Download - State work
247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/
Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited 22AA Ladoke Akintola Street Ikeja GRA Lagos State
Anambra State Airport
Final Report
December 2008 Mott MacDonald St Anne House 20-26 Wellesley Road Croydon Surrey CR9 2UL UK Tel : 44 (0)20 8774 2000 Fax : 44 (0)20 8681 5706
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
i247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/
P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/i of i
Anambra State Airport
Final Report
Issue and Revision Record
Rev Date Originator
Checker
Approver
Description
1 12/11/08 CJC, EK, PH, FK
PF, GDR AJG Draft Report for
comments
2 23/12/08 GDR, PH, CJC, AT
GDR, PH GDR Final
This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.
To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald and used by Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
List of Contents Page
Chapters and Appendices
1 Introduction 1-1
2 Traffic Forecasting 2-1
2.1 Background 2-1 2.1.1 Location 2-1
2.2 Stakeholder Objectives 2-2
2.3 Anambra State 2-3 2.3.1 Population 2-3 2.3.2 Anambra Trade 2-4 2.3.3 Economy 2-4 2.3.4 Nigerian Trade 2-6
2.4 Air Traffic in Nigeria 2-8 2.4.1 Propensity to fly 2-10 2.4.2 Industry Forecasts 2-11 2.4.3 Airlines of Nigeria 2-12
2.5 Benchmarking 2-14 2.5.1 Neighbouring Airports 2-14
2.6 Air Traffic Demand Forecasts 2-16 2.6.1 Transport of Oil and Gas Facilities personnel 2-16 2.6.2 Scheduled Business and Leisure traffic demand – Mott MacDonald assumptions 2-17 2.6.3 Transport of Government personnel 2-20 2.6.4 Air Cargo Traffic Demand 2-20 2.6.5 Total Air Traffic Demand Forecast 2-22
2.7 Peak hour movements 2-23
2.8 Conclusions 2-24
3 Master Plan 3-1
3.1 Master Plan Assumptions 3-1 3.1.1 Preliminary Airfield Design Assumptions 3-1
3.2 Airfield Design 3-2 3.2.1 Wind Analysis 3-2 3.2.2 Topography 3-3 3.2.3 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces 3-3 3.2.4 Runway Alignment 3-4 3.2.5 Navigational Aids 3-12 3.2.6 Design Aircraft 3-14 3.2.7 Runway Length 3-14 3.2.8 Runway Width and Other Parameters 3-15 3.2.9 Runway Configuration 3-15 3.2.10 Taxiways 3-17
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.3 Code F Runway and Taxiway Widths 3-17
3.4 Apron Design 3-18 3.4.1 Passenger Apron and Terminal Configuration Options 3-24 3.4.2 Cargo Apron 3-34 3.4.3 Helicopter Apron 3-34
3.5 Ancillary Support Facilities 3-36 3.5.1 Fire Station, Air Traffic Control Tower and Operations Zone 3-36 3.5.2 Aircraft Maintenance Area 3-37 3.5.3 Airfield Boundary 3-38 3.5.4 Car Parking 3-39 3.5.5 Fuel Farm 3-40
3.6 Refuelling Stands 3-41
3.7 Flight Catering 3-41
3.8 Flight Crew Facilities 3-41
3.9 Drainage 3-42
3.10 Apron Area and Airport Facilities Overview 3-44
3.11 Phasing of the Airfield and Airport Facilities 3-45 3.11.1 Phase 1 - Minimum requirement for an operational airfield 3-45 3.11.2 Phase 2 - Minimum Requirement for a Domestic Airport , Meeting Security and Civil Aviation Requirements 3-47 3.11.3 Phase 4 - International Airport meeting international standards 3-51
3.12 Passenger Terminal Building Design 3-53
4 Environmental Review 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 General Comments 4-1 4.2.1 Chapter 1 - Introduction 4-1 4.2.2 Chapter 2 – Project Justification 4-2 4.2.3 Chapter 3 – Project Description 4-2 4.2.4 Chapter 4 – Existing Environment Description 4-3 4.2.5 Chapter 5 – Associated and Potential Impact Assessment 4-4 4.2.6 Chapter 6 – Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4-5 4.2.7 Chapter 7 – Environmental Management Plan 4-6 4.2.8 Chapter 8 – Conclusions 4-6
4.3 Summary 4-6
5 Procurement Options 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Key Project Interfaces 5-1
5.3 Project Requirements 5-3
5.4 Methods of Procurement 5-4
5.5 Recommended Methods of Procurement 5-5 5.5.1 Traditional Procurement for Enabling Works 5-6 5.5.2 Design & Build Turnkey for Main Development Works 5-6
5.6 Project Organisation 5-8
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
5.7 Project Execution Process 5-10
5.8 Conclusions & Recommendations 5-1
6 Investment Appraisal 6-2
6.1 Currency Conversion 6-2
6.2 Benchmarking Analysis 6-2 6.2.1 West African Zone Countries 6-2 6.2.2 Anambra State Assumptions 6-3 6.2.3 ACI Worldwide Annual Traffic Reports 6-3 6.2.4 Benchmark Airports 6-3 6.2.5 Airport Revenues 6-3 6.2.6 Revenues per Passenger 6-4
6.3 Freetown-Lungi Airport Revenues 6-4 6.3.1 Freetown-Lungi Airport Aviation Revenues (million SLL’s) 6-4 6.3.2 Freetown-Lungi Airport Non-Aviation Revenues (million SLL’s) 6-4 6.3.3 Freetown-Lungi Airport Total Revenues (million SLL’s) 6-5
6.4 Burkina Faso Airport Revenues 6-5 6.4.1 Burkina Faso Airport Aviation Revenues (million CFA’s) 6-5 6.4.2 Burkina Faso Airport Non-Aviation Revenues (million CFA’s) 6-6 6.4.3 Burkina Faso Airport Total Revenues (million CFA’s) 6-6
6.5 Summary Revenues 6-6
6.6 Nigerian Cargo Revenues 6-7
6.7 Methodology for Calculating Revenues 6-7
6.8 Operating Expenditure (Opex) 6-7 6.8.1 Labour Opex 6-7 6.8.2 Non-Labour Opex 6-8 6.8.3 Methodology for Calculating Estimated Opex 6-8
6.9 Capex Phasing 6-8
6.10 High Level Financial Model 6-9 6.10.1 Net Present Value 6-11
Appendix A Architectural Renderings of the Terminal A-1
