CoE
GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANT TRAINING SIMULATOR A Proposal
David L. Mendive P.E. and Sean F. Geffert P.E.
Geothermal Development Associates
Introduction
Geothermal Development Associates (GDA) proposes to develop a Geothermal Power Plant
Simulator for the East Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence. GDAs experience in the
geothermal power industry provides us with qualifications that are well suited to provide the
necessary models and simulation environments that operators and technicians need to safely
and effectively run and maintain geothermal power plant processes.
Technical Information Problem

With the ever-increasing demand for energy, and the increasing number of geothermal power
plants in the region, there is an increased need for trained operators and skilled technicians to
run and maintain the power plants. It can take years for an operator or technician to gain the
experience needed to effectively respond to fault conditions. In addition, inexperienced personnel
can inadvertently cause costly plant outages, which could cause blackouts and reduce the
effective life the equipment.
State-of-the-Art
Plant simulators offer wide ranges of operability from low to medium and even high fidelity
systems that offer functionality from basic interface training to advanced process simulation
environments. 20 While numerous training simulators are available to the oil, gas and coal
industries, power plant simulators have yet to come to the geothermal industry. GDA is able to
offer geothermal power plant simulators by combining our process models with our extensive
knowledge and experience in design, commissioning and operation of geothermal power plants.
GDA can create training simulators to suit custom processes and can train instructors, operators
and technicians in-house or on site.
Methodology
GDA would begin by developing low fidelity simulators for existing power plants, starting with a
non-condensing plant such as Oserian Farms, Kenya, a condensing plant similar to Eburru,
Kenya, and a binary plant similar to Aluto Langano, Ethiopia. Once those systems are established
they can be expanded to offer medium fidelity simulations, which will include startup and
shutdown training features. Then as the demand for further training increases, we can develop
simulators for other existing or future geothermal power plants.
Operator Training
In addition to classroom training, operators and technicians can undergo a simulation course that
would allow them to gain much needed operational experience in a fraction of the time of on the
job training, mitigating the risk associated with new hire training. By learning in a virtual
simulation, personnel can experience scenarios that occur infrequently (merely 1 2 times per
year) several times over the course of a day.
During simulation training an instructor leads the operators through a course of training designed
specifically to prepare them to run a geothermal power plant. This classroom-based training
provides the necessary experience needed to handle critical and emergency fault conditions
while operating in a safe and encouraging environment. The operators and technicians will enter
the field with much needed skills that new recruits otherwise wouldnt have.
20 Richard W. Vesel, Power Plant Simulators Explained, http://www.powermag.com/power-plant-training-simulators-explained/,

(12/1/2013)
131 | P a g e
Training scenarios could include:
Normal Operation
o Machine Health Alarms
o Plant Output Adjustment
o Plant Mode Switching
Startup (Medium Fidelity)
Shutdown (Medium Fidelity)
o Planned Shutdowns
o Emergency Shutdowns
o Trip Events
Historical Data Monitoring (Medium Fidelity)
o Predicting problems
o Preventive maintenance
A simulator can also be tailored for refreshment training of existing operators, training operators with new
plant operating procedures, or assisting with the migration of operators to new or unfamiliar plants.
Simulator Options
Just as there are many different types of power production facilities, so are there many different geothermal
power plant processes. Generic process simulators include:
Steam Non-Condensing
Steam Condensing
Jet Gas Extraction
Hybrid Gas Extraction
Water Cooled
Air Cooled
Binary
Water Cooled
Air Cooled
Steam Gathering System
Single/Double-Flash
Dry Steam
GDA can also provide a customized solution to fit a specific process. For example, a third party designed
geothermal power plant.
Training Modules and Scenarios

A basic training module will be provided with each process simulator. The basic training module
will include example training scenarios each designed to give the operators a basic
understanding of normal operating and fault troubleshooting procedures.
Software Updates and Technical Support
Software updates and technical support will be provided free of charge for a period of one (1)
year from the date of delivery.
Recommended hardware
One (1) Instructor Workstation/Server
o Quad core Processor or Better
o Minimum 16 GB of RAM
o Minimum three (3) Solid State Drives in a RAID 5 Configuration
o Dual 21 LCD Monitor
o Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS)
Six to Ten (6 10) Operator Workstations
132 | P a g e
o Quad core Processor or Better
o Minimum 8 GB of RAM
o One (1) Solid State Drives
o Dual 21 LCD Monitor
o UPS
Networking System
o Internet Gateway (Firewall and VPN)
o 16-Port Gigabit (10/100/1000) Switch
o Ethernet Patch Panel
o Power Distribution Unit
o UPS
Low Fidelity (Single Medium Fidelity

Process Type
Unit) (Expansion)
Single-Flash Steam Non-Condensing

1 $140,000 +$80,000
(e.g. Oserian Farms, Kenya)
Single-Flash Steam Condensing

2 $180,000 +$120,000
(e.g. Eburru, Kenya)
Simple Binary
3 $220,000 +$120,000
(e.g. Aluto Langano OEC, Ethiopia)
Steam/Binary Combined Cycle

4 $250,000 +$130,000
(e.g. Aluto Langano GCCU, Ethiopia)
Existing Third Party Plant**

5 $280,000 +$130,000
(e.g. Olkaria Units IV and V, Kenya)
* Does not include computer hardware or commercial software licenses
** Requires permission from owner and access to new or existing systems
Table A.4.1 Rate Factors

Estimates on a Simulator Development Costs in USD
Power Plant Training Simulators Explained

12/01/2013 | Richard W. Vesel
Faced with the necessity of doing more with lessand less-experiencedstaff, the power business
increasingly is turning to simulators for reliable and efficient real- world training.
Training simulators are worth their weight in gold to the power industry, as well as to most process
industries in general. People tend to learn the fastest and the most thoroughly when hands-on trial and
error is part of their training process. Operational errors made while engaged in training simulations are
cost-free and provide high- return lesson events. Conversely, the results of operator errors made during
actual plant operations can range from inefficient to catastrophic. Simulators can reduce the time it with far
better thoroughness and retention. With a built- in ability to review, vary, and repeat operational scenarios
until they are cemented in the minds of operators and operators-to-be, no power plant should be without
one.
133 | P a g e
Simulators come in many varieties, where complexity and efficacy are exchanged for cost (Table A.4.1)
above. Simulators distinguish between emulation and virtual simulation. Emulators do not physically
contain the same control system elements or HMIs that the actual process controls contain but merely
mimic them with software. A virtual for training an operator from years to months, and achieve simulator
contains exactly the same process controls and HMIs that an operator will encounter in the real process
control room, and only the physical processes themselves are simulated by computer. The better the
physical system process simulation, the more realistic the virtual simulator becomes, until using it is almost
indistinguishable from the real plant control room experience.
The complexity and accuracy of this physical process simulation is characterized by what is called the
fidelity of the simulator. Simulator fidelity is usually described as being low, medium, or high (Table A.4.2).
The best, most process-realistic simulators are high fidelity, and as one might expect, they are also the
most expensive. Cost notwithstanding, many users choose high-fidelity simulators to train operators so
that the trainees get as deeply exposed to the plant as possible, without actually touching it.
Table A.4.2 Benefits and limitations of simulators vs. fidelity type. Courtesy ABB
Simulators as a Critical Training Tool

What are some of the benefits to having a training simulator? Obviously, training is faster and more
effective, but this can provide benefits across all plant operations. For example, new operators can fill
vacancies in the existing operator force more quickly. This helps reduce the impact of workforce turnovers
and attrition. When new equipment is installed, a simulator is the fastest method of getting existing
operators familiar with new procedures.
For new plants, simulators can give operators early hands- on experience, especially with turnkey
projects. Simulators can also be used to let operators practice standard operations. This means faster and
more reliable startups, shutdowns, and runbacks. Standardization of operating practices through the use
of simulators means that operators who are identified as those with best practices can train other staff
members in their methods. And of course, simulators are ideal for safely training operators to respond to
abnormal plant conditions. This means improved operational flexibility and response times to widely varying
dispatch signals, a reduction in abnormal operating situations, and a reduction of unplanned outages due
to operator errors and unforeseen equipment trips.
Financial Returns from Simulator Investments

Low-fidelity simulators are low six-figure investments, while a medium-fidelity simulator will be in the mid
six figures. A full high-fidelity simulator will typically be in very low seven-figure territory. From date of order
to delivery date, the typical simulator project tends to run about three to six months.
With even the basic benefits discussed above, such as faster startups and reduced outages, simulator
projects are amongst the easiest to justify. If a plant has had any significant operator error events in its
recent history, eliminating these events can bring immediate returns.
Best Practices for Incorporating Simulators
The following are suggested approaches for getting the most value from a simulator investment:
134 | P a g e
Use the simulator to familiarize trainees with plant systems, functions, and interactions, as well as
familiarization with HMIs and process data views.
Use the simulator as a cross-training tool for members of the plant engineering, technical, and
maintenance staffs.
Use the simulator as a key element of new operator training:
Unit startup, shutdown, and steady state operations

Normal responses to small or moderate changes in demand
Unit runbacks and turndowns to lowest stable levels of operation
Boiler efficiency and safety management under normal conditions
Scheduling of routine intermittent operations such as soot-blowing
Use the simulator as the central element for refresher or continuing education training for existing
experienced operators:
Shift-to-shift transfer of best setup and control strategy practices

Shift-to-shift transfer of abnormal situation responses
Advanced efficiency improvement topics
Retraining due to unit equipment modifications/additions
Focus on abnormal situational control, with accident prevention and remediation:
Large tube leaks

