GEO-ELECTRIC INVESTIGATION OF GROUNDWATER SYSTEM IN UWASOTA AND

ENVIRONS, BENIN CITY, SOUTHERN NIGERIA.

BY

Joseph Ede IDODIA

PSC2003846

TO

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY

FACULTY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN

BENIN CITY

FEBRUARY, 2025
GEO-ELECTRIC INVESTIGATION OF GROUNDWATER SYSTEM IN UWASOTA AND
ENVIRONS, BENIN CITY, SOUTHERN NIGERIA.

BY

Joseph Ede IDODIA

PSC2003846

A PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY,

FACULTY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES,

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN,

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF A

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE (B.Sc) IN GEOLOGY

FEBRUARY, 2025
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this project was submitted and approved by the
department of Geology in partial fulfilment for the requirement for the award
of the Bachelor of Science in Geology, University of Benin, Benin City.

_____________________
______________________

PROJECT SUPERVISOR DATE

(Dr. S. A SALAMI)

_____________________ ______________________

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT DATE

(Dr. S. A SALAMI)
 DEDICATION

This work is first and foremost dedicated to God, followed by my ever-loving

parents my Mom and Dad(late) and siblings who have consistently supported
me throughout my life.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project would not have been possible without my deepest gratitude to
God for His guidance and protection over myself, my family and loved ones.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. S. A.

Salami, who has been a constant source of support and mentorship, not just
for me but for all the students in the Geology Department.

I want to express my immense gratitude to the entire staff of the Geology

Department, including the wonderful lecturers like Dr. (Mrs) Odokuma
Alonge, Dr. O. Alex. Ogbamikhumi, Dr. Nosa. S. Igbinigie, Dr (Mrs) Andre. T.
Obayanju and Dr. Maju Oyovwikowhe, and Mr. Muyiwa as well as all the other
lecturers and non-academic staffs. Their dedication and support have made
my academic journey truly remarkable.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to all my friends and classmates who have

helped me in various ways, as well as to my dedicated group members who
collaborated with me on this project.

Finally I am also incredibly grateful to my loving parents, Mr. Maxwell U.

IDODIA (Late), Mrs. Blessing IDODIA, and my siblings for their unwavering
support, especially during challenging times.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

CERTIFICATION

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF PLATES

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL STATEMENT

1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1.3 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

1.4 COMMON METHODS OF GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION

1.5 ELECTRODE ARRAY

1.6. SCHLUMBERGER ARRAY:

1.7. WENNER ARRAY

1.8 Advantages of the Schlumberger array over the Wenner array

1.9 Advantages of the Wenner array over the Schlumberger array

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 GENERAL GEOLOGY

2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

2.2.1 TECTONIC SETTING

2.2.2 STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING

2.2.3 MODERN DELTA STRATIGRAPHY

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 LIST OF EQUIPMENT

3.2 THEORY OF RESISTIVITY

3.3 FIELD PROCEDURE

3.4 DATA ACQUISITION

3.5 FIELD PRECAUTIONS

3.6 ADJUSTED DATA

3.7 INTERPRETATION TECHNIQUE

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULTS

4.2 DISCUSSION

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

5.1 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES

5.2 SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES

REFERENCES
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Topograpic Map of the Study Area

Figure 1.2: Electrode array

Figure 1.3 : Schlumberger Array.

Figure 1.4: Diagrammatic representation of Wenner

Figure 2.1: Major Litho-Petrological Units in Nigeria.

Figure 2.2: Stratigraphy of the Niger-Delta.

Figure 3.1: Equipotential and current lines for a pair of current electrodes A
and B on a homogeneous half-space.

Figure 3.2: Resistivity curves (after Gopinath & Seralathan, 2003).

Figure 4.1: VES1 interpretation results.

Figure 4.2: VES2 interpretation results.

Figure 4.3: VES3 interpretation results.

Figure 4.4: VES4 interpretation results.

Figure 4.5: Map of Surface Elevation

Figure 4.6:Map of depth to Depth to water table

Figure 4.7: Equi-potential map

Figure 4.8: Map of Iso-resistivity

Figure 4.9: Local Groundwater flow

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Results for VES JJV1

Table 2: Results for VES JJV2

Table 3: Results for VES JJV3

Table 4: Results for VES JJV4

Table 5: Geological model of VES JJV1

Table 6: Geological model of VES JJV2

Table 7: Geological model of VES JJV3

Table 8: Geological model of VES JJV4

Table 9: Hydrogeological representation of the VES Data

LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: The Tetrameter (ABEM Tetrameter 300)

Plate 2: Cable reels

Plate 3: Connecting Cables.

Plate 4: Hammer

Plate 5: Electrodes

Plate 6: Measuring tapes.