Appendix B 15 Km Radius Topographic Map B-1
Appendix C Capital Cost Estimates C-1
C.1 COST ESTIMATE C-1
C.2 BASIS OF ESTIMATE C-1
C.3 PRICE DATUM OF ESTIMATE C-1
C.4 ESTIMATE OF COST C-2
C.5 EXCLUSIONS FROM ESTIMATE C-2
C.6 RISK/CONTINGENCY C-3
Appendix D Capital Cost Elements D-1
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 2.1: The State of Anambra in the context of Nigeria ................................................................ 2-1 Figure 2.2: Anambra State’s proximity to major Nigerian cities ......................................................... 2-2 Figure 2.3: Districts of Anambra State................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2.4: Nigeria GDP annual growth rates 1990-2006.................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2.5: Nigerian GDP by industry sector, 2007............................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2.6: Nigerian Exports by commodity, 1st Qtr 2008................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2.7: Nigerian Imports by commodity, 1st Qtr 2008................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2.8: Development of Air Traffic at Nigerian Airports .............................................................. 2-9 Figure 2.9: GDP per capita vs Propensity to fly................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 3.10: Wind direction and wind speed diagrams ........................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3.11: Frequency of wind speed in proposed location................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3.12: Land Potentially Available Outside Current OPR Land Ownership Boundary............... 3-8 Figure 3.13: Overview of Runway Alignment Options ....................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3.14: Preferred Alignment Option 7 ....................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3.15: Option 7 in Relation to the Wind Rose.......................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3.16: PAPI System Next to a Runway .................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3.17: ILS Localiser Antenna ................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3.18: ILS Glide Path Antenna ................................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3.19: Single Runway with Reserve Runway.......................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3.20: Airfield Layout............................................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3.21: New Airfield Lay-Out Option........................................................................................ 3-23 Figure 3.22: Examples of a Temporary Terminal Building ............................................................... 3-24 Figure 3.23: E MARS Stand Diagram................................................................................................ 3-26 Figure 3.24: Cargo Apron .................................................................................................................. 3-34 Figure 3.25: Helicopter Apron ........................................................................................................... 3-35 Figure 3.26: Example of a Helicopter Parking Space ........................................................................ 3-35 Figure 3.27: Fire Station and Air Traffic Control Tower Area .......................................................... 3-37 Figure 3.28: Integrated Fire Station and Air Traffic Control Tower at Southampton Airport, UK ... 3-37 Figure 3.29: Maintenance Area .......................................................................................................... 3-38 Figure 3.30: Examples of Security Fences ......................................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3.31: Car Parking Area ........................................................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3.32: Fuel Farm....................................................................................................................... 3-40 Figure 3.33: Example of Fuel Farm Structure.................................................................................... 3-40 Figure 3.34: Balancing Ponds ............................................................................................................ 3-43 Figure 3.35: Balancing Pond at Auckland Airport, NZ...................................................................... 3-43 Figure 3.36: Anambra Airport Apron Area........................................................................................ 3-44 Figure 3.37: Phase 1 Airfield Layout ................................................................................................. 3-46 Figure 3.38: Phase 2 Airfield Layout ................................................................................................. 3-48 Figure 3.39: Phase 3 Airfield Layout ................................................................................................. 3-50 Figure 3.40: Phase 4 Airfield Layout ................................................................................................. 