Loss of large pump function
Loss of fan function
Loss of feed water heater(s)
Loss of burner fuel flow (mill plugging, etc.)
Boiler pressure control malfunction
Loss of automatic O2 control
Loss of critical measurements
Boiler trip management
Fuel variability management
Alarm flooding scenarios
Use the simulator with plant technical staff, or consulting suppliers, to
assist with:
o Review of existing control logic and process responses
o Replays of plant problem scenarios to improve controls and
responses
o New control logic testing and debugging
o Design and test of one-button startup/shutdown controls
o Alarm management studies and corrective actions
o Cross-training between specialists of different disciplines
Experiences on the simulator, when combined with actual physical walk downs, are the fastest way to
introduce a new hire or transferee to the characteristics of a unit. The practices outlined above will keep
operations staff at the best readiness to handle abnormal situations when they occur. This is borne out by
the experiences of simulator users not only in fossil and unclear power, but in all industries that must control
large, complex equipment, right up to airline pilots and astronauts. Investments in training simulators
continue to grow, and they continue to provide ever-greater possibilities to improve plant safety, reliability,
and profitable operation.
Richard W. Vesel is global product manager for power generation energy efficiency with ABB Power
Generation, North America.
135 | P a g e
Appendix 5: Geothermal Data and Content Network
Prior to this study, the PI Team has proposed a prospective data management system for GDC
as an initial host with the idea of expanding to the East Africa geothermal region at-large within
the ARGeo AGID and the AUC/GRMF existing networks. Initially, PI has proposed to GDC to
develop a GDC Geo Portal that will provide an online database, resource, and information center
covering the GDC geothermal sector in Kenya. The proposed Geo Portals Data Bank will include
an interactive map of geothermal field data leading to site-specific homepages of geothermal
sites and working areas. The Geo Portals Knowledge Bank will include the sites core content
of Geothermal News, Library, Calendar, Experts Forum, Stakeholder Directory, and Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs). The Geo Portal will also include an online version of the Geo Handbook
on developing geothermal resources with interactive tools that can enable site users to
collaborate by posting comments and corresponding with other stakeholders and industry experts
from all over the world. To aid international collaboration, the Geo Portals Knowledge Bank
content can be dynamically translated in 60+ languages based upon user preferences. Whole
site search tools will also allow users to quickly find technical and resource information.
The proposed GDC Geo Portal data and knowledge bank will provide a useful repository for
capacity building that could benefit African Rift countries at-large. Given GDCs role as the host
for the CoE, this Appendix provides information about PIs proposed Geothermal Data and
Content Management technology to be developed initially with GDC, and ultimately for use by
the CoE for the region at-large through the ARGeo AGID and AUC/GRMF networks. Towards
this goal, PI proposes a three-tiered approach in utilizing the data management platform: 1)
supporting a GDC Geo Portal within a Geo Data and Content Network that could provide a greater
data and knowledge base 2) building out a Kenya Hub to support the CoEs training/capacity
building needs through Geo Data and Content Network Sharing, 3) building upon the GDC
system through an Africa at-large database system within the ARGeo AGID and AUC/GRMF
networks. The integration of Geo Data and Content from this Portal framework with the CoEs
Learning Management System can provide a valuable training and human capacity building tools.
With its great wealth of geothermal resource development, Kenya is an ideal place to develop
the first Geo Portal. As depicted in the Figure A 5.1 below, the CoE based in Kenya could further
facilitate the use of an open, shared Geo Data and Content Network that would be used by all
CoE members and affiliates. For example, the GDC Geo Portal would be managed by GDC;
approved geothermal data and content could be shared and disseminated through this secure
CoE network. Such content could be either publicly accessible via the web or privately secured
with permission-based access that is controlled by content and data owned by GDC.
This Geo Network is expected to deliver benefits to multiple users:
For government entities such as GDC, it can be used to collect and manage
project-specific data. The Geo Portal can be used as an access point for the
public to download GDC tender documents and buy GDC secured-data for fees.
For government entities such as the Government of Kenya, it can be used to
support legal and policy activities such as regulatory reporting. The private sector
can use this access point to download government forms (free or for fees).
For the CoE, the Geo Portal can be a platform towards developing the CoEs
Geo Data and Knowledge Bank that will be used by students in their class work
and by workers in CoE-sponsored continuing education (on-the-job training).
For the CoE, the Geo Portal can provide convenient and ready access to real
geothermal project data (through permission) that can be incorporated into
problem-based training (this hands-on method has proven to be a very effective
136 | P a g e
teaching methodology).
For other national CoE Member-Countries, they can adopt and develop their own
Geo Portal, using common methods and data formats consistent amongst CoE
Member-Countries to help streamline their capacity building activities.
For Market Participants such as developers, IPPs, consultants, and service
providers, they can have easy access to online up-to-date data and information.
Figure A.5.1: Integrated CoE System
For all CoE affiliated members (such as universities, donors, private sector firms,
NGOs), they can be approved affiliate members and add content to the network
(while retaining ownership/control of data and management of this shared
content and data to the Network).
For CoE member developers and system integrators, they can have access to
authorized Network software, resources and tools/applications used by CoE
members that provide added value.
In the United States, the National Geothermal Database System (NGDS) platform is a $22M USD
project platform launched in 2013, funded by the US Department of Energy Geothermal
Technology Office. NGDS has been transferred to a non-profit organization called the US Geo
Science Information Network (USGIN). USGIN supports this platform by providing definitions,
137 | P a g e
standards, policies and frameworks used by organizations that deploy NGDS. PI proposes to
adapt the NGDS to form an Africa Geothermal Database System (AGDS) building upon the
ARGeo AGID and AUC/GRMF networks. Based on the Geo Portal, as outlined in the above
Figure A.5.1, an AGDS can be integrated into the ARGeo AGID network. NGDS is open source
and is offered free there are no license fees required for the CoE to use this system. Under
CoE governance in partnership with ARGeo AGID and AUC/GRMF networks, this AGDS could
be developed to provide both a regional and global reach.
The PI team proposes that an African Network be setup to accomplish a wide range of both CoE
and individual stakeholder objectives. For this approach to work, it will require African Network
Stakeholders to utilize a common data-sharing framework similar to that developed in the US
with the NGDS platform. It is proposed that as a first step, that the Network is developed in
Kenya. With GDC as host, it is recommended that the CoE and ARGeo serve as the coordinating
body for this larger AGDS framework by:
Establishing a minimum set of mutually agreed upon data sharing rules, standards,
policies, and practices that are adopted by all Member-Countries.
Providing a platform for open/closed data that supports for shared (secure) data
management/sharing capabilities common across all Member-Countries.
Streamlining data to/from Stakeholder that help capacity building efforts across multiple
CoE Member-Countries.
Providing assistance to Network users to setup Data Hubs (Such as a Kenya Hub
comprising both GoK, GDC and KenGen) and Publisher Nodes (stakeholders such as
Donors and NGOs).
USGIN/NDSG Use in the United States
The following items characterize the current status of NGDS use in the US:
1. The system has been configured to manage several types of geothermal data:
Borehole temperatures down-hole temperature values
Aqueous chemistrywater chemistry parameters, e.g., pH, alkalinity,
conductivity, flow, metals
Well headerslocation and elevation of wells, ID
Heat flowmeasured or estimated heat flow
Geologic mapsprovided by State Surveys Web Map Servicesaccess to
digital maps
Well logswell report on location and lithology
Geochemistrymajor- & trace-element analyses
2. The system is used in all 50 states and in 55+ organizations
3. Provides access to over 30 types of data representing more than 9 million data
points and over 17,000 reports and documents
This proposed CoE Network would likewise consist of data Nodes (publisher) and Hubs (data
harvester) that form a loosely coupled distributed data mesh that spans geographic boundaries.
Meta-data, information about where the actual data or content is loc ated and search terms that
help locate this data, is gathered by a Hub from nodes according to sharing rules that are
maintained by Hub and Node owners.
138 | P a g e
The Node (publishers) includes tools for publishing (uploading or linking) data from the data
owners source systems are included with the Network. Publisher Nodes can optionally upload
the actual content to the Nodes physical data repository or can link to the actual data storage
location.
The Hub (data harvester) includes tools for importing a copy of authorized data (meta-data) from
Publisher Nodes. The secure APIs at each Data Hub are used to provide data access, for
example to the Data Bank of the GDC Geo Portal. Data Hub locations can also have Publisher
Node capabilities, for example accessing the Knowledge Bank of the GDC Geo Portal.
Figure A.5.2 below provides a high-level view of the NDGS platform and its possible application
for an ADGS for the CoE.
Figure A.5.2: Proposed CoE AGDS (Full build)
Network Entities can decide to use a Hub or Node based upon their specific needs. It is also
possible for a single Data Hub to be configured to serve multiple countries and/or partnering
entities (i.e. Stakeholders).
The proposed Content/Data Management and Sharing solution for the CoE is built up on a
federated data architecture where data owners in each CoE Member-Country can securely
managed their own data using sharing rules that the Member-Country controls. It is recognized
that both data privacy and data quality maintained by the data owner is paramount to the success
of the Network. The proposed Network provides a level of autonomy necessary for each CoE
Member-Country to operate according to country-specific policies and regulations. It also
provides Network Users a readily available method of decoupling/disabling data access should
the need arise.
139 | P a g e
The proposed African GDS network, building upon the ARGeo AGID and the AUC/GRMF
networks, could utilize the NGDS open-source geothermal data-sharing platform that can be
optionally deployed on a hosted cloud service or in a private data center. Figure A.5.2 above
shows the full build of the proposed African GGS network configuration. As a Phase I first step,
PI proposes that the GDC Geo Portal Hub is developed to feed data and content into the CoE.
As a second step, it is proposed that a Kenya Hub be developed. As a Phase II third step, under
the ARGeo AGID and AUC/GRMF networks, other Kenya based Nodes (publishing contributors)
can be added. During first step the CoE will start building content, and shall continue to build
content during the second and third steps. As a Phase II in the future, additional Member-
Countries will be proposed. The following outline this proposed Phase I & II configuration:
Phase I
Step 1: GDC Geo Portal Hub is owned by GDC. GDC would gather data (meta-
data) from internal GDC systems. Since the Data Hub is owned by GDC, they control
entity sharing rules that provide data access. They can also optionally use the GDC
Data Hub to share data with Market Participants (investors, developers, consultants,
IPPs, etc.)
Step 2: The extended Kenya Hub would be owned and operated by the Kenya
Government (such as the MoEP). This Hub would aggregate geothermal resource
data, such as resource potential and power plant production capacity (GDC Geo
Portal Hub and additional KenGen Data Hub). This Kenya Hub could also be used to
provide convenient access to geothermal-related data/content from governmental
organizations (Regulatory, Environmental, Permitting, others) that is currently
fragmented and difficulty for Market Participants to easily access. Kenya Hub can
optionally make this aggregated geothermal data accessible for both public and/or
private access, that is, they may provide it free to the public or charge fees for data.
For example, the Kenya Hub could manage access to the most current geothermal-
related regulatory and environmental information for free. And, the Kenya Hub could
provide select data/content for a fee (e.g., survey reports). The Kenya Hub would be
securely managed by the country to be used for different purposes.
Phase II
Step 3: Under the auspices of ARGeo AGID and the AUC/GRMF networks, other
Hubs and/or Nodes (i.e. Stakeholders) could be configured to support the Member-
Countries and the CoE (in the future this will be important to build capacity as other
countries geothermal programs begin to ramp up). Examples of other content
Stakeholder for this purpose are DFID funded EAGER network and the GRMF
database. These Other Publisher Nodes are an example of an Entity that only
publishes meta-data for use by other authorized Data Hubs; they are a data-provider
only. This type of Node could be used by a Market Participant to make project-specific
data available to authorized Data Hubs; e.g., survey data (reports, data sets, etc.),
well data (test or production), power plant capacity, etc.
Result: the GoE Network Hub would have access to the Hubs and Nodes (ex: GDC
Geo Portal Hubs, Kenya Hubs, ARGeo Hubs, EAGER Node, and other Stakeholder
Publisher Nodes). The CoEs data access tools provide authorized access to both
content and data that can be used by the CoE to accomplish its objectives to build
geothermal human resource capacity. Integration with the CoE will maximize the
value of content/data from the Network that would be otherwise fragmented/dispersed
and difficult to discover and leverage.
140 | P a g e
The following key underlying technologies and resources would be used to provide unique value
and opportunity for use at the CoE:
1. GeoServer a broadly used open-source GIS technology that provides visualization and
geo-spatial database capabilities to geo-spatially view and interact with map data shared
from member GIS systems.
2. CKAN (Community Knowledge Archive Network) -- CKAN is a powerful data management