Plate 7: Picture of a GPS

Plate 8: Battery (backup)

ABSTRACT

Groundwater potential assessment using the Vertical Electrical Sounding

(VES) technique was conducted in Uwasota and environs, Benin City,
Southern Nigeria. Four VES measurements were acquired using the
Schlumberger electrode array. The data were quantitatively interpreted using
curve matching and computer iteration techniques to generate geoelectric
parameters. The VES results revealed subsurface lithologies consisting of
topsoil, lateritic soil, dry sand, and saturated sand, all within the Benin
Formation. Resistivity analysis allowed for the delineation of potential aquifer
zones and estimations of groundwater depth. This study provides valuable
insight into the subsurface hydrogeological conditions and delineates areas
suitable for groundwater development in Uwasota and environs, contributing
to improved groundwater resource management in the region.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL STATEMENT
The challenge of securing a sufficient supply of quality water is increasingly
problematic due to the rise in population and industrialization. Regarding
quality, surface water is not a reliable source throughout the year, thus
highlighting the necessity of exploring other alternatives to supplement
surface water (Alisiobi and Ako, 2012). Alabi et al. (2010) state that
approximately 53% of the population depends on groundwater as a drinking
water source. Groundwater refers to the water present beneath the ground
surface within soil pores and fractures of geologic formations. To tap into the
potential availability of water, geophysical field measurements are
conducted to assess the groundwater resources in the study area and to
identify optimal locations for borehole drilling (Helaly, 2017). Most
underground water originates from precipitation that has infiltrated into the
earth. Observations indicate that a significant portion of excess rainfall runs
off the ground surface, while another portion infiltrates underground,
becoming groundwater that feeds springs, lakes, and wells (Oseji et al.,
2006). A rock unit or unconsolidated deposit is termed an aquifer if it can
yield a usable quantity of water (Alabi et al., 2010). Geoelectrical methods
are especially suitable for groundwater research because hydrogeological
properties, such as porosity and permeability, can be linked to electrical
resistivity values. Geoelectrical techniques focus on measuring the electrical
resistivities of subsurface materials, which provides preferential insights into
various geological layers, structures, and the corresponding presence of
groundwater (Stewart 1982; Danielsen et al., 2007; Nowroozi et al., 1999;
Meju, 2005). The Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) technique offers
information on the vertical changes in ground resistivity with depth, while
the Constant Separation Traversing (CST) method allows for determining
interval changes in ground resistivity (USEPA, 2000; Ariyo, 2005; OEPA,
2008). The application of geophysical methods for both mapping
groundwater resources and evaluating water quality has significantly
increased in recent decades due to rapid advancements in electronic
technology and the evolution of numerical modeling solutions (Olayinka,
1992; Metwaly et al., 2009; Ndlovu et al., 2010). Although various
hydrogeophysical techniques are available, electrical resistivity remains a
favored method because of its affordability, straightforward operation, and
effectiveness in regions with contrasting resistivity, such as between
weathered overburden and bedrock (Telford et al., 1990). Geophysical
investigations of the earth entail taking measurements at or near the earth’s
surface that are impacted by the internal distribution of physical properties.
Geophysics is also regarded as the subsurface characterization of geology,
geological structures, groundwater, contamination, and human artifacts
beneath the Earth’s surface, based on the lateral and verticalmapping of
physical property variations that are remotely assessed using non-invasive
technologies (Afuwai, 2013).

1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

This research work aims at investigating the groundwater potential of the

study area by the using vertical electrical sounding (VES) technique.

The following are the objectives

1. Delineation of the subsurface lithology using resistivity values.

2. Identifying the groundwater prospect of the study area

1.3 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

1.4 COMMON METHODS OF GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION

Gravity Method: The gravity method consists of measuring fluctuations in the

Earth’s gravity field that arise from variations in the density of underground
rocks. This technique is often linked to extensive regional geophysical
surveys aimed at examining geological structures at substantial depths.
Gravity measurements can also be conducted from airborne platforms or in
marine environments. In earlier ground investigations, gravity data were
primarily utilized to create contour maps that identified anomalous areas
related to density decreases in surface materials, which could indicate the
presence of voids or abandoned mine shafts, for instance. For specific
applications, like detecting near-surface cavities, the gradient of the Earth’s
gravity field can be assessed. In larger engineering surveys, this method has
helped identify sizable fault lines, deeply buried channels, and rock
formations in back-filled quarries.

Magnetic Method: The magnetic method utilizes a magnetometer to

passively assess the Earth’s magnetic field at various points on the surface.
Magnetic data anomalies can suggest the existence of subsurface areas with
high magnetic susceptibility, aiding in site characterization (Burger et al.,
2006; Telford et al., 1990).
Electrical Methods: The electrical method encompasses various approaches,
which can be classified as either passive, relying on the Earth’s natural
electric field, or active, using artificial currents. These methods employ direct
currents or low frequency alternating currents to explore the electrical
characteristics of the subsurface (Kearey et al., 2002).

Seismic Methods: This method employs sound or acoustic waves known as

seismic waves. While seismic waves are typically produced during
earthquakes, those used in geophysical surveys are artificially generated,
categorizing this as an active method; however, passive seismic geophysics
also exists for earthquake studies and understanding Earth’s structure. In
seismic surveys, waves are created by a controlled source and travel through
the subsurface, with some waves reflecting or refracting off geological
boundaries and returning to the surface. Instruments placed along the
surface to measure the resulting ground motion from these returning waves,
allowing for the calculation of arrival times at varying distances from the
source. These travel times can be converted into depth measurements,
enabling systematic mapping of subsurface geological interfaces (Kearey et
al., 2002). Common applications of seismic methods include oil and gas
exploration as well as groundwater assessment.