3-52 Figure 3.41: Ground Floor Indicative Plan......................................................................................... 3-55 Figure 3.42: Upper Floor Indicative Plan........................................................................................... 3-56 Figure 3.43: APV (Bus) Gates ........................................................................................................... 3-58 Figure 3.44: Double Spans over Baggage Sort Hall Roads................................................................ 3-60 Figure 3.45: Fixed Link...................................................................................................................... 3-61 Figure 3.46: Upper Floor Departure Lounges .................................................................................... 3-62 Figure 3.47: Check-In and Baggage Sort Hall ................................................................................... 3-64 Figure 3.48: Security .......................................................................................................................... 3-65 Figure 3.49: International Arrivals Immigration and Customs .......................................................... 3-67 Figure 3.50: CIP/VIP Check-In.......................................................................................................... 3-68 Figure 5.1: Project Organisation........................................................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5.1: Project Execution Process................................................................................................ 5-11
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Table 2.1: Population of Anambra State by District 2-4 Table 2.2: Nigerian GDP by State 2-5 Table 2.3: Derived GDP per capita figures 2-5 Table 2.4: Development of Air Traffic at Nigerian Airports 2-9 Table 2.5: Air Traffic at Nigerian Airports, 2007 2-10 Table 2.6: Airbus Forecast of Africa Sub-Sahara Market Growth Rates 2-12 Table 2.7: Airlines of Nigeria – fleet summary 2-13 Table 2.8: Neighbouring airport traffic figures, 2007 2-14 Table 2.9: Port Harcourt scheduled route network 2-15 Table 2.10: Oil and Gas Facilities personnel demand forecast 2-16 Table 2.11: Scheduled Traffic Demand Forecast 2-18 Table 2.12: Orient – Air Cargo Traffic Demand Forecast 2-21 Table 2.13: Mott MacDonald – Air Cargo Traffic Demand Forecast 2-22 Table 2.14: Total Air Traffic Demand Forecast 2-22 Table 3.15: DME/DVOR Array 3-13 Table 3.16: Assumptions made for terminal facilities requirements 3-53 Table 3.17: Facilities requirements for terminal building 3-54 Table 3.18: Space requirements derived from IATA’s space standards for individuals 3-54 Table 5.1: Comparison of Main Procurement Options 5-5 Table 5.1: Key Features of Design & Build Turnkey Procurement 5-6 Table 5.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Design & Build Turnkey 5-8 Table C.1: Phased Capital Costs C-2
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
1-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/1-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
1 Introduction
Mott MacDonald (MM), in collaboration with Aircraft Support International (Nigeria) (ASI), was
commissioned to carry out a study by Orient Petroleum Resources Plc (OPR) into the development of
a new airport in Anambra State, Nigeria. Throughout the study ASI supported MM in providing
advice on aviation practices and procedures within Nigeria, whilst MM provided the technical advice.
The report is divided into sections to reflect the main areas from the scope of works and the additional
information requested as the project progressed. Chapter 2 discusses the findings from the traffic
forecasting team and chapter 3 details the Master Plan. This section also includes a 3-D drawing of the
front of the terminal building.
A review of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the site is given in chapter 4 and an analysis on
procurement options is given in Chapter 5. Finally Chapter 6 gives a conclusion to the study as a
whole. A cost plan and an analysis of the investment appraisal will be detailed in a separate report to
be submitted after this.
This report is based on data and information given to us by ASI and OPR, as well as the assumptions
and methodology detailed in the Scoping Report, submitted to ASI on the 25th September 2008. This
report encompasses the comments made by both parties on the Scoping Report.
It also has been subject to an internal peer review at Mott MacDonald prior to issue and several points
have arisen which have resulted in some changes to the proposed airfield layout and that of the
passenger terminal. We have incorporated many of these prior to issue, but have not been able to
incorporate them all. As the timing of this issue has been determined in order to be available for a pre-
arranged meeting with the client, we have not delayed this issue. Consequently a further revision and
issue will be made.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
2 Traffic Forecasting
2.1 Background
This section is intended to outline the future demand for air transport movements, passenger and cargo
traffic throughput at the proposed new airport in Anambra State, southeast Nigeria.