system that makes data accessible by providing secure tools to streamline publishing,
sharing, finding and using data. CKAN is aimed at data publishers (national and regional
governments, companies and organizations) wanting to make their data open and
available. CKAN is a proven, internationally deployed and used solution that has an active
development and support technical community. Some of the more notable scaled
installations of CKAN include the Data.gov initiatives in US, U.K., Germany, Brazil, and a
number of other governments. These organizations share both content and data with the
public and privately amongst internal government entities.
3. USGIN/NGDC USGIN maintains a set of open data exchange definitions and standards
for 30+ types of geothermal data. This establishes a common way for NGDS users (and
the market in general) to exchange geothermal data that facilitates interoperability and
reduces data management/integration costs. Especially with open source
products/systems and open standards, it is critical for an active community of users to
participate in providing enhancement and ongoing support. Currently, USGIN is providing
a focal point for coordinating this growing community for USA NGDS users. T he table
below provides a list of data sets that are currently included in the USGIN data exchange
specification:
Active Fault/Quaternary Fault
Aqueous Chemistry
Borehole Lithology Intercepts
Borehole Lithology Interval Feature
Borehole Temperature Observation
Contour Lines
Direct Use Feature
Drill Stem Test Observations (deprecated)
Fluid Flux Injection and Disposal
Geologic Contact Feature
Geologic Fault Feature / Shear Displacement Structure
Geologic Reservoir
Geologic Units
Geothermal Area
Geothermal Fluid Production (deprecated)
Geothermal Metadata Compilation
Geothermal Power Plant Facility
Gravity Stations
Heat Flow
Heat Pump Facility
Hydraulic Properties
Mineral Recovery Brines
Physical Sample
Powell and Cumming Geothermometry
Power Plant Production
Radiogenic Heat Production
Rock Chemistry
Seismic Event Hypocenter
Thermal Conductivity Observation
Thermal/Hot Spring Feature
Volcanic Vents
Well Fluid Production
141 | P a g e
Appendix 6: Learning Management System (LMS)
Both student and stakeholder surveys highlighted the importance of the CoE providing training
opportunities to support geothermal capacity building efforts. These learning opportunities are
intended to build and maintain a trained, skilled geotherm al workforce in CoE Member-Countries.
The following benefits of the LMS will be especially important for the CoE:
6. Reduced training expenses. Distance learning enabled by the LMS reduces training
expenses by eliminating travel costs. Reusable training modules avoid the cost of unique
training sessions traditionally offered in an in-person classroom setting.
7. Collaboration with worldwide Expert Network. Geothermal expertise is highly fragmented

across the world. Online collaboration tools present in the LMS can be used to enable
anytime, anywhere access to these experts by students, CoE members, lab technicians,
and the extended geothermal business community in East Africa. Experts include other
CoEs, NGOs, colleges/universities, scientists, manufacturers, consultants, etc.
8. Knowledge base. Over time, the LMS accumulates a valuable repository of training
modules, course materials, collaborations, and best practices a content library that
formulates a living knowledgebase that grows over time. This knowledge repository will
become increasingly important to support student training and continuing education
(work-force skills and on-the-job-training).
9. Rapidly train more students. By leveraging distance learning techniques such as online
web-based teaching, video conferences, online classrooms, the LMS can be used to
reach a greater number of students for courses and subjects that do not require hands on
training with lab equipment or direct personal contact with instructors. The LMS will also
enable modern training methods that have demonstrated deeper and more meaningful
learning experiences such as Blended Training (mix of in-class and online learning) and
Problem-Based Training (use of actual project data from the Geo Network).
10. Measurable training results. LMS reporting tools can be used to chart the progress of
CoE training number of students, student test results and grades, teacher/instructor
effectiveness, surveys, etc. These results can be used to insure that donor contributions
are delivering results and provide valuable feedback for CoE training improvements.
LMS System Capabilities
LMS is the framework that handles all aspects of the learning process. An LMS
is the infrastructure that delivers and manages instructional content, identifies and
assesses individual and organizational learning or training goals, tracks the
progress towards meeting those goals, and collects and presents data for
supervising the learning process of the organization as a whole. [4] A Learning
Management System delivers content but also handles registering for courses,
course administration, skills gap analysis, tracking, and reporting. [5] (Wikipedia)
142 | P a g e
The figure above contains a high level of the features found in todays LMS:
Registration. Creation of class rosters, control over registration processes,

and the ability to create waiting lists.
Authentication. Account creation, user profile management, secure login,
user access roles maintenance.
Training Resource Management. Class resources include content

(handouts, presentations, videos, etc.); instruction resources include tools for
creating online courses; knowledgebase;
Assessment. Student testing and grades, instructor and class surveys, polls
and quizzes.
Reporting. Reporting tools used by administrators, teachers, students.
Collaboration. Interaction between and among students, instructors, and

industry experts. Includes video conferencing, chat, instant messaging, email,
wikis, blogs, and discussion forums.
Training Workflow. Define and manage course or curriculum steps, pre-
requisites, and dependencies.
Course Calendar. List of courses and learning opportunities available.
Training Modules. Tools for creating, managing and using reusable modules
that provides instruction on a specific topic or subject. Several modules are
typically used by a single course.
Internal Content. Content used in training modules and courses (data,

documents, reports, presentations, videos, images, rich media) that is
uploaded and managed by the LMS.
143 | P a g e
External Content. Content that is integrated with the LMS often using web
links and/or web services. An automated link between the LMS and
Data/Content Management and Sharing system is envisioned.
CoE Use of LMS
The CoE will be involved with several types of training and learning opportunities . As currently
envisioned, the CoEs LMS will be used to manage and deliver all CoE sponsored and/or directly
delivered training activities:
Classes taught at the CoE. The physical CoE facility will contain classrooms where
instructor-led courses are taught. Courses may be organized to form accredited and/or
certified curriculums in cooperation with universities located in Member-Countries. As
currently envisioned, the CoE will utilize a Blended Learning approach that utilizes a mix of
traditional in-person, instructor-led classes that are supported by web-based CoE technology
(please refer to the Blended Learning section of this report). The LMS will enable reuse of
course materials and provide ready access to actual project data from the CoEs
Content/Data Management and Sharing system.
Internships at stakeholder locations worldwide. These short-term assignments (typically