1.5 Electrode Array

An electrode array refers to a setup of electrodes utilized for detecting either

electric current or voltage. Some electrode arrays are capable of functioning
bidirectional, meaning they can also deliver a stimulating pattern of electric
current or voltage. (See Fig. 1.2)
Fig. 1.2: Electrode array

1.6 Schlumberger Configuration

The electrode setup applied in this study is the Schlumberger configuration.

The selection of the Schlumberger array is based on its superior resolution
and lower labor costs compared to other configurations, such as the Wenner
array, Lee partitioning method, pole-dipole method, and others.

This technique employs four aligned electrodes, with the two outer ones
serving as current electrodes (C1 and C2) and the two inner ones (P1 and P2)
functioning as potential electrodes (Fig. 2.6c). The current electrodes, C1 and
C2, are positioned symmetrically around the center O, each at a distance of
1 cm from the center. The inner potential electrodes, on the other hand, are
spaced more closely together, being equidistant from O at a separation of
0.2 cm each.
Fig 1.3: Schlumberger Array

1.7 Wenner Array

The Wenner electrode array is made up of a series of four electrodes placed

at equal intervals. Electric current is introduced through the outer electrodes,
while the voltage is recorded between the inner electrodes.

Fig 1.4: Wenner Array

Other Common types of arrays are:

Schlumberger (Wenner)

Wenner alpha

Wenner beta

Wenner gamma

Pole-pole

Dipole-dipole

Pole-dipole

Equatorial dipole-dipole

1.8 Advantages of the Schlumberger array over the Wenner array

The Schlumberger array has the benefit of needing fewer electrode

relocations for each measurement, and the distance between the potential
electrodes is shorter. Additionally, Schlumberger soundings generally provide
better resolution, a deeper level of investigation, and a more streamlined
field setup compared to the Wenner array.
1.9 Advantages of the Wenner array over the Schlumberger array

1. A key advantage of the Wenner array is that the apparent resistivity can
be readily calculated in the field, and the instrument’s sensitivity is less
critical compared to other array configurations.

2. Smaller currents are adequate to produce noticeable potential differences.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL GEOLOGY

Nigeria’s geology is made up of three main litho-petrological components,

which include the Basement complex, Sedimentary Basins, and the Younger
Granites (Obaje, 2009). Sedimentary basins are regions of the Earth’s crust
that are mainly distinguished by subsidence (Watts, 2024). These basins
form as negative geological features due to tectonic activities and act as
containers for the deposition and accumulation of sediments. The
Sedimentary Basins in Nigeria, depicted in Figure 2.1, hold sediments that
date from the Cretaceous to Tertiary periods and include the following
basins:

Anambra Basin,

Niger Delta Basin,

Dahomey Basin,

Borno Basin,

Bida Basin, Sokoto Basin,

And Benue Trough.

Fig 2.1: Major petrographic regions in Nigeria.

2.2 The Stratigraphy of the Niger Delta The sedimentary layers within the
Niger Delta basin are divided into three primary lithofacies units: the Marine
shale (Akata Formation), the Marginal marine sandstones, shale, and clays
(Agbada Formation), and the extensive continental sandstones (Benin
Formation). These formations illustrate an upward-coarsening clastic wedge
and were mainly created in marine, deltaic, and fluvial settings. Below is a
review of these three geological formations located in the Niger Delta:

2.2.1 BENIN FORMATION

 The Benin Formation is situated above the Agbada Formation. The upper
part of the Niger Delta elastic wedge consists of coastal plain sands that are
present in the Benin-Onitsha area to the north, extending beyond the
existing coastline. The upper limit of this formation is characterized by the
youngest underlying marine shales and reaches a depth of roughly 1400
meters. The estimated age of the formation is believed to range from the
Oligocene to the Recent period. The upper layers of the formation consist of
non-marine sands deposited in alluvial or upper coastal plain environments
during delta progradation. As it extends further into the basin, the formation
gradually thins, eventually diminishing near the shelf edge. The primary
deposits are characterized by large, highly porous sandstones capable of
storing fresh water, interspersed with some isolated clay layers and limited
shale intercalation near the base of the formation. These sands typically
exhibit a fine-grained texture and are often granular in nature. The grains
tend to be sub-rounded to well-rounded and generally display poor sorting.
Owing to a limonitic layer, the sands exhibit a white or yellowish-brown
coloration. In some regions, noticeable remnants of plant material and
streaks of lignite can be seen, in addition to occurrences of hematite and
feldspar grains. Its estimated age ranges from the Miocene to the Recent,
though the lack of faunal remains makes precise dating challenging. The
thickness of the formation varies from 0 to 2,100 meters, reaching its
maximum in the central delta area, where subsidence is most pronounced.
The Benin Formation exhibits features attributed to partly marine, deltaic,
estuarine, and lagoonal environments, indicating its formation in a
continental upper deltaic setting.