Currently, no airfield serves Anambra State. Orient Petroleum Services plc wants to construct an
airfield in parallel with a new Oil Refinery to serve its needs, primarily, but also for it to stimulate
trade, business, inward investment and to promote tourism in Anambra.
This section initially provides a background on the socio-economic environment in Nigeria and
Anambra State, looking at the structure of the economy, demographics, trade and the current
propensity to fly for the Nigerian population.
An air traffic forecast for passengers, ATMs and cargo has been produced and the assumptions
detailed in this section. A Base Case has been prepared which will constitute a ‘normal growth’
scenario, as well as a Low and High Case forecast based on lower and higher growth scenarios,
respectively.
2.1.1 Location
Figure 2.1: The State of Anambra in the context of Nigeria
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-2 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-2 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Located in South-East Nigeria, Anambra State is bounded by Delta State to the west, Imo State to the
south, Enugu State to the east and Kogi State to the north.
Figure 2.2: Anambra State’s proximity to major Nigerian cities
The proposed new airport is nearly 400km from the Nigerian commercial centre, Lagos. Existing
surface transport links are under-developed and considered unsafe to travel.
2.2 Stakeholder Objectives
The key stakeholders of the airport will be Orient Petroleum Services plc and the State Government of
Anambra.
Orient Petroleum needs the airport to;
• Support the construction of the Refinery by using the airport to import major facility
components
• Support the Oil and gas operations of the company
• Effect timely delivery of emergency parts for the Refinery operations
• Transport Jet A1 fuel from the Refinery to customers
• Safely transport Refinery personnel
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-3 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-3 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The Government’s objectives for the airport are as follows;
• To assist the safe movement of government officials and visitors
• To attract inward investment and business opportunities to the State
• To facilitate the transportation of the Anambra population
There are also associated commercial interests. The airport can be used to;
• Serve as a cargo hub to facilitate movement of goods and services
• Support the potential industrial growth around the Refinery
• Act as a domestic passenger airport for the Anambra population
2.3 Anambra State
2.3.1 Population
According to the National Bureau of Statistics (Nigeria), Anambra State’s population stood at some
4.2 million in 2005, constituting 3.1% of Nigeria’s total population of over 133 million. Anambra
State has one of the highest population densities in Nigeria, estimated at around 1,500 - 2,000 people
per square kilometre.
Figure 2.3: Districts of Anambra State
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-4 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-4 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Table 2.1: Population of Anambra State by District
District Population % of total
Idemili North 430,783 10.3%
Aguata 370,172 8.9%
Ihiala 302,158 7.2%
Anaocha 285,002 6.8%
Nnewi South 233,658 5.6%
Ogbaru 221,879 5.3%
Idemili South 207,683 5.0%
Awka South 189,049 4.5%
Orumbra South 187,198 4.5%
Orumba North 172,405 4.1%
Oyi 168,029 4.0%
Anambra West 167,416 4.0%
Ayamelum 158,410 3.8%
Ekwusigo 158,231 3.8%
Nnewi North 157,569 3.8%
Anambra East 153,331 3.7%
Njikoka 148,465 3.6%
Onitsha South 136,662 3.3%
Onitsha North 124,942 3.0%
Awka North 112,608 2.7%
Dunukofia 96,382 2.3%
Total 4,182,032 100.0%
Source: National Bureau of Statistics, 2006
2.3.2 Anambra Trade
Unfortunately there is a lack of data available in the public domain pertaining to trade characteristics
of Anambra State. What is known is that Anambra is a net importer of produce, i.e. more imports than
exports.
The new airport is proposed to be located in close proximity to the town of Onitsha. Onitsha is a
market town and port on the Niger River in the west of Anambra State. Onitsha’s industries include
tyre re-treading, sawmilling, printing, soft-drink bottling and textiles. Onitsha Market’s most
important local exports are palm oil and kernels, but yams, cassava, corn, citrus fruits, palm produce,
rice, taro, fish, and beef are also traded in the market.
It is assumed that the new airport will be ideally placed to cater for the transportation of imports and
export trade generated by the market, where it is economically viable to ship such items by air.