one year or less) will be coordinated from the CoE. Supported by the LMS, these learning
experiences will involve student peers, instructors/teachers, and experts that are not
physically located with student interns. Students not able to attend limited internship
opportunities can also use CoE technology that captures these learning experiences from a
library of internship case studies for future reference.
Conferences and seminars. The CoE will sponsor both full events and/or specific
workshops/classes at both local (in-country) and regional industry events. The LMS will be
used to maximize the learning opportunities from these one-time events by extending these
learning opportunities to students not able to make the trip to the events physical location
due to budgetary or logistical limitations. Electronic capture of these learning experiences
that add to the CoEs living repository of learning events. Use of Blended Learning methods
at conferences and workshops can provide a deeper learning experience that spans beyond
the event itself.
Continuing education. As students transition from academic training to a job, it is important

for both the student (now career professional) and their employers that geothermal
experience continues to grow and broaden. In partnership with stakeholder entities
(companies, trade organizations, equipment manufacturers, government agencies and
organizations, etc.), the CoE network of experts, instructors, labs and technology can be
leveraged (free and/or fee-based) to enable these continuing geothermal-centric learning
opportunities.
Affiliations and partnerships. The stakeholder surveys identified a large number of

geothermal resources (classes, instructors, experts, equipment manufacturers, content, etc.)
that can be made available to the CoE. CoE technology will be used to provide remote
access to these resources that are owned and managed by non-CoE entities. Using secure,
permission-based access and data/content sharing methods these learning resources can
144 | P a g e
continue to grow and be supported without direct CoE fiscal involvement. Remote training
and access to learning resources enabled by CoE technology will provide access to
resources that may otherwise be limited by costs and logistics needed to provide these same
resources onsite at the CoE.
Equipment manufacturers such as Ormat may collaborate with the CoE to offer
a series of vendor-specific training classes that are tailored for conditions present
in CoE Member-Country projects;
Best-practice well-field operating course series funded by donors that spotlights

successful regional projects;
Resolution of on-the-job problems and decision support can be enabled using

CoE-sponsored access to peers, CoE network of experts, and CoE-provided
access to geothermal resources.
LMS Student Benefits
For the CoE student, learning supported by an LMS provides a number of benefits:
1. Access to information anytime, anyplace. Students can gain access to study materials
from anywhere and at any time. Most LMS systems have mobile applications that allow
students to engage e-Learning content on any device.
As currently envisioned, many courses offered by the CoE will utilize Blended Learning
components where the student will attend courses onsite but will also continue their course-
work online. For example, onsite instruction at a CoE classroom by an instructor will be
augmented with individual and/or group assignments offered by the LMS: using problem -
based learning, a group of students may be assigned to solve a problem together online
using collaboration tools (forum, databases, chat, forum, etc.) and moderation by the teacher
(or other experts remotely located).
2. Centralized information. All study materials are consolidated in one location. Students can
quickly exchange various resources.
As currently envisioned, the LMS will be integrated with online knowledge resources
managed by the CoEs Data management and Sharing System. The student will be able to
readily access this information online while completing their studies. Teachers can also
incorporate DMSS resources directly in online e-Learning modules; e.g., course lessons or
exercises based upon well data from real projects.
3. Increased communication. Students can collaborate on different tasks. Students can make
connections and exchange opinions with others. Students stay updated with the latest news
from teachers and friends.
The CoE is expected to foster professional relationships and associations between students,
teachers, stakeholders, and industry experts that will create a valuable network of resources
for the CoE student. Collaboration tools offered by the LMS will help the students knowledge
145 | P a g e
and resource network grow more rapidly and provide access to geographically disperse
experts that would otherwise be much more difficult to cultivate.
4. Studying becomes more enjoyable. Students can study at their own pace. Most LMS
systems have support for self-paced courses.
As currently envisioned, the CoE will offer modern e-Learning courses delivered by the LMS
that include self-paced classes. While not all courses are well suited for online delivery (e.g.,
complex course topics that need deep/immediate instructor interactions or those with hands-
on assignments using CoE lab equipment), many introductory and/or topical courses (or
course modules/lessons) can be effectively offered online. The CoE instructor or a remotely
located CoE expert associate may moderate these types of courses to provide student help
or answer questions as they arise.
5. Time Saving. Students can rapidly find important and relevant information. They can submit
assignments with just one click. Students have fast and extensive updates on their learning
progress.
The CoE instructor can upload all course materials (links to reading assignments, files to
download, video clips, images, etc.) and associate them with the course. As currently
envisioned, the CoE will also maintain a Data Management and Sharing System (DMSS) that
will contain a library of geothermal data from real projects and content (papers, studies,
presentations, etc.). The CoE student will be able to search the DMSS for information
relevant to their courses. Integration between the LMS and DMSS will allow the instructor to
include DMSS data and content in their courses.
There are a variety of different LMS system; PI recommends Moodle LMS system for the CoE.
The table below provides a list of online tools (Activities) that can be incorporated in a lesson
module when using the Moodle LMS system. These capabilities are delivered with the core
Moodle system. The Moodle platform can be extended using additional plugins and activities
available from the Moodle developer community at the Moodle Plugins web site.
146 | P a g e
Moodle LMS Activities:
Activity Description
Assignments Enable teachers to grade and give comments on uploaded files and
assignments created on and off line. The assignment module allows
teachers to collect work from students, review it and provide feedback
including grades. The work students submit is visible only to the
teacher and not to the other students unless a group assignment is
selected.
Chat The chat activity module allows participants to have a real-time

synchronous discussion in a Moodle course.
Choice The teacher asks a question and specifies a choice of multiple

responses. It can be useful as a quick poll to stimulate thinking about a
topic; to allow the class to vote on a direction for the course; or to
gather research consent.
Database The database activity module allows the teacher and/or students to
build, display and search a bank of record entries about any
conceivable topic. The format and structure of these entries can be
almost unlimited, including images, files, URLs, numbers and text
amongst other things.
External Tools The external tool enables Moodle users to interact with LTI-compliant
learning resources and activities on other web sites. For instance, an
external tool could provide access to a new activity type or learning
materials from a publisher.
Feedback Allows you to create and conduct surveys to collect feedback. Unlike
the Survey tool it allows you to write your own questions, rather than
choose from a list of pre-written questions and unlike the Quiz tool, you
can create non-graded questions. The Feedback activity is ideal for the
likes of course or teacher evaluations.
Forum
The forum module is an activity where students and teachers can
exchange ideas by posting comments. There are four basic forum
types. Forum posts can be graded by the teacher or other students. A
forum can contribute significantly to successful communication and
community building in an online environment. You can use forums for
many innovative purposes in educational settings, but teaching forums
and student forums are arguably the two more significant distinctions.
Glossary
The glossary activity module allows participants to create and maintain
a list of definitions, like a dictionary.
Glossary can be used in many ways. The entries can be searched or
browsed in different formats. A glossary can be a collaborative activity
or be restricted to entries made by the teacher. Entries can be put in
categories. The auto-linking feature will highlight any word in the course
which is located in the glossary.
Lesson The lesson module presents a series of HTML pages to the student
who is usually asked to make some sort of choice underneath the
content area. The choice will send them to a specific page in the
Lesson. In a Lesson page's simplest form, the student can select a
147 | P a g e
continue button at the bottom of the page, which will send them to the
next page in the Lesson.
Quiz Allows the teacher to design and build quizzes consisting of a large
variety of Question types, including multiple choice, true-false, and
short answer questions. These questions are kept in the Question
bank and can be re-used in different quizzes.
SCORM Enables the teacher to upload any SCORM or AICC package to include
in your course. SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) is
a collection of specifications that enable interoperability, accessibility
and reusability of web-based learning content. SCORM content can be
delivered to learners via any SCORM-compliant Learning Management
System (LMS) using the same version of SCORM.
Survey Provides a number of verified survey instruments, including COLLES

(Constructivist On-Line Learning Environment Survey) and ATTLS
(Attitudes to Thinking and Learning Survey), which have been found
useful in assessing and stimulating learning in online environments.
Teachers can use these to gather data from their students that will help
them learn about their class and reflect on their own teaching.
Wikis A wiki is a collection of collaboratively authored web documents.

Basically, a wiki page is a web page everyone in your class can create
together, right in the browser, without needing to know HTML. A wiki
starts with one front page. Each author can add other pages to the wiki
by simply creating a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. Wikis can be a
powerful tool for collaborative work. The entire class can edit a
document together, creating a class product, or each student can have
their own wiki and work on it with you and their classmates.
Workshops Workshop is similar to the Assignment module and extends its

functionality in many ways.
The typical workshop follows a straight path from Setup to, Submission,
Assessment, Grading/Evaluation, and ending with the Closed
phased. The progress of the activity is visualized in so called Workshop
planner tool. It displays all Workshop phases and highlights the current
one. It also lists all the tasks the user has in the current phase with the
information of whether the task is finished or not yet finished or even
failed.
(This capability would add a new CoE-sponsored dimension to

conference sessions/workshops and in-country short courses using a
blended learning experience take the follow-up Workshop Course).
148 | P a g e
Appendix 7: LMS Use in Africa
LMS in Africa
Reference:
http://elearningindustry.com/top-lms-statistics-and-facts-for-2015
http://elearningindustry.com/elearning-statistics-and-facts-for-2015)
Todays LMS is a proven and broadly used technology. According to recent industry statistics,
more than 200,000 LMS installations (customers) serve 100+ million users worldwide. Whi le
the education sector leads LMS use (21%), a wide range of other sectors use an LMS in their
businesses: technology (12%), manufacturing (9%), consulting and healthcare (each at 7%).
In 2015, a study was conducted on LMS use amongst universities in Nairobi, Kenya ( Adoption
Determinants of E-learning Management System in Institutions of Higher Learning in Kenya: A
Case of Selected Universities in Nairobi Metropolitan). Key results from this study include:
Study targeted 600 LMS stakeholders/users: teachers (67), administrators