2.2.2 AGBADA FORMATION

The Agbada Formation is identified as a paralic sequence, characterized by

interbedded shales and sands distributed throughout the Niger Delta’s clastic
wedge. With increasing depth, the thickness of the shale layers grows while
the sand layers become thinner. This formation achieves a maximum
thickness of around 3,900 meters and is dated from the Eocene to the
Pleistocene. Located in southern Nigeria, it is known locally as the Ogwashi-
Asaba and Ameki Formations. The lithological makeup consists mainly of
alternating sands, silts, and shales, showcasing gradual variations in grain
size and bed thickness. These layers are typically understood to have
developed in fluvial-deltaic settings. Beneath the Benin Formation, the
Agbada Formation is made up of interlayered fluvio-marine sands,
sandstones, and siltstones in various proportions and thicknesses,
showcasing a cyclical arrangement of offlap units. The sandstone exhibits a
variety of textures, ranging from coarse to fine grain, with degrees of sorting
from poorly sorted to very well sorted, and varying from unconsolidated to
slightly consolidated. Some shell fragments and glauconites display signs of
a limonite streak and coating. The shales are medium to dark grey in color,
well-consolidated, and silty, containing dispersed glauconites. There is a
gradual transition into the Akata Formation as the shale content becomes
more pronounced. The Agbada Formation consists of a complex mix of
deposits formed in at least five different environments: holomarine, barrier
bar, barrier foot, tidal coastal plain, and lower deltaic flood plain. Its
thickness ranges from 0 to 4500 meters.

2.2.3 AKATA FORMATION

Located in the central region of this clastic wedge is the Akata Formation,
predominantly composed of prodeltaic dark grey shales and silts, with
sporadic sand streaks that may result from turbidite flows, reaching an
estimated thickness of 6,400 meters. Presence of planktonic foraminifera
suggests a Paleocene to Recent depositional environment on a shallow
marine shelf. The shales located in the northeastern part of the Delta basin,
which can be seen onshore, are designated as Imo shale. This formation is
also present offshore within diaper structures along continental slopes,
where it is considerably buried; Akata shales frequently undergo
overpressure. Prodelta and deeper water deposits transition upward into the
Agbada Formation, as inferred from the Akata shales. It is believed to be the
source rock for the Niger Delta complex.
Fig 2.2. Stratigraphic representation of the Niger Delta Basin (Chiaghanam et
al., 2018).
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Tthe equipment used during the fieldwork, comprises:

1. ABEM digital Tetrameter: This instrument (see Plate 1) serves as a

signal averaging system referred to as SAS300. It operates in multiple
modes and executes four cycles. In its resistivity mode, it features a
battery-powered deep-penetrating resistivity meter capable of
functioning with current electrode separations of up to 2 km under
optimal surveying conditions. The ratio of the generated potential (V)
to the supplied current (I) is automatically calculated and averaged
over the selected number of cycles, with the outcome displayed
digitally in milliohms, ohms, or kilo ohms. The overall measuring range
extends from 0.5 milliohm to 1999 kilo ohms. The SAS300 consists of a
compact three-unit measurement system, all housed within a single
unit. These three components include the transmitter, the receiver,
and the microprocessor, which work together as an integrated system
to produce the displayed readings. The voltage signal from the
transmitted current is captured by the receiver after removing noise
from the signal. The microprocessor manages and regulates all
measurements to ensure optimal accuracy, performing a thorough one-
second check on the circuit and switch position
.Plate 1: The Tetrameter (ABEM Tetrameter 300)

Cable reels: These instruments are used to connect the electrodes to the
terrameter which gives reading,

Plate 2: Cable reels Connecting cables:

They are used to connect the terrameter to the cable reels,

Plate 3: Connecting Cables.

Hammer: The instrument was used to nail electrodes into the ground,
Plate 4: Hammer

Electrodes: The instrument is used to collect data and also marking points,

Plate 5: Electrodes

Measuring tapes: The instrument is used to measure distance in the field,

Plate 6: Measuring tapes.

GPS: The instrument is used to get GPS coordinates and take the elevation
of the area where readings were taken from,

Plate 7: Picture of a GPS

Battery (backup): This is used to power the Tetrameter instrument in the

field, as a backup system.

Plate 8: Battery
3.2. THEORY OF RESISTIVITY

Data obtained from resistivity surveys are typically expressed and analyzed
in terms of apparent resistivity values, denoted as ρa. Apparent resistivity is
characterized as the resistivity of a uniformly homogeneous and isotropic
half-space that would produce the observed relationship between the applied
current and the resulting potential difference for a specific configuration and
spacing of electrodes. By investigating the potential distribution generated
by a single current electrode, one can derive an equation that relates
apparent resistivity to the applied current, potential distribution, and
electrode arrangement. The influence of an electrode pair, or any other
configuration, can be determined through the principle of superposition. For
instance, consider a solitary point electrode positioned at the boundary of a
semi-infinite, electrically homogeneous medium, which serves as a model for
a fictitious homogeneous earth. When this electrode conducts a current I,
measured in amperes (A), the potential at any location within the medium or
along the boundary can be expressed as follows:

Equation 1

Where

U = potential, in V,

Ρ = resistivity of the medium,

R = distance from the electrode.

For an electrode pair with current I at electrode A, and -I at electrode B
(figure 1), the potential at a point is given by the algebraic sum of the
individual contributions:

Equation 2

where

rA and rB = distances from the point to electrodes A and B

Figure 1 illustrates the electric field around the two electrodes in terms of
equipotentials and current lines. The equipotentials represent imagery
shells, or bowls, surrounding the current electrodes, and on any one of which
the electrical potential is everywhere equal. The current lines represent a
sampling of the infinitely many paths followed by the current, paths that are
defined by the condition that they must be everywhere normal to the
equipotential surfaces.