2.3.3 Economy
The local economy of Anambra State, in 2007, was ranked 16th out of Nigeria’s 36 states,
contributing 2.3% of Nigeria’s GDP.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-5 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-5 of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Table 2.2: Nigerian GDP by State
Rank State GDP
(US$billion) % of total
1 Lagos State 33.7 11.6%
2 Rivers State 21.1 7.2%
3 Delta State 16.7 5.8%
4 Oyo State 16.1 5.5%
5 Imo State 14.2 4.9%
6 Kano State 12.4 4.3%
7 Edo State 11.9 4.1%
8 Akwa Ibom State 11.2 3.8%
9 Ogun State 10.5 3.6%
10 Kaduna State 10.3 3.6%
11 Cross River State 9.3 3.2%
12 Abia State 8.7 3.0%
13 Ondo State 8.4 2.9%
14 Osun State 7.3 2.5%
15 Benue State 6.9 2.4%
16 Anambra State 6.8 2.3%
- All Other States 85.5 29.3%
Total 291.0
Source: UN Statistics, 2007
When dividing the Anambra State GDP figure (US$6.8bn) by its population (4.2m) we see that the
GDP per capita (i.e. the average income per person) is around US$1,600 a year. Compare this figure
with that of Anambra’s neighbouring States (Lagos is included for reference);
Table 2.3: Derived GDP per capita figures
State GDP per capita (US$)
Delta 4,300
Lagos 3,900
Imo 3,840
Edo 3,600
Rivers 3,250
Abia 2,500
Anambra 1,600
Kogi 1,500
Enugu 1,000
Source: UN Statistics / ACI; 2007
While the above table suggests Anambra State compares unfavourably with its neighbouring States in
terms of local wealth/prosperity, this can be counterbalanced to some extent by the wealth generated
by trading at Onitsha market, much of which will be by people who do not reside in Anambra itself
but do choose to trade there. Additionally, the development of the oil facilities in the state will
undoubtedly raise the overall GDP per head figure for Anambra.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-6 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-6 of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Air traffic at neighbouring airports is examined later in this report, in Section 2.5, but it is worth
investigating, here, what we can draw from this analysis.
Owerri Airport, in Imo State, achieved a passenger throughput of under 0.5 million in 2007. Benin
City Airport, in Edo State, saw under 0.2 million passengers that same year. Port Harcourt Airport, in
Rivers State, handled just under 0.3 million passengers. However, the closure of Port Harcourt Airport
for repairs for periods of time between August 2006 through to April 2008 and the transfer of services
to both Owerri and Calabar in this period will distort figures somewhat.
The Nigerian economy has seen erratic growth since 1990, but has experienced strong and solid
growth in the last 4-5 years. This robust growth is expected to continue, at least in the short-medium
term. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects Nigerian GDP to grow at a very healthy 9.0%
in 2008 and 8.3% in 2009.
Figure 2.4: Nigeria GDP annual growth rates 1990-2006
8.2
4.8
2.9
2.2
0.1
2.5
4.3
2.7
1.9
1.1
5.4
3.1
1.6
10.7
6.1 6.1
5.9
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
GD
P g
row
th r
ate
%
Source: UN Statistics, 2007
2.3.4 Nigerian Trade
The performance of the Nigerian economy in recent years has benefited both from the high world
price of oil and the efficiency gains resulting from economic reforms. The main drivers of growth in
the non-oil sector were telecommunications, general commerce, manufacturing, agriculture, and
services. Real GDP growth rate averaged 6 per cent during the period 2002-2007. A summary of
Nigeria’s GDP by sector in 2007 can be seen below:
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-7 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-7 of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 2.5: Nigerian GDP by industry sector, 2007
GDP by Sector in 2007
42.01%
2.31%
4.03%
16.18%
0.30%
3.85%
29.60%
1.72%
Agriculture, Oil & Gas
Telecommunications/PostalServices
Manufacturing
Building & Construction
Distributive Trade
Solid Minerals
Finances & Insurances
Other Services
Source: National Bureau of Statistics
Export trade is driven by oil. In the first quarter of 2008, over 95% of total exports (in terms of value)
were accounted for by oil and petrol products, as shown below:
Figure 2.6: Nigerian Exports by commodity, 1st Qtr 2008
Top Exports in Q1, 2008
Tanned or Crust hides and
other dried skins
0.4%
Dentifrices
0.4%Sesamum seeds
0.3%
Natural gas, liquefied
0.2%
Leather
0.2%
Cotton
0.2%
Other
4.8%
Rubber
0.8%
Polyethylene
0.9%
Cocao Beans, w hole or
broken, raw or roasted
1.4%
Petrol, Oils, Bituminous
Minerals
95.2%
Source: National Bureau of Statistics
When looking at imports, it is clear that most ‘luxury’ commodities are brought into Nigeria.
TV/Radio apparatus accounts for 37% (in terms of value) of all imports in the first quarter of 2008,
with the remaining breakdown shown below:
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-8 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-8 of 8 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 2.7: Nigerian Imports by commodity, 1st Qtr 2008
Top Imports in Q1, 2008
37%
11%11%
9%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%5%
Radio/TV transmissionapparatus
Unbleached plain cotton
Spelt, common wheat
Producer gas or water gasgene
Motorcycles (includingmopeds)
Portland & aluminous cement
Pumps for liquids, nes
Urea
Taps and other valves
Unbleached plain cottonweave
Source: National Bureau of Statistics
2.4 Air Traffic in Nigeria
Air traffic in Nigeria has been increasing fairly strongly over the last 5 years, albeit from a low base.
