appraisal drilling of geothermal wells in olkaria domes - Orkustofnun
appraisal drilling of geothermal wells in olkaria domes - Orkustofnun appraisal drilling of geothermal wells in olkaria domes - Orkustofnun
Ogola 298 Report 13the vicinity of the project. The Maasai cultural centre is a manyatta started for business purposes andis located on Ngati farm and hence unauthorised. There is still pending a dispute between the farmand the manyatta owners. The project will not extend to the cultural centre.However, the KWS should engage a professional archaeologist or historian to try to identify suchresources and evaluate their value to the area and society at large. The most important sites in HellsGate are geological formations like the Central Tower, Fischer’s Tower, Ol Jorowa gorge, obsidiancaves and areas of thermal manifestations, none of which the project will interfere with.4.12 Summary of impactsFrom the above, an impact matrix based on temporal, spatial and severity scale has been developed asshown in Table 8, using the following criteria:a. Scale and/or significance of the impact?b. Probability and/or frequency of occurrence?c. Duration of the impact?d. Potential regulatory or legal exposure?e. Difficulty and/or cost of changing the impact?f. Effect of change on other activities and processes?g. Concerns of interested parties?h. Effect on the public image of KenGen?TABLE 8: Impact matrix, developed for the Domes projectTemporal scale Duration (years)Short term 0-5Long term 5-20Permanent 20+Spatial scaleMatrixHousehold/individual 1Hells Gate location 2Municipality 3Regional 4National 5Severity scaleMatrixLarge positive impact +3Moderate positive impact +2Slight positive +1No impact 0Slight negative impact -1Moderate negative impact -2Large negative impacts -3The summary of the socioeconomic indices and associated impacts is displayed in Figure 18 and inTable 9. The values on the X-axis in Figure 18 represent the spatial scale as shown in Tables 8 and 9,while the values on the Y-axis represent the severity of the impact as illustrated in Table 9. Theseverity is presented on a scale between -3 to +3, the maximum impacts (negative and positive). Fromthe above summary, it is clear that positive impacts, though short-term, outweigh negative ones.
Report 13 299 OgolaFIGURE 18: Summary of impactsTABLE 9: Results of impacts for the Domes project, based on the matrix defined in Table 8Indicator Spatial scale Severity scale Temporal scalePopulation 2 and 3 -1 Short termEducation 4 +1 Long termLabour force 2 +1 Short termLoss of land 1 -2 PermanentTourism and recreation 1 and 4 -3 PermanentRoads 1 and 2 -2 Long termAgriculture 5 0 0Energy 5 +3 Long termEconomy 4 +3 Long termAesthetic/visual 3 0 Long termArchaeological/historical/cultural 3 0 04.13 Social responsibilities of other institutionsSome institutions and individuals have contributed by constructing class rooms, educating girls orthrough the payment of teachers. One such institution is Orpower. Oserian built 3 primary schools, ashopping centre and health facilities for its 6,000 workers. Members of the LNGG have alsocontributed generously towards construction of schools and health facilities and by makingcontributions to the Naivasha Street Children’s Home among others. Several institutions havecontributed generously to different causes but all the contributions cannot be highlighted in this study.One of the most outstanding individual contributions is by Peter Robertson and it goes beyondphysical and financial values. Mr. Robertson is not only constructing a new permanent classroombuilding for the Narasha primary school but ensures that teachers reach the school in good time byproviding transport, and also to visit the school children and assess their progress.
- Page 1 and 2: GEOTHERMAL TRAINING PROGRAMME Repor
- Page 3 and 4: Report 13 269 OgolaFIGURE 2: EIA sc
- Page 5 and 6: Report 13 271 Ogola- Analyse stakeh
- Page 7: Report 13 273 Ogola2. DESCRIPTION O
- Page 10: Ogola 276 Report 133.2.2 Water reso
- Page 13 and 14: Report 13 279 Ogolaand rhino) canno
- Page 15 and 16: Report 13 281 Ogolatotal area under
- Page 17 and 18: Report 13 283 Ogola• Water abstra
- Page 20 and 21: Ogola 286 Report 13were at 1888.7 m
- Page 22: Ogola 288 Report 13trucks transport
- Page 25 and 26: Report 13 291 Ogola3.6 EconomyAgric
- Page 27 and 28: Report 13 293 Ogola• In 1963 Naiv
- Page 29 and 30: Report 13 295 OgolaThe project is n
- Page 31: Report 13 297 Ogola4.8 Agriculture
- Page 35 and 36: Report 13 301 OgolaThe noise from d
- Page 37 and 38: Report 13 303 Ogola6. ENVIRONMENTAL
- Page 39 and 40: Report 13 305 Ogola• In order to
Ogola 298 Report 13the vic<strong>in</strong>ity <strong>of</strong> the project. The Maasai cultural centre is a manyatta started for bus<strong>in</strong>ess purposes andis located on Ngati farm and hence unauthorised. There is still pend<strong>in</strong>g a dispute between the farmand the manyatta owners. The project will not extend to the cultural centre.However, the KWS should engage a pr<strong>of</strong>essional archaeologist or historian to try to identify suchresources and evaluate their value to the area and society at large. The most important sites <strong>in</strong> HellsGate are geological formations like the Central Tower, Fischer’s Tower, Ol Jorowa gorge, obsidiancaves and areas <strong>of</strong> thermal manifestations, none <strong>of</strong> which the project will <strong>in</strong>terfere with.4.12 Summary <strong>of</strong> impactsFrom the above, an impact matrix based on temporal, spatial and severity scale has been developed asshown <strong>in</strong> Table 8, us<strong>in</strong>g the follow<strong>in</strong>g criteria:a. Scale and/or significance <strong>of</strong> the impact?b. Probability and/or frequency <strong>of</strong> occurrence?c. Duration <strong>of</strong> the impact?d. Potential regulatory or legal exposure?e. Difficulty and/or cost <strong>of</strong> chang<strong>in</strong>g the impact?f. Effect <strong>of</strong> change on other activities and processes?g. Concerns <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terested parties?h. Effect on the public image <strong>of</strong> KenGen?TABLE 8: Impact matrix, developed for the Domes projectTemporal scale Duration (years)Short term 0-5Long term 5-20Permanent 20+Spatial scaleMatrixHousehold/<strong>in</strong>dividual 1Hells Gate location 2Municipality 3Regional 4National 5Severity scaleMatrixLarge positive impact +3Moderate positive impact +2Slight positive +1No impact 0Slight negative impact -1Moderate negative impact -2Large negative impacts -3The summary <strong>of</strong> the socioeconomic <strong>in</strong>dices and associated impacts is displayed <strong>in</strong> Figure 18 and <strong>in</strong>Table 9. The values on the X-axis <strong>in</strong> Figure 18 represent the spatial scale as shown <strong>in</strong> Tables 8 and 9,while the values on the Y-axis represent the severity <strong>of</strong> the impact as illustrated <strong>in</strong> Table 9. Theseverity is presented on a scale between -3 to +3, the maximum impacts (negative and positive). Fromthe above summary, it is clear that positive impacts, though short-term, outweigh negative ones.
Change language