Equi-potentials and current lines for a pair of current electrodes A and B on a

homogeneous half-space.
Figure 3.1. Equipotential and current lines for a pair of current electrodes A
and B on a homogeneous half-space.

In addition to current electrodes A and B, figure 1 shows a pair of electrodes

M and N, which carry no current, but between which the potential difference
V may be measured. Following the previous equation, the potential
difference V may be written

Equation 3

Where

UM and UN = potentials at M and N,

 AM = distance between electrodes A and M, etc.

These distances are always the actual distances between the respective
electrodes, whether or not they lie on a line. The quantity inside the
brackets is a function only of the various electrode spacings. The quantity is
denoted 1/K, which allows rewriting the equation as:

Equation 4

Where

K = array geometric factor.

Equation 58 can be solved for ρ to obtain:

Equation 5
The resistivity of the medium can be found from measured values of V, I, and
K, the geometric factor. K is a function only of the geometry of the electrode
arrangement.

Electrical circuit for resistivity determination an electrical field for a

homogeneous datum (after Telford, 1976).

3.3. FIELD PROCEDURE

The fieldwork involved conducting VES traverses at selected locations within

the study area. Each VES traverse began by establishing a central point,
where an electrode was inserted to act as a reference for measuring the
array’s spread. The configuration of electrodes used was the Schlumberger
array, which required positioning the potential and current electrodes
equidistantly around the central point. These electrodes were connected to
their respective reels and driven into the ground. Subsequently, the reels
were linked to a Tetrameter, which was turned on to take resistance
measurements by pressing a button. After each measurement was recorded,
the current electrodes were systematically moved further away from the
center, followed by taking another reading. This procedure was repeated
until the resistance value became too low for measurement, at which point
the potential electrodes were also spaced out further, and the current
intensity was increased to obtain stronger readings. This process continued
until the predetermined spread limit was attained. The accurate placement
of electrodes from the center was directed by the point-per-decade protocol,
with this study employing the 6-point-per-decade approach.

3.4 DATA ACQUISITION

It involved establishing equipment at key locations of interest, after which

electrodes were placed. The resistance values were measured and
documented using an ABEM Tetrameter 300 machine. The Schlumberger
electrode array was utilized, and the spacing for the electrodes followed a
six-point-per-decade system

3.5 FIELD PRECAUTIONS

The following were adhered to in order to avoid errors during the acquisition
of data:
Good contact was ensured between the reel wires and the electrodes.

The electrodes were properly hammered down to ensure good contact with
the ground.

Avoidance of power lines was paramount to avoid distortion of resistance

readings

Disconnecting of the reels from the tetrameter while reels were rotating was
ensured to avoid tangling.

Avoidance of crossing of potential and current reel wires was ensured to

avoid tangling.

3.6 ADJUSTED DATA

This section presents the outcome of the data reduction process, which
entails plotting the apparent resistivity values on the vertical axis against the
current electrode spacing (AB/2) on a log-log graph, either manually or with
electronic tools. Following this step, the curve is examined for its
smoothness, and modifications can subsequently be made to improve the
curve’s smoothness. Adjusting these values to create a more consistent
curve leads to the adjusted values.

3.7 INTERPRETATION TECHNIQUE

In this section, the Quantitative interpretation technique is utilized. The

measured apparent resistivity values are plotted against the current
electrode position AB/2 (m), with A and B representing the two current
electrode locations, on double logarithmic paper of standard size 62.5mm
per decade. When employing this method, focus is given to the shape of the
field curve, particularly concerning the relationship between neighboring
branches in cases with three layers. Four typical relationships or curves,
labeled H, K, A, and Q, correspond to Bowl type, Bell type, ascending type,
and descending type curves, respectively, identified for the apparent
resistivity field curves. Identifying the number of layers and their thicknesses
within the curve is referred to as quantitative interpretation. Geo-electric
parameters were manually extracted from the adjusted resistivity values
after they were smoothed using Microsoft Excel software. IX1D and Surfer
software were employed for the final stages of interpretation, which included
analyzing lithology, determining depth to groundwater, and generating a
Geo-electric section illustrating the lithologies.

Fig 3.2: Diagram of resistivity curves (after Gopinath & Seralathan, 2003)
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULTS

The study results are presented in the form of Geo-Electric sections, that
represents the resistivity curves and tables. Figures 4.1 – 4.4 display the
results of the four VES curves (Vertical Electrical Sounding) which were
obtained from the adjusted values of apparent resistivity acquired from the
field.

VERTICAL ELECTRICAL SOUNDING [VES] SCHLUMBERGER ARRAY FIELD

RECORD

COORDINATES: N: 6° 22’ 48’’ E: 5° 35’ 60”

SOUNDING NUMBER: VES: JJV1

TABLE 1: Results for VES JJV1

AB/2 (m) MN/2 (m) ADJUSTED RESISTIVITY

1.00 0.2 103.15
1.47 0.2 94.89
2.15 0.2 98.26
3.16 0.2 109.34
4.64 0.2 125.09
6.81 0.2 169.88
10 2.0 188.75
14.7 2.0 265.53
21.5 2.0 347.40
36.1 2.0 409.81
46.4 10 502.64
68.1 10 556.38
100 10 651.95
147 40 713.82
190 40 690.71

COORDINATES: N: 6° 22’ 43.79” E: 5° 35’ 0.43”