(46), students (465), ICT staff (22); 90% 35 years old or younger.
65% of all study participants had 2+ years of experience with a LMS indicating
an early stage of adoption
The users perceived EMS to be useful, the use of EMS tools enabled the users
to accomplish tasks more quickly, enhanced their efficiencies as students and
reduced their study load. It helped the students to learn the topics, which in turn
enhanced their chances of scoring higher grades. (EMS = E-Learning
Management System)
The use of EMS allowed the users to get information from online sourc es,
interact with friends and work together on assignments. Further the use of EMS
helped the students to interact with teachers and get answers within reasonable
time frames. That interactivity was one of key construct that make e-Learning
less frustrating by enabling the person to be able to adjust the time, location,
content, and speed of learning according to their own personal schedules.
The use of EMS also enhanced flexibility. The users could enjoy the benefit of
convenience, which EMS brought to them. The users could study anytime and
at any place of their convenience. The use of EMS also allowed the learners to
study at their own pace and in most convenient learning style. Further, the use
of EMS enabled the users to choose topics in order of their preferences.
Training teachers/instructors and students in the use of an LMS for course
delivery is especially important for success
As the study concludes, use of LMS technology in Africa is in early stage of adoption relative to
other developed nations. Hampered by spotty Internet access, slow and/or unreliable Internet
access in many locations, and low availability of expensive laptops and PCs typically used to
access the LMS (less expensive mobile devices are making significant inroads), LMS adoption
in Africa has been slow. However, these barriers are beginning to be addressed, especially in
the larger metropolitan areas.
While the above factors may be impediments for some students, the CoE Facility will be equipped
with high-speed Internet access, WIFI for convenient CoE campus access, and student
accessibility to work stations and/or laptops while on premise. When the student is in a location
where Internet access is not readily available (e.g., at home), the student will need to visit a
149 | P a g e
nearby location where access is available such as a university, arrangements with a local
business, or government facility.
PALS (Project Model Learning and Support)
(The following are selective paragraphs from the document entitled PALS: Project model
Accredited Learning & Support)
PALS is an online community learning approach that delivers facilitated module based learning
and support to World Vision economic development programming staff based in the field.
Developed by World Vision Australias Social Entrepreneurship and Economic Development

Team (SEED), PALS is delivered and accredited via the global World Vision eCampus online
learning platform which uses Moodle as its Learning Management System.
It acknowledges learners as individuals who shape their own knowledge development rather than
merely being receivers of information. This is achieved by harnessing the power of collaborative
learning through an online global community of peers and more experienced practitioners who
are constantly sharing questions, challenges, reflections and insights over the lifecycle of their
respective programs.
The objectives of PALS are to:
- Develop and recognize the expertise of our field staff who can go on to
provide locally-based support to their peers;
- Provide an online learning community in which staff can share their
expertise and experiences and learn from their peers and more
experienced practitioners;
- Increase the impact that our economic development project models achieve
within the communities we work by having more experienced and informed
practitioners.
The PALS approach is currently being piloted across 8 African countries, 25 projects and 44
participants, with plans to extend to over 30 countries and 150 participants in 2014. It is focusing
upon the Local Value Chain Development (LVCD) project model, which helps producers to
increase their incomes through collective empowerment and better engagement and access to
markets.
150 | P a g e
There are several aspects of the PALS program that are expected to be similar at the CoE:
The PALS program uses an LMS (Moodle).

PALS is a great example of using an LMS to overcome challenges where students,
instructors and experts are dispersed geographically making it difficult and/or impractical
(financial and logistically) to reach empower a large number of students quickly.
PALS follows a standard schedule yet participants are able to choose when and how often
they logon to complete the tasks within the allocated time. This approach allows for the
different time-zones, travel commitments, and connectivity issues facing the global
participants whilst also ensuring they move through the activities at the same pace and
benefit from being part of an online interactive community learning together.
PALS uses a Project-Based learning model where course modules incorporate content
and data from real projects to provide live context to the students.
AS depicted above in Figure above, the PALS curriculum has both accreditation and
community (stakeholder elements) that includes continuing on-the-job education after the
initial student training. The CoE is envisioned to have similar areas of focus over time.
151 | P a g e
Appendix 8: Detailed Budget
Outputs Detail 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5 Yr Total Yr 5-10 Total 10 Yr Total
Implementation
Preparation of detailed CoE consulting team
Implementation Plan with retained by GDC to
Country-specific for 2016 CoE develop $225,000 $375,000 $600,000 $0 $600,000
Training Plans, and expected Implementation Plan
2017-20 scaling up plans and CoE Training
Plans.
GDC retained
CoE Bi-Laws and legal
implementation teams $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $0 $100,000
agreements
legal consultant
2 initial (2016) plus 5
Permanent staff hired additional full time staff $150,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,350,000 $2,000,000 $3,350,000
members (2017)
Implementation
CoE Curriculum and training
consulting team with $300,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $450,000 $250,000 $700,000
activities
SC implementation plan, GDC, KenGen and
Review of above
training plan, approval of staff $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 $225,000
conducted by SC
hired & curriculum review
Materials preparation,
local/expat instructors hired, Per 5 year
ST, MT, LT e-Learning implementation plan, $1,440,580 $1,390,476 $1,390,476 $1,340,372 $1,340,372 $1,265,524 $855,620 $812,750 $812,750 $5,561,904 $5,087,016 $10,648,920
trainings, modified as necessary
internships/attachments
In-country candidate interviews
Done by CoE staff
& yearly CoE trainee plan $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $160,000 $100,000 $240,000
and/or consultants
reviews
CoE hosted at GDC
CoE site selected, furnished with training facilities in
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $100,000 $300,000
and/or equipped existing GDC and
KenGen facilities
GoK and ICEIDA $116,250 $93,000 $139,500 $116,250 $232,500 $348,750
Petrography Lab $138,000 $110,400 $165,600 $138,000 $276,000 $414,000
Geophysics $210,500 $168,400 $252,600 $210,500 $421,000 $631,500
Computer Support $180,000 $144,000 $216,000 $180,000 $360,000 $540,000

Lab Laboratory accredited,
$275,000 $50,000 $275,000 $50,000 $325,000
assessment & training
Equipment lending
guidelines established,
agreements negotiated $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000
with CoE member
countries
Drilling Similator Based at GDC $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000
Power Plant Similator Based at KenGen $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000

Purchase of 2 project vehicles, One vehicle for student
$100,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
insurance, fuel, maintenance field trips, one admin
LMS Setup and hosting
$150,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
LMS costs; enhancements
Hosting services $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
DMS Setup and
hosting costs; $50,000 $50,000
enhancements
DMS Data Setup Services to
$0 $0 $0 $0
members
Hosting Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Permanent site selected, site

GDC Site selection.
plan, architectural, structural,
Site plan prepared by
roads, sewage, water, etc. $0 $0 $350,000
local general
designs completed, permits
contractor.
obtained
Construction of laboratories,
workshops, learning center, Local general
living space, kitchen, dining contractor supervised $0 $0 $4,800,000 $7,200,000
room, visitor demo center, by CoE director
auxiliary support buildings
Utilities $0 $0 $0 $12,500 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Communications $0 $0 $0 $18,750 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Site Operations Grounds $0 $0 $0 $6,250 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Maint $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Dorms, Food Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ITC Service, Repair $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Guided by USAID
Direct use guidance &
based on USAID direct $100,000 $200,000
demonstration center
use studies
Done annually by
External program evaluations $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
outside consultants
Consultant inputs for
trainings, planning,
Miscellaneous $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000
procurement costs,
admin, local travel,
Totals $1,775,000 $5,185,580 $3,035,226 $2,415,476 $2,515,372 $7,573,672 $10,304,224 $1,870,620 $1,827,750 $1,827,750
5-Year Totals $14,926,654 $23,404,016