According to the Airports Council International (ACI), terminal passenger throughput at Nigerian
airports has been growing at 7.7% per year since 2002, with growth in international passengers
outperforming domestic passengers. However, domestic passengers still account for nearly 70% of
total throughput in 2007, and this proportion has remained fairly constant, at around 70%, since 2002.
Air transport movements (ATMs) increased at a lower rate of 5.2% per annum. We consider this
growth to be reasonably in line with what can be expected of a burgeoning air transport industry and
developing economy, although there are mitigating factors as to why the Nigerian air transport
industry has not been experiencing significantly greater growth; political instability and a volatile
environment for visitors are the two main inhibitors to development.
As highlighted in section 2.3.3, the robust growth in Nigerian air traffic since 2002 has been mirrored
by similarly strong economic growth in that time period. Indeed, economic growth often acts as a
catalyst for growth in the aviation industry.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-9 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-9 of 9 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Table 2.4: Development of Air Traffic at Nigerian Airports
AAGR %
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002-2007
Passengers Intl. 1,688,314 1,664,689 1,933,700 2,124,677 2,310,038 2,776,300 10.5%Dom. 4,432,788 5,308,050 5,805,340 5,897,939 5,680,721 6,113,186 6.6%
Total Terminal 6,121,102 6,972,739 7,739,040 8,022,616 7,990,759 8,889,486 7.7%
Transit 122,164 96,681 189,168 162,035 207,711 63,646 -12.2%
ATMs Total 141,634 171,452 193,082 188,865 181,922 182,783 5.2%
Air Cargo (tonnes) 46,541 68,630 76,958 94,717 123,973 138,599 24.4%
Source: ASI / ACI.
Figure 2.8: Development of Air Traffic at Nigerian Airports
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Pa
ss
en
ge
rs (
mil
lio
ns
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
AT
Ms
(0
00
s)
Intl Pax Dom Pax Total Pax ATMs
Source: ASI / ACI
For local competitor airport, we have sourced data from ASI who obtained this direct from the
airports themselves, thus providing the most accurate picture possible. For other airports and the
Nigerian market overall, we have also used Airports Council International (ACI) data to fill in any
remaining gaps in information.
In 2007, the ten Nigerian airports that handled the highest levels of traffic were;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-10 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-10 of 10 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Table 2.5: Air Traffic at Nigerian Airports, 2007
City ATMs Passengers Passengers
per ATM Cargo (tns)
Lagos 79,092 4,450,726 56 130,076
Abuja 38,564 2,198,674 57 3,737
Owerri* 8,063 516,230 64 288
Kano 5,414 381,862 70 2,484
Port Harcourt* 7,824 278,363 36 2,014
Bauchi 14,067 266,260 19 -
Warri** 13,680 227,456 17 -
Calabar* 6,307 207,542 33 -
Enugu 3,893 201,854 52 -
Benin 6,435 182,930 28 -
Kaduna 2,814 110,029 39 -
Source: ASI/ACI
*Note that due to closure of Port Harcourt airport for repair/refurbishment during 2007, its figures are lower than would be expected.
Conversely Owerri and Calabar saw their figures increase due to some Port Harcourt traffic using these airports as a substitute
** Note: the air traffic data for Warri Airport is for 2006
In terms of passenger throughput, Lagos is by far the most dominant airport in Nigeria, accounting for
50% of total passenger throughput in 2007. Abuja is the second-ranked airport handling 25% of all
passengers passing through Nigerian airports. Lagos and Abuja are Nigeria’s commercial and
political/administrative capital cities, respectively. Anambra’s neighbouring airports – Owerri, Warri,
Enugu, Benin City and Port Harcourt – handled a combined 16% of Nigeria’s passengers. Indeed,
Owerri Airport was the 3rd highest ranked airport in Nigeria in terms of passenger throughput in 2007,
but this figure was inflated somewhat by Port Harcourt’s closure, which would otherwise have the 3rd
largest passenger throughput in the country.
In terms of air cargo, Lagos is even more dominant with a 94% share of total air cargo throughput.
This is to be expected as Lagos is, as mentioned, the premier trade and commerce centre in the
country.