SOUNDING NUMBER: VES: JJV2

TABLE 2: Results for VES JJV2

AB/2 (m) MN/2 (m) ADJUSTED

RESISTIVITY
1.00 0.2 72.140
1.47 0.2 85.290
2.15 0.2 110.16
3.16 0.2 131.59
4.64 0.2 164.09
6.81 0.2 198.74
10 2.0 231.47
14.7 2.0 290.53
21.5 2.0 356.41
31.6 2.0 482.08
46.4 10 600.21
68.1 10 792.42
100 10 1072.9
147 40 1351.7
190 40 1585.0

COORDINATES: N: 6° 22’ 48” E: 5° 22’ 50”

SOUNDING NUMBER: VES: JJV3

TABLE 3: Results for VES JJV3

AB/2 (m) MN/2 (m) ADJUSTED RESISTIVITY

1.00 0.2 343.82
1.47 0.2 283.26
2.15 0.2 244.96
3.16 0.2 244.34
4.64 0.2 261.68
6.81 0.2 327.24
10 2.0 400.69
14.7 2.0 461.85
21.5 2.0 540.00
31.6 2.0 593.56
46.4 10 675.20
68.1 10 713.00
100 10 730.85
147 40 702.70
215 40 601.46
AB/2 (m) MN/2 (m) ADJUSTED RESISTIVITY
1.00 0.2 89.73
1.47 0.2 110.79
2.15 0.2 140.24
3.16 0.2 171.49
4.64 0.2 206.31
6.81 0.2 261.12
10 2.0 312.91
14.7 2.0 357.35
21.5 2.0 420.61
31.6 2.0 511.43
46.4 10 695.52
68.1 10 803.57
100 10 992.53
147 40 1120.3
215 40 1205.8
316 40 1185.3

COORDINATES N: 6° 22’ 52” E: 5° 22’ 55”

SOUNDING NUMBER: VES: JJV4

TABLE 4: Results for VES JJV4

 Fig 4.1 : VES 1 interpretation results. Left: Resistivity Curve; Right:
Interpreted Geo model.

Fig 4.2: VES 2 interpretation results. Left: Resistivity Curve; Right: Interpreted
Geo model.
Fig 4.3: VES 3 interpretation results. Left: Resistivity Curve; Right:
Interpreted Geo model.

Fig 4.4: VES 4 interpretation results. Left: Resistivity Curve; Right:

Interpreted Geo model.

THE INTERPRETED VES RESULTS AND THE CORRESPONDING INFERRED

LITHOLOGY

TABLE 5: Geological model of VES JJV1

Geo-Electric Resistivity Thickness Depth (m) Inferred
Layers of Layers (m) Lithology
(m)
1 206.84 0.23401 0.23401 Topsoil
2 84.859 1.8354 2.0694 Clay
3 247.66 1.5962 3.6656 Sand
4 121.89 2.1263 5.7919 Clayey sand
5 2084.0 5.9539 11.746 Sand (dry)
6 235.26 14.326 26.072 Lateritic sand
7 7977.5 11.194 37.266 Dry sand
8 183.20 Sand (saturated)

TABLE 6: Geological model of VES JJV2

Geo-Electric Resistivity Thickness Depth (m) Inferred

Layers of Layers (m) Lithology
(m)
1 451.61 0.51547 0.51547 Topsoil
2 195.72 1.0673 1.5828 Clayey sand
3 202.12 1.6465 3.2293 Lateritic sand
4 793.56 5.0621 8.2913 sand
5 544.57 11.620 19.911 Lateritic sand
6 1144.0 23.159 43.070 Dry sand
7 606.83 99.629 142.70 Sand (saturated)
8 333.83 Sand (saturated)

TABLE 7: Geological model of VES JJV3

Geo-Electric Resistivity of Thickness Depth (m) Inferred

layers Layers (m) (m) Lithology
1 71.041 0.68507 0.68507 Topsoil
2 290.52 2.0332 2.7183 Laterite sand
3 424.68 11.322 14.040 Laterite sand
4 1013.8 13.485 27.525 Sand
5 2575.2 14.038 41.563 Sand (dry)
6 1783.4 13.393 54.556 Sand (saturated)
7 1168.8 Sand (saturated)

TABLE 8: Geological model of VES JJV4

Geo-Electric Resistivity of Thickness Depth(m) Inferred

Layers Layers (m) (m) Lithology
1 116.53 0.48102 0.48102 Topsoil
2 66.546 1.1659 1.6469 Clay
3 62.370 1.9807 3.6276 Clay
4 231.46 1.5496 5.1772 Lateritic sand
5 3169.9 4.4730 9.6502 sand
6 7963.0 24.134 33.784 Dry sand (dry)
7 207.94 59.439 93.222 Sand
(saturated)
8 80.477 Sand
(saturated)

DEPTH ELEVATION ISO VES

LATITUDE LONGITUD SURFACE TO OF WATER RESISTIVI NUMBE
E ELEVATIO WATER TABLE (m) TY R
N (m) TABLE
(m)
6° 22’ 48’’ 5° 35’ 60” 105 37.266 67.734 183.20 JJV1
6° 22’ 5° 35’ 103 60.326 42.674 606.83 JJV2
43.79” 0.43”
6° 22’ 48” 5° 22’ 50” 105 43.070 61.930 1783.4 JJV3
6° 22’ 52” 5° 22’ 55” 103 33.784 69.216 207.94 JJV4
TABLE 9: Hydrogeological representation of the VES Data