153 | P a g e
Appendix 9: Detailed Course Budget
Training Unit
Students per Students Cost (USD per
Course Type Weeks course Trained Total Cost Student)
Short Term 4 20 First Five Yrs 1,000 $5,561,904 $ 5,562 Mid-term training increase 42%
Medium Term 12 20 Yrs 6 to 10 1,420 $5,087,016 $ 3,582
Long Term (GTP, Internships, University, Other) 24 1 First 10 Yrs 2,420 $10,648,920 $ 4,400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5-Year Total Yr 6-10 Total 10 Yr Total
CoE Courses -- Worksheet
Course Weeks Required 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Number of Courses Offered
Existing Campus (ST EC) 0 10 10 10 10 10 7 4 4 4
Onsite CoE Facility (ST Onsite) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 4
eLearning (ST Online) 0 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4
Existing Campus (MT EC) 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2
Onsite CoE Facility (MT Onsite) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3
eLearning (MT Online) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Long Term (GTP, Internships, University, Other) 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Total Courses 0 26 26 26 26 28 28 27 27 27
Number of Student Course Weeks Completed
Long Term (GTP, Internships, University, Other) 0 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240
Total Course Weeks 0 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 2,080 2,400 2,160 2,160 2,160
154 | P a g e
Program Costs (per Student Course Week)
Existing Campus (ST EC) $0 $762 $742 $742 $722 $722 $703 $703 $683 $683
Onsite CoE Facility (ST Onsite) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $245 $245 $232 $232
eLearning (ST Online) $0 $35 $31 $31 $28 $14 $12 $12 $10 $10
Existing Campus (MT EC) $0 $860 $825 $825 $790 $790 $755 $755 $719 $719
Onsite CoE Facility (MT Onsite) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259 $259 $238 $238
eLearning (MT Online) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Long Term (GTP, Internships, University, Other) $0 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354
Average Cost (across all venues) $0 $750 $724 $724 $698 $644 $527 $396 $376 $376
Program Total Costs
Existing Campus (ST EC) $0 $609,650 $593,780 $593,780 $577,910 $577,910 $393,428 $224,816 $218,468 $218,468 $2,375,120 $1,633,090 $4,008,210
Onsite CoE Facility (ST Onsite) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,580 $78,320 $74,240 $74,240 $0 $246,380 $246,380
eLearning (ST Online) $0 $5,610 $5,032 $5,032 $4,454 $4,454 $3,876 $3,876 $3,298 $3,298 $20,128 $18,802 $38,930
Existing Campus (MT EC) $0 $825,320 $791,664 $791,664 $758,008 $758,008 $724,352 $362,176 $345,348 $345,348 $3,166,656 $2,535,232 $5,701,888
Onsite CoE Facility (MT Onsite) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,288 $186,432 $171,396 $171,396 $0 $653,512 $653,512
eLearning (MT Online) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Long Term (GTP, Internships, University, Other) $0 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $1,300,000 $1,625,000 $2,925,000
Total Cost $0 $1,440,580 $1,390,476 $1,390,476 $1,340,372 $1,340,372 $1,265,524 $855,620 $812,750 $812,750 $5,561,904 $5,087,016 $10,648,920
Program Completion
Course Weeks Required 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Students Trained (w/o LT) 0 240 240 240 240 260 300 270 270 270 960 1,370 2,330
LT Students Trained 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 40 50 90
Total Students Trained 0 250 250 250 250 270 310 280 280 280 1,000 1,420 2,420
Average Student Cost $0 $5,762 $5,562 $5,562 $5,361 $4,964 $4,082 $3,056 $2,903 $2,903 $5,562 $3,582 $4,400
Note: Yellow marks formula-related cells.
155 | P a g e
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CoE Courses (Detail)
Short Term Courses (ST)
Student weeks per course 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Existing Campus (ST EC)
Number of Courses 0 10 10 10 10 10 7 4 4 4
Students Per Course 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
International Instructor (USD per course) $21,900 $21,900 $21,900 $21,900 $21,900 $21,900 $21,900 $21,900 $21,900 $21,900
Incountry Instructor (USD per course) $6,030 $6,030 $6,030 $6,030 $6,030 $6,030 $6,030 $6,030 $6,030 $6,030
International Instructor Mix 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10%
Instructor Cost (USD Per Course) $13,965 $13,965 $12,378 $12,378 $10,791 $10,791 $9,204 $9,204 $7,617 $7,617
Student Cost Per Course $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350
Other Cost Per Course $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost Per Course $60,965 $60,965 $59,378 $59,378 $57,791 $57,791 $56,204 $56,204 $54,617 $54,617
Sub-total ST EC cost $0 $609,650 $593,780 $593,780 $577,910 $577,910 $393,428 $224,816 $218,468 $218,468
Sub-total ST EC course weeks 0 800 800 800 800 800 560 320 320 320
ST EC Unit Cost (USD per course week) $0 $762 $742 $742 $722 $722 $703 $703 $683 $683
Onsite CoE Facility (ST Onsite)
Student Cost Per Course $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 $670 $670
Sub-total ST Onsite cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,580 $78,320 $74,240 $74,240
Sub-total ST Onsite course weeks 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 320 320 320
ST Onsite Unit Cost (USD per course week) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $245 $245 $232 $232
156 | P a g e
eLearning (ST Online)
Sub-total ST Online cost $5,610 $5,610 $5,032 $5,032 $4,454 $4,454 $3,876 $3,876 $3,298 $3,298
Sub-total ST Online course weeks 0 160 160 160 160 320 320 320 320 320
ST Online Unit Cost (USD per course week) $0 $35 $31 $31 $28 $14 $12 $12 $10 $10
Medium Term Courses (MT)
Existing Campus (MT EC)
Sub-total MT EC cost $0 $825,320 $791,664 $791,664 $758,008 $758,008 $724,352 $362,176 $345,348 $345,348
Sub-total MT EC course weeks 0 960 960 960 960 960 960 480 480 480
MT EC Unit Cost (USD per course week) $0 $860 $825 $825 $790 $790 $755 $755 $719 $719
157 | P a g e
Onsite CoE Facility (MT Onsite)
Sub-total MT Onsite cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,288 $186,432 $171,396 $171,396
Sub-total MT Onsite course weeks 0 0 0 0 0 0 480 720 720 720
MT Onsite Unit Cost (USD per course week) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259 $259 $238 $238
eLearning (MT Online)
Sub-total MT Online cost $31,020 $31,020 $27,824 $27,824 $24,628 $24,628 $21,432 $21,432 $18,236 $18,236
Sub-total MT Online course weeks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MT Online Unit Cost (USD per course week) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
158 | P a g e
Long Term (UNU GTP, Internship, University, Other)
Tuition, Registration (USD per Course) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Sub-total LT cost $0 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000
Sub-total LT course weeks 0 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240
LT Online Unit Cost (USD per course week) $0 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354 $1,354
159 | P a g e
ST EC ST Onsite ST Online MT EC MT Onsite MT Online
Instructor Cost -- International Consultant
Duration (weeks) 4 4 4 12 12 12
Instructor Hourly Rate 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5
Number of Instructors 1 1 1 2 2 2
Preparation Time (hours per instructor) 16 16 16 16 16 16
Instruction time (hours per instructor) 160 160 120 480 480 360
Travel Time (hours per instructor) 16 16 0 16 16 0
Sub-Total (hours per instructor) 192 192 136 512 512 376
Lodging (USD per day) $200 $0 $0 $200 $0 $0
Meals & Incidentals (USD per day) $100 $30 $0 $100 $30 $0
Per Diem Cost (USD/Day) $300 $30 $0 $300 $30 $0
Travel (air, taxi) $1,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $0
Labor Cost $12,000 $12,000 $8,500 $64,000 $64,000 $47,000
Per Diem Cost $8,400 $840 $0 $50,400 $5,040 $0
Travel Cost $1,500 $1,500 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $0
Total $21,900 $14,340 $8,500 $117,400 $72,040 $47,000
160 | P a g e
Instructor Cost -- InCountry Instructor
Duration (weeks) 4 4 4 12 12 12
Instructor Hourly Rate $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20
Number of Instructors 1 1 1 2 2 2
Preparation Time (hours per instructor) 16 16 16 16 16 16
Instruction time (hours per instructor) 160 160 120 480 480 360
Travel Time (hours per instructor) 8 8 $0 8 8 $0
Sub-Total (hours per instructor) 184 184 136 504 504 376
Per Diem Adjustment Factor 0.50 0.50 0.0 0.50 0.50 0.0
Per Diem Cost (USD/Day) $150 $15 $0 $150 $15 $0
Travel (air, taxi) $250 $250 $0 $250 $250 $0
Labor Cost $3,680 $3,680 $2,720 $20,160 $20,160 $15,040
Per Diem Cost $2,100 $210 $0 $12,600 $1,260 $0
Travel Cost $250 $250 $0 $500 $500 $0
Total $6,030 $4,140 $2,720 $33,260 $21,920 $15,040
161 | P a g e
Student Cost
Duration (weeks) 4 4 4 12 12 12 24
Per Diem Adjustment Factor 0.50 0.50 0.0 0.50 0.50 0.0
Per Diem Cost (USD/Day) $75 $15 $0 $75 $15 $0 $125
Travel (air, taxi) $250 $250 $0 $250 $250 $0 $1,500
Tuition $10,000
Per Diem Cost $2,100 $420 $0 $6,300 $1,260 $0 $21,000
Travel Cost $250 $250 $0 $250 $250 $0 $1,500
Total $2,350 $670 $0 $6,550 $1,510 $0 $32,500
162 | P a g e
Appendix 10: Detailed Lab Budget
Laboratory Training Need Training Cost Training Lab Totals
GeoChem Lab
Atomic absorption spectrometer 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
ICP:-OES Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
ICP-Mass spectrometer 1 $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Ion chromatography system 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Uv-Visible Spectrophotometer 1 $ 45,000 $ 45,000
Automated potentiometric titration system 1 $ 45,000 $ 45,000
Gas sample introduction system 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
pH-mV meter 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 8 $ 16,000
Gas-chromatograph 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Ammonia Analyzer 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Total inorganic carbon NDIR flow injection analysis system 1 $ 45,000 $ 45,000
Mass spectrometer for stable isotopes and Tritium scintillation counter 1 $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Top-loading balance 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 1 $ 3,000
Analytical balance 2 $ 6,500 $ 13,000 1 $ 6,500
Diminaeralized water system 1 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 1 $ 12,000
Ultra pure water system 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000
Gravity convection oven 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 8 $ 40,000
Other laboratory supplies, glass wear, sample bottles, reagents,
buffers, safety equipment, gas tanks, power stabilizer etc. 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 1,586,000 1 $ 125,000 $232,500
Petrography Lab $ -
Rock milling machine 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000
Abrasive cutter and cut off saw 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000
Auto precision lapidary machine 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000
Thin sectioning machine 1 $ 55,000 $ 55,000 2 $ 110,000
Muffle furnace 2 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 2 $ 10,000
Balance 2 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 2 $ 6,000
Ventilation hoods 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000
Wash facilities 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000
Student binary microscopes 5 $ 10,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 10,000
Research binary microscopes 2 $ 20,000 $ 40,000
Student petrographic microscopes 5 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 20,000
Research petrographic microscopes 2 $ 35,000 $ 70,000
Fluid inclusion heating-freezing microscope stages 2 $ 40,000 $ 80,000 1 $ 40,000
Digital camera equipment for microscopes 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000
X-Ray Diffractometer 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000
X-Ray Fluorescence 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 941,000 $276,000
Geophysics
Magnetotelluric MT sets 4 $ 100,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 100,000
Transient Electromagnetic TEM sets 4 $ 80,000 $ 320,000 1 $ 80,000
Gravimeter 2 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 200,000
Magnetometers 2 $ 16,000 $ 32,000 1 $ 16,000
Microseismic 24 $ 25,000 $ 600,000 $ 1,752,000 1 $ 25,000 $ 421,000
Computer Support
Hardware 20 $ 3,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Software 10 $ 30,000 $ 300,000 $ 360,000 $ 300,000 $ 360,000
Totals $ 4,639,000 $ 4,639,000 $1,289,500
Note: Training Lab Total Budget for year 1-5 was devided in 1/2 to facilitate training at existing Labs
Training LabTotal Budget for years 6-10 utilities full 100% build at CoE and accounts for inflation
163 | P a g e
Appendix 11: Detailed Sustainability Plan
Approach #1 Near-Team 1-5 Years 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Expenses
CAPEX $ (1,500,000) $ (2,415,000) $ (854,162) $ (63,669) $ (492,280) $ (5,325,111)
OPEX $ (275,000) $ (3,134,859) $ (2,492,175) $ (2,732,546) $ (2,565,170) $ (11,199,750)
Total Expense $ (1,775,000) $ (5,549,859) $ (3,346,337) $ (2,796,215) $ (3,057,450) $ (16,524,861)
Income
Grants, Contributions $ 1,775,000 $ 3,804,791 $ 1,711,702 $ 995,336 $ 1,176,388 $ 9,463,217
Income -- Courses $ - $ 937,818 $ 950,460 $ 997,983 $ 1,010,123 $ 3,896,383
Income -- Membership $ - $ 780,000 $ 780,000 $ 780,000 $ 975,000 $ 3,315,000
Income -- Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Income $ 1,775,000 $ 5,522,609 $ 3,442,162 $ 2,773,319 $ 3,161,511 $ 16,674,600
Cash Flow
Expense (-) $ (1,775,000) $ (5,549,859) $ (3,346,337) $ (2,796,215) $ (3,057,450) $ (16,524,861)
Income (+) $ 1,775,000 $ 5,522,609 $ 3,442,162 $ 2,773,319 $ 3,161,511 $ 16,674,600
Net $ - $ (27,250) $ 95,825 $ (22,896) $ 104,060 $ 149,739
Income -- Grants, Scholarships
GoK $ 1,500,000 $ 2,915,000 $ 854,162 $ 63,669 $ 492,280 $ 5,825,111
Source 2 (OPEX cash fow) $ 275,000 $ 315,000 $ 275,000 $ 320,000 $ 65,000 $ 1,250,000
Source 3 (Course Scholarships) $ - $ 574,791 $ 582,540 $ 611,667 $ 619,108 $ 2,388,106
Sub-Total $ 1,775,000 $ 3,804,791 $ 1,711,702 $ 995,336 $ 1,176,388 $ 9,463,217
Income -- Membership + Registration
Country Subsidized Fees
Number of Countries 13 13 13 13
Annual Membership Subsides $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 75,000
Sub-Total $ 780,000 $ 780,000 $ 780,000 $ 975,000 $ 3,315,000
Courses Registration
Member Course Discount 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Member Course Registration (% courses) 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Member Course Income $ - $ 529,413 $ 536,550 $ 563,377 $ 570,231 $ 2,199,571
Non-Member Course Income $ - $ 408,404 $ 413,910 $ 434,605 $ 439,892 $ 1,696,812
Other
Facility Rental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Equipment Rental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sub-Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Income -- Scholarships
Member Country Courses
Covered Cost % 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Amount $ - $ 529,413 $ 536,550 $ 563,377 $ 570,231 $ 2,199,571
Non-Member Country Courses
Covered Cost % 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Amount $ - $ 45,378 $ 45,990 $ 48,289 $ 48,877 $ 188,535
Course Cost (Summary)
Total Students - 250 250 250 250 270
Cost per student $0 $6,050 $6,132 $6,439 $6,517 $4,964
Total Cost $ - $ 1,512,609 $ 1,533,000 $ 1,609,650 $ 1,629,231 $ 1,340,372
Approach #2 Mid-Team 6-10 Years 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
Cash Flow Summary
CAPEX $ (1,217,209) $ (5,121,782) $ (77,391) $ (81,260) $ (85,323) $ (6,582,964)
OPEX $ (2,811,485) $ (3,049,420) $ (2,554,760) $ (2,619,159) $ (2,750,117) $ (11,199,750)
Total Expense $ (4,028,694) $ (8,171,201) $ (2,632,150) $ (2,700,419) $ (2,835,440) $ (17,782,714)
Cash Flow with CAPEX funded by 10-Year, Interest Free Loan
Principal Loan Payment $ (121,721) $ (633,899) $ (641,638) $ (649,764) $ (658,296) $ (2,705,318)
OPEX $ (2,811,485) $ (3,049,420) $ (2,554,760) $ (2,619,159) $ (2,750,117) $ (13,784,941)
Total Expense $ (2,933,206) $ (3,683,319) $ (3,196,398) $ (3,268,923) $ (3,408,413) $ (16,490,259)
Royalty Payment
Electric production (MWH/Yr) 25,530,144 31,105,008 36,679,872 42,254,736 47,829,600 183,399,360
CoE Royalty ($/Mwhr) $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.07
Electric Production (derived from UNEP Skills Report)
2020 UNEP/ARGeo Production 3.643 Slope 0.7955
2025 UNEP/ARGeo Production 6.825
0 1 2 3 4
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Geothermal Production 3.643 4.439 5.234 6.030 6.825
Mwe 3643 4438.5 5234 6029.5 6825
Load Factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Electric production (MWH/Yr) 25,530,144 31,105,008 36,679,872 42,254,736 47,829,600
Allocation of Funds from Gok