2.4.1 Propensity to fly
Air traffic development in Nigeria has generally been in line with the expectations of a developing
nation. It is recognised that a relationship exists between a country’s economic maturity and the
development of its air transport industry. As a nation’s economy grows, so does its air transport
industry. As is evidenced in the chart below, Nigeria is at the bottom of the growth curve, with a very
low GDP per capita and correspondingly low propensity to fly per head of population. As the Nigerian
economy grows, it will stimulate growth in air travel as more people will have higher incomes (and
more disposable income) and thus greater requirement for air travel for business and leisure purposes.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-11 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-11 of 11 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 2.9: GDP per capita vs Propensity to fly
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
GDP per Capita ($US)
Tri
ps p
er
Cap
ita
NorwayIrelandUSA
AustraliaSpain SwitzerlandUK
Canada
Germany
Japan
Brazil
Poland
China
India
Source: Mott MacDonald analysis of ACI and World Bank data; 2005
Mature markets
Less mature markets
Malaysia
RomaniaPhilippines
Indonesia
Hong KongSingapore
NIGERIA
The propensity to fly for the Nigerian population is around 0.068 flights per capita, per year. When
this figure is applied to Anambra State, the resultant figure for total flights per year for the Anambra
population is [4.2m x 0.068 =] 285,600. Currently these flights are accommodated from neighbouring
airports such as Owerri, Warri, Enugu, Benin City and to a lesser extent Port Harcourt. It is reasonable
to suggest that the new Anambra airport will ‘claw back’ a proportion of its ‘lost’ or ‘leaked’ traffic,
perhaps as much as 50% (or half). Again, it is feasible to suggest that this would mean that the
population of Anambra State could potentially support up to 150,000 passenger movements per year
from the new Anambra Airport in the initial years of operation. As a consequence of economic
growth, the propensity to fly for Nigerians will increase as the national population prospers. Therefore
it is reasonable to make the assumption that although the propensity to fly for the Anambra population
will be low in the first few years of the airport’s operation, Anambra State will be able to support an
increasing level of air travel as the forecast period progresses.
2.4.2 Industry Forecasts
It is worth looking at what Boeing and Airbus, the two dominant manufacturers in the air transport
industry, have predicted for the African market.
Boeing, in its Current Market Outlook 2008-2027, suggests that future challenges for African nations
include modernisation;
“Four of the world’s top 20 oil-producing countries are in Africa. Economic growth is forecast
at 5.1% (over the next 20 years). Even so, the continent’s limited transportation system is
slowing the spread of economic vitality.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-12 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-12 of 12 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Air transportation is a highly effective alternative to ground transportation over difficult
terrain. Access to landlocked areas of Africa is limited by a lack of roads and railways. The
spread of air transportation will require expansion and modernization of the continent’s
airports.”
Boeing forecasts that the strongest market for growth in Africa will be Africa-Europe, with passengers
growing at 5.4% per annum between 2008 and 2027 to reach 350 million by 2027. The intra-African
market is predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 5.6% with passenger numbers reaching 100
million in the same timescale.
Airbus, in its Global Market Forecast 2007-2026, actually segments the African market further than
Boeing. Although not specific to any country, Airbus makes the distinction between Sub-Saharan,
Northern and South Africa. Nigeria falls into the Sub-Saharan category. Airbus forecasts air passenger
traffic growth for the following markets:
Table 2.6: Airbus Forecast of Africa Sub-Sahara Market Growth Rates
Sub market Average Annual
Growth Rate %
2007-2026
Africa Sub-Sahara Africa Sub-Sahara 5.6%
Africa Sub-Sahara Asia 5.6%
Africa Sub-Sahara Australia/New Zealand 5.4%
Africa Sub-Sahara Indian Subcontinent 7.2%
Africa Sub-Sahara Middle East 8.3%
Africa Sub-Sahara North Africa 9.7%
Africa Sub-Sahara China 8.0%
Africa Sub-Sahara Russia 3.2%
Africa Sub-Sahara South Africa 8.3%
Africa Sub-Sahara South America 5.5%
Africa Sub-Sahara United States of America 5.3%
Africa Sub-Sahara Western Europe 4.5%
Source: Airbus Global Market Forecast 2007-2026
The intra-Africa markets (Sub-Sahara to/from Northern and South Africa) are forecast to have the
highest growth rates in the next two decades, closely followed by the emerging economies of the
Middle East, China and the Indian Subcontinent.
Whilst it is cautious not to interpret too much from a ‘blanket’ forecast covering an entire region when
attempting to focus on one specific market, i.e. Nigeria, one message is clear; that Nigeria, as an
African nation, is forecast to enjoy strong economic growth over the next two decades, on the back of
booming tourism and trade activities, increased wealth, all of which will stimulate the development of
its air transport industry.