Fig. 4.5: Map of Surface Elevation: Top: 2D Map; Bottom: 3D Map

Fig. 4.6: Map of depth to Depth to water table: Top: 2D Map; Bottom: 3D Map
Fig. 4.7: Equi-potential map: Top: 2D Map; Bottom: 3D Map
Fig. 4.8: Map of Iso-resistivity: Top: 2D Map; Bottom: 3D Map
Fig 4.9: Local ground water flow map

DISCUSSION

Based on the surface elevation data of the map in Fig 4.5, it is observed that the
elevation at VES locations JJV1 and JJV3 is 105 meters, while at JJV2 and JJV4, the
elevation is slightly lower at 103 meters. This indicates a minor variation in surface
elevation across the study area, with a slight depression observed at JJV2 and JJV4.
Given that surface elevation can influence groundwater flow and vulnerability, these
minor differences may indicate localized variations in surface runoff and infiltration.
However, the relatively close elevation values suggest a generally consistent surface
condition across the VES points. This data provides a baseline for understanding the
relationship between surface topography and subsurface groundwater conditions as
interpreted from the VES results.

From the ‘depth to water table‘ data of Fig 4.6, it can be observed that the water table is
shallowest at VES location JJV4, with a depth of 33.784 meters. Conversely, the water
table is deepest at VES location JJV2, with a depth of 60.326 meters. The water table
depths at JJV1 and JJV3 are intermediate, at 37.266 meters and 43.070 meters
respectively. This variation indicates a significant difference in groundwater depth
across the study area. The shallower water table at JJV4 suggests a higher
susceptibility to contamination from surface activities, while the deeper water table at
JJV2 provides a greater buffer against such contamination due to the increased
distance for contaminants to travel before reaching the groundwater. These depth
variations should be considered when planning borehole development to ensure both
adequate water supply and protection from potential contamination.

By studying ’the elevation of the water table‘ data in Fig 4.7, it can be observed that the
water table elevation is highest at VES location JJV4, with an elevation of 69.216
meters. Conversely, the water table elevation is lowest at VES location JJV2, with an
elevation of 42.674 meters. The water table elevations at JJV1 and JJV3 are
intermediate, at 67.734 meters and 61.930 meters respectively. This variation indicates
a significant difference in groundwater elevation across the study area. The higher
water table elevation at JJV4 suggests a potential area of groundwater recharge or
higher hydraulic head, while the lower water table elevation at JJV2 indicates a potential
area of groundwater discharge or lower hydraulic head. These elevation variations
should be considered when analyzing groundwater flow direction and potential aquifer
productivity.
The observation made on the Iso-resistivity data, it can be examined that the resistivity
values of 4.8 vary significantly across the study area. The lowest resistivity value is
183.20 Ohm-m, while the highest is 1783.4 Ohm-m. Intermediate values are 606.83
Ohm-m and 207.94 Ohm-m. This variation in resistivity indicates differences in
subsurface lithology and groundwater presence. Lower resistivity values generally
suggest the presence of conductive materials, such as saturated sands or clays, while
higher resistivity values indicate resistive materials, such as dry sands or lateritic
formations. These variations should be considered when interpreting the groundwater
potential and planning borehole development in the study area.

Based on the map of Fig 4.9, the local groundwater flow is inferred to follow the surface
elevation, moving from higher to lower points. Specifically, the map suggests that water
flows from the north-northwest towards the south-southeast region. This flow pattern
indicates that the groundwater movement is influenced by the surface topography, with
water likely recharging in the higher elevation areas and discharging in the lower
elevation areas. The direction of flow also suggests that the subsurface geology and
hydraulic conductivity in this region support this general movement of groundwater.
 CONCLUSION

The geoelectric investigation conducted in Uwasota and environs, Benin City,

Southern Nigeria, successfully delineated subsurface lithologies and
assessed groundwater potential using Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) with
the Schlumberger array. The results are consistent with the established
literature on the Benin Formation, which comprises predominantly sands with
minor clay content, varying in grain size. Resistivity analysis revealed distinct
lithological units: topsoil (71.041Ωm-451.61Ωm), dry sand (1144.0Ωm-
7977.5Ωm), clay (62.370Ωm-84.859Ωm), lateritic sand (202.12Ωm-
544.57Ωm), clayey sand(121.89Ωm-195.72Ωm) and a saturated sand aquifer
(80.477Ωm-1783.4Ωm).

The identified saturated sand aquifer, found at depths ranging from 73.4m to
134.2m below ground surface, confirms the area’s potential as a viable
source of potable water. This aligns with the Benin Formation’s reputation as
one of Nigeria’s most prolific aquifers. The aquifer’s depth and yield suggest
it can support both residential and industrial water supply needs.

This study provides valuable insights for groundwater resource management

in the region. To further enhance understanding and facilitate sustainable
development, it is recommended that additional VES studies be conducted in
the surrounding areas. These studies should aim to develop a groundwater
flow map, enabling informed borehole placement for community water
needs.