Total $ 17,100,000
Used in near-term phase $5,825,111
Remaining for mid-term phase $ 11,274,889
165 | P a g e
Appendix 12: Geothermal Development Company Existing
Equipment List - 2015
1.0 GEOLOGY EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT No.
XRD and accessories 1
XRF machine and accessories 1
Hill Quist thin section machine 1
Muffle furnace 1
Kemet 15 auto precision & lapping lapidary machine) 1
Rock milling machine & and accessories 1
Metron Abrasive cutter & cut off saw 1
Petrographic microscopes 2
Discussion microscope s 2
Binocular microscopes 2
Hot Plates 2
Magnetic Stirrer 1
Analytical balance 1
1
Infrared thermometer 1
GPS receiver 1
Geological compass 1
Prismatic compass 1
Digital Hot plate stirrer 1
Analytical Balance 1
Test Tube Shaker 1
Digital micro screw gauge 1
Digital thermocouple 1
Centrifuge Machine 1
Ultrasonic cleaner set 1
2.0 GEOPHYSICS EQUIPMENT

EQUIPMENT No
Magnetotelluric (MTU-5A; from Phoenix) 15
Magnetotelluric (MTU-5A; from KMS) 10
TDEM (Phoenix) 1
TEM (Zonge) 4
Magnetometer (GSM-19TW v7.0) 1
166 | P a g e
Gravimeter (and Differential GPS accessory) 1
MEQ Seismic sensors and recorders 10
3.0 GEOCHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS

INSTRUMENT TOTAL No.
Gas chromatograph (GC) 2
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) 1
Ion chromatograph (IC) - (Dionex ics-5000+) 1
UV Spectrophotometer 1
Analytical Balance kern 1
Analytical Balance (SCOUT PRO) 1
Auto Titrator processor 2
Spectrofluorophotometer (RF-5301PC) 1
Water Distiller 1
Conductivity/TDS Meter 3
pH Meters 2
pH/TDS/Conductivity Meter 5
ISE machine 2
Webre Separators 3
Rotary Vacuum Pump 1
Viscometer (LVDV-11+P) 1
Soil Flux Meter 1
Orsats 4
Radon Meter (RAD7) 2
2
Thermocouples 4
Down hole sampler 1
Inhibitor Dosing equipment set 1
4.0 GIS INSTRUMENTS

INSTRUMENT NO.
R8 Geodetic GNSS GPS, Receivers 1
Digital Planimeter 1
Dini Level & its Accessories 2
Dini Level & its Accessories 1
GEOXH 6000 HANDHELD 1
Magellan Mapper GPS 1
Nomad 900GLC 4
167 | P a g e
Plotter HP Designjet T1200 1
Steel Measuring Band 1
Thuraya satellite phone XT 1
Trimble Juno SB 6
5.0 DRILLING/WORKSHOP EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
Drilling Simulator 1
Deep well Drilling Rigs 7
Coil tubing 1
Cementing lab 1
Cementing Unit 5
Dry Blending Equipment 4
Batch Mixers 2
Plant maintenance software 1
6.0 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Logging Trucks ( slick line and e-line) 2
Lifting Trucks 2
Logging Winch (skid mounted) 2
0.108 Wire line 316ss(5000m) Not spooled on winch 2
Interference Test Equipment ( Winch, data logger, solar panel, battery, 1 Set
Pressure transducer)
Kuster downhole Pressure and Temperature Electronic Memory Probe 2 sets
complete with, Interface and Software, handling tools and spares.
Kuster downhole Pressure Temperature and Spinner Electronic Surface 1 Set
Read out (SRO) Probe complete with Interface and Software, handling
tools and spares
Kuster downhole Mechanical Pressure Gauge/ Temperature Gauge 5 Sets

complete with handling tools and spares
Lubricators 5 Sets
Oil Bath Calibrator 1
Chart Reader 2
Chemical Dosing Equipment (Winch, tubing unit, dosing pumps , 1 Set
deionizer)
Wellhead Pressure Recorders 10
Wellhead pressure gauges - different ranges 50+
168 | P a g e
Differential Pressure recorders 2
Dead weight tester 1
Wellhead Tee piece and adapter flanges 10 Sets
Safety Equipment (PPEs, Safety Lanyards, SCBA kit) 2 sets
Air compressor 1
A/C Welding Machine 2

Mobile welding machine (Lincoln Electric) 1
Radial Arm drilling machine 1
Lathe machine 1
169 | P a g e
Appendix 13: ARGeos Skills Audit and Gap Study for
Geothermal Energy Subsector in African Countries
Synopsis: UNEP, through its ARGeo Project, in partnership with GDC and other countries and
stakeholders, conducted a skills gap audit and analysis. The analysis focused on East African
Rift System (EARS) countries that includes: Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and
Zambia. This analysis was done to identify the gaps, needs and expectations in terms of skilled
manpower to development geothermal resources in these thirteen African. The aim of the study
was to help design a plan to carry out relevant types of geothermal training and research
programs in order to meet strategic objective to develop geothermal resource in each of these
countries in the next 10-15 years. This skill gap analysis was prepared in connection with the
long-term objective of the establishment of the Africa Geothermal Center of Excellence.
The full report can be downloaded from Dropbox:

Skills Audit and Gap Study for the Geothermal Energy Subsector in African Countries, by Isaac
Kanda, UNEP - ARGeo, August, 2015
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gflongvfd9pne02/Revised%20Skill%20gap%20report.pdf?dl=0
Appendix 14: Terms of Reference
Feasibility study and Preparation of a Concept Note

For an African Geothermal Center of Excellence
Objective:
The overall objective, to which this consultancy will contribute, is to assist countries in East
Africa to build capacity for geothermal development and utilization as may be applicable, in
order to accelerate geothermal development in the respective countries.
The specific objective of this consultancy is to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional
geothermal training center in Kenya, and prepare a concept note with recommendations on key
aspects of such a center, including, institutional set-up, operational model and long term
sustainability
Scope of Work
The two main tasks of this assignment are:
Ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional geothermal training center for Africa,
in Kenya.
Prepare a concept note, assuming the feasibility of the center, with analysis and
description of the conditions under which such a center would be feasible and provide a
framework and recommendations for next steps, including the establishment, training
and future development of programs, activities and equipment.
The full ToR can be downloaded from the below Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6k3ee5sspg56r6t/Terms%20of%20Reference%20-
%20Feasibility%20Study%20-
%20African%20Geothermal%20Center%20of%20Excellence.pdf?dl=0
Appendix 15: Validation Workshop hosted by UNEP
The Validation Workshop on the Feasibility Study for establishment of the Africa Geothermal
Center of Excellence was held at the UN Complex, Conference Room 3, in Nairobi, Kenya on
12-13 August 2015. The workshop was hosted by the United Nations Environment Program and
co-organized by the Government of Kenya, Iceland International Development Agency and the
African Union Commission. The overall objective of the workshop was to provide a collaborative
platform for countries to contribute and discuss the vision of the Africa Geothermal Center of
Excellence and foster ownership and leadership among participants, countries and external
partners in the establishment and operations of the Center of Excellence. UNEPs Validation
Workshop Report can be downloaded here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/314cbsl7ggw6dl6/Validation%20workshop%20report%20.pdf?dl=0
The workshop consisted of:

Day 1: Country representatives Meeting (12 August); and
Agenda Day 1
Day 2: Countries and Development Partners Joint Meeting (13 August)
Agenda Day 2
The workshop brought together country representatives from 13 East Africa countries,
development partners, technical institutions and academia. About 80 participants attended it.
The list of participants can be downloaded from DropBox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bnqbz2c7lkyx7vp/Validation%20Workshop%20Participants.pdf?dl=0
172 | P a g e
Appendix 16: Northern Corridor Integration Project
Agreements with regard to Kenya establishing an Africa
Geothermal CoE
1) 4th Ministerial Northern Corridor Integrated Projects Summit, Ministerial Meeting

Report, Munyonyo, Kampala, Uganda - 19th February, 2014
Signed by: Eng. Michael S.M. Kamau, Cabinet Secretary,

Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, Republic of Kenya
1.4 HUMAN RESOURCE CAPACITY BUILDING

1.4.5 Mobilize funds for the Geothermal Center of Excellence as reflected in the report,
estimated at USD 17.1 million (over a period of 2 years), to enable the Center carry out
capacity building for the region.
2) 4th Northern Corridor Integration Projects, Joint Communique, Speke Report,

Munyonyo, Kampala, Uganda 20th February, 2014
Signed by: H.E. Uhuru Kenyetta, President of the Republic of Kenya
Page 3: D) Human Resource Capacity Building

Ministry of Finance to mobilize funds and resources for Geothermal Center of
Excellence in Kenya.
3) Northern Corridor Integration Projects, Human Resource Capacity Building

Cluster, Permanent/Principle/Under Secretaries Meeting, Crown Hotel Juba,
Southern Sudan, 28th November, 2014 Report of the Meeting
Leader of delegation from the Republic of Kenya, Dr. Belio Kipsang, Principal Secretary
State Department of Education.
In this report, it is documented that GDC was selected as host of the Africa Geothermal
CoE and that the center is to be based in Nakuru, Kenya.
Page12: Location:
Geothermal Centre of Excellence Nakuru, Kenya
Page15: Host:
Geothermal Centre of Excellence
Geothermal Development, Kenya
http://www.gdc.co.ke/
Contact: lsaac Kanda
173 | P a g e

Africa Geothermal

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Africa Geothermal

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Feasibility Study for the

3050 P Street NW; Washington, DC 20007, USA

Needs Assessment and Proposed Mission and Objectives

Lab and Equipment Framework

Governance and Administration Framework

CoE Projected Costs/Budget

Validation Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations

1.2 CoE Feasibility Study Approach

Confirm and expand knowledge of the geothermal-related needs in Africa

Based on the above, ascertain the feasibility of establishing a regional

5. Centers of Excellence and other International Agencies

1.3 Desk Review: The Need for Africa Geothermal Capacity

Table 1.3.1 GRMF & other developments in East Africa

Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility and other developements in East Africa

Olkaria II units 1&2 70 2004

Olkaria II Unit 3 35 2010

Olkaria III 52.8 2000- 2008

Olkaria III 57.2 2009-2014

Olkaria IV, Olkaria I unit 4&5 280 2014

Eburru Wellhead 2.5 2010

Ethiopia Aluto Langano 7.5 1998

GRMF 1stAR Bogoria-Silali -Kenya 200 2020

Table 1.3.2 Estimated Professional Skilled Manpower Needed for 2010-2020

Kenya Ethiopia Djibouti Tanzania Uganda Total

Drillers 91 100 2 4 4 201

Technicians 165 115 30 36 26 372

Total 401* 285 57 83 77 903

*Kenyas MoE staff not included

Stage 1: Pre-feasibility - detailed survey and exploration drilling,

Required Staff vs MWe

MWe Staff required

Source: UNEP ARGeo 2015

Additionally, in another study Geothermal Capacity Needs Assessment Methodology,

1) Highly specialized personnel (geoscientists, engineers and operations staff) directly

2) Other enabling environment personnel involved in regulating, monitoring, supporting

1.5.1 Student Questionnaire

1.5.1.1 Specific Training Field Preferences

Table 1.5.1.1 Number of Students marking levels 4 & 5 on Questionnaire

1.5.1.2 Program Duration, Curriculum and Location Preferences

Table 1.5.1.2 Program Duration and Curriculum Preferences

Table 1.5.1.3 Location Preferences

Note: Training includes classroom, laboratory

1.5.2 Stakeholder Questionnaires

Stakeholder Questionnaires from 44 respondents:

Stakeholder meeting and conference calls with over 45

Table 1.5.2.1 Objectives of the Proposed Center of Excellence Chosen by 44 Stakeholders

1.5.2.2 CoE Training Topics from the Perspectives of Stakeholders

1.5.2.3 Individual Comments & Feedback from Stakeholders

a. CoE Location and Hosting

1.6 Sustainable Framework for the Center or Excellence

1.7 CoE Proposed Mission & Objectives

1.7.1 CoE Proposed Mission

Objective 2: Provide access to shared, specialized equipment, facilities, and technology.

Objective 3: Facilitate stakeholder collaboration on data management and knowledge

1.7.2 Steps towards achieving CoE Objectives

Work with Member-Countries to develop individual Member-

Create, maintain and deliver core courses and targeted curricula.

Provide practical, real world training opportunities (e.g. hands-on

Foster academic relationships and curriculum development with

Provide e-Learning capabilities to be used by both CoE students

Coordinate access to lab capabilities present at the CoEs lab as

Provide access to value-added services such as analytical

Facilitate access to shared field equipment on a loan, rental, or

Provide a state-of-the art e-Learning platform to facilitate distance