REFERENCES

Alabi, A. A., Daniel, E. E., & Udoh, F. D. (2010). Evaluating the

geoelectric and hydraulic characteristics of some aquifers in parts of the
Chad Formation, Northeastern Nigeria. Journal of Geology and Mining
Research, 2(6), 136-143.

Afuwai, J. A. (2013). Geophysical Investigation of Groundwater Potential in

Parts of Gombe Metropolis, Northeastern Nigeria. Journal of Earth Sciences
and Geotechnical Engineering, 3(2), 1-14.

Alisiobi, A. O., & Ako, B. D. (2012). Assessment of groundwater potential

in parts of Gombe and environs, northeastern Nigeria, using remote sensing
and geophysical techniques. International Journal of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering, 4(10), 330-341.
Andrews, R.J., Barker, R. and Loke, M.H. (1995). The application of
electrical tomography in the study of the unsatured zone in chalk at three
sites in Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom. Hydrogeo. J. 3, 17-31.

Ariyo, S. O. (2005). Assessment of groundwater quality in a landfill

environment, Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Hydrology, 13, 1-10.

Banton, O., Seguin, M.K. and Cimon, M.A. (1997). Mapping field scale
physical properties of Soil with Electrical resistivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61,
1010-1017.

Bertrand, Y. (1967). Electrical prospecting applied to problems of Bridges

and Roads. Bulletin Liaison des Laboratoires Routiers Paris -XV.

Burger, H. R., Sheehan, A. F., & Jones, C. H. (2006). Introduction to

applied geophysics: exploring the shallow subsurface. WW Norton &
Company.

Danielsen, M., Midtgård, H., & Ramstad, K. (2007). Geoelectrical

investigations of saline groundwater intrusion in coastal aquifers. Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 62(3), 195-207.

Doust, H., & Omatsola, E. (1989). Niger delta. AAPG Special Volumes
132,201-238

Gopinath, G. and Seralathan, P. (2003). Evaluation of Aquifer Parameters

of the Muvattupha River Basin, Kerala.

Hasan (2017). Schlumberger Array: Electrical Resistivity Methods, Part 2

Helaly, A. (2017). Application of Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES)

Technique for Groundwater Exploration in El-Farafra Oasis, Western Desert,
Egypt. NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, 6(1), 164-175.

Kearey, P., Brooks, M., and Hill, I. (2002). An Introduction to Geophysical

Exploration. 3rd Edition, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford. 262 Pgs, ISBN 0-632-
04929-4.

Lile, O.B., Backe, H.R., Elvebakk, H. and Buan, J.E. (1994). Resistivity
measurements on the sea bottom to map fractures zones in the bedrock
underneath sediments. Geophy. Prospec. 42, 813-824.

Nowroozi, A. A., Horrocks, R. D., & Henderson, C. L. (1999).

Delineation of subsurface freshwater zones in a coastal area using the
geoelectrical method. Journal of Hydrology, 223(1-2), 49-65.
Michael, G., Ibukun, O., & Daniel, I. O. (2022). Geo-electrical
investigation of ground water potential using vertical electrical sounding.
World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 15(2), 322-329.

Meheni, Y., Guérin, R., Benderitter, Y. and Tabbagh, A. (1996).

Subsurface DC resistivity mapping: approximate 1-D interpretation. J. Appl.
Geophy. 34, 255-270.

OEPA (Ondo State Environmental Protection Agency). (2008). State of

the Environment Report. Akure, Nigeria: Ondo State Environmental Protection
Agency.

Olayinka, A. I. (1992). Geoelectric sounding for groundwater in crystalline

basement areas: a case study from Ile-Ife area, Nigeria. Journal of African
Earth Sciences (and the Middle East), 15(4), 441-449.

Oluwajana, O. A., Ehinola, O. A., Okeugo, C. G., & Adegoke, O.

(2017). Modeling hydrocarbon generation potentials of eocene source rocks
in the agbada formation, Northern Delta Depobelt, Niger delta Basin, Nigeria.
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 7, 379-388.

Oseji, J. O., Ofomola, M. O., & Oborie, E. (2006). Geoelectric survey for
groundwater in parts of Warri metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences
and Environmental Management, 10(3), 119-123.

Owoyemi, A. O. D. (2005). Sequence stratigraphy of Niger Delta, Delta

field, offshore Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University).

Ritz, M., Robain, H., Pervago, E., Albouy, Y., Camerlynck, C.,
Descloitres, M. and Mariko, A. (1999). Improvement to resistivity
pseudosection modelling by removal of near-surface inhomogeneity effects:
application to a soil system in south Cameroon. Geophy. Prospec. 47, 85-101.

Rui, L. & Walker, J. & Fitzpatrick, R. & Changming, L. (2023). Regional

Water and Soil Assessment for Managing Sustainable Agriculture in China
and Australia.

Short, K. C., & Stäuble, A. J. (1967). Outline of geology of Niger Delta.

AAPG bulletin, 51(5), 761-779.

Stewart, M. T. (1982). Evaluation of electromagnetic methods for rapid

mapping of salt-water interfaces in coastal aquifers. Ground Water, 20(5),
528-535.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2000).
Ground water and wellhead protection. EPA/625/R-00/007. Washington, DC:
United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., and Sheriff, R.E. (1990). Applied

Geophysics. 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 770 Pgs.

Walker, K. (2022). “Ancient systems keep water flowing”. Nature Middle

East. Nature.