2.4.3 Airlines of Nigeria
The main airlines operating passenger services in Nigeria are Virgin Nigeria, Bellview Airlines, Arik
Air and Aerocontractors. They all operate modern fleets, with shorthaul, single-aisle Boeing 737
aircraft on domestic Nigerian routes.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-13 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-13 of 13 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The following is a summary of these airlines’ modern jet aircraft fleets:
Table 2.7: Airlines of Nigeria – fleet summary
Airlines Aircraft Type Seats No of
Aircraft
B737-300 128 2 Aerocontractors
B737-400 144 2
B737-300 134 2
B737-700 137 6
B777-200 On order 2
B777-300 On order 2
B787-900 On order 3
Arik Air Ltd
A340-500 On order 2
B737-200 131 5 Bellview Airlines Limited
B767-200 191 2
B737-300 149 5 Virgin Nigeria
EMB170/190 On order 10
Source: JP Airline-Fleets International, November 2008 / Airlines
As detailed above, we can see that Arik Air has plans to acquire a handful of long range mid-size jets
(B777 & B787) and expects to take delivery of 2 A340-500 jets imminently for planned services from
Lagos to London and Houston.
According to OAG (Official Airlines Guide, October 2008), Virgin Nigeria’s domestic route network
is dominated by its Lagos-Abuja route, which currently operates at a frequency of 45 departures per
week. Lagos-Port Harcourt route is Virgin Nigeria’s second highest-frequency route with 12
departures per week. Of most interest, however, is the carrier’s service between Lagos and Owerri,
one of the neighbouring airports to Anambra. This route is operated at a frequency of 6 departures per
week on a 149-seat B737.
Likewise, Aerocontractors operate a Lagos-Enugu service at a frequency of 13 departures per week
with a 128-seat B737.
Arik Air’s most popular route is Lagos-Port Harcourt, with the carrier offering 56 weekly flights
between those two cities, as well as offering at least a twice daily service between Lagos and each of
Enugu, Benin and Warri.
We do not have access to passenger survey data, so the demand for access to Anambra from
passengers on the Lagos-Owerri/Enugu services is unknown. It is feasible that a significant proportion
of passengers on these two routes originated in, or is destined for, Anambra State.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-14 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-14 of 14 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
2.5 Benchmarking
When considering the likely growth of an airport, it is advisable to take into account similar airports in
size/nature/profile for the purposes of comparing levels of traffic throughput. In the case of the
proposed new Anambra State Airport, it is difficult to draw any comparisons as there is no existing
level of traffic. However, what we can do is to look at the profile of Anambra’s neighbouring airports
to give an indication of how the local catchment area stimulates the development of air traffic. To this
end, the following section looks at the neighbouring airports of Owerri, Warri, Enugu, Benin City and
Port Harcourt.
2.5.1 Neighbouring Airports
The Nigerian airports of Owerri, Warri, Enugu, Benin City and to a lesser extent Port Harcourt can be
considered as the closest neighbouring airports to the site of the proposed new airport in Anambra
State.
Owerri is situated 52 miles from Anambra Airport; Enugu, 47 miles; Warri, 82 miles; Benin City, 83
miles, and; Port Harcourt, 83 miles.
The following table highlights the traffic at the neighbouring airports:
Table 2.8: Neighbouring airport traffic figures, 2007
2007
Airport ATMs Passengers Pax per ATM Cargo (tns)
Owerri* 8,063 516,230 64 288
Port Harcourt* 7,824 278,363 35 2,014
Warri** 13,680 227,456 17 -
Enugu 3,893 201,084 52 -
Benin City 6,435 182,930 28 -
Source: ASI/ACI
*Note that due to closure of Port Harcourt airport for repair/refurbishment during 2007, its figures are lower than would be expected.
Conversely Owerri saw its figures increase due to some Port Harcourt traffic using it as a substitute
**Note: the air traffic data for Warri Airport is for 2006
It is immediately noticeable that each airport has a relatively low traffic throughput. Given that these
airports have runways in excess of 2,000m long, it is not necessarily the airport and its infrastructure
that is ‘holding back’ development of traffic. It is likely to be a combination of factors including a lack
of means to travel by air for much of the local population. Also significant will be the history of some
instability in the Nigerian aviation market that has seen many carriers start up services only to close
down at a later date. However Nigeria does now seem to be witnessing a growth in well-run
economically viable carriers operating modern aircraft and with a more cohesive approach to building
route networks and this bodes well for future traffic growth in the country.
Currently, Enugu only has scheduled passenger services to Lagos from the major Nigerian carriers,
operated by Aerocontractors with a B737 at a frequency of 10 departures a week.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-15 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-15 of 15 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Likewise, Owerri only serves Lagos with 6 scheduled departures a week by Virgin Nigeria with a
B737.
Benin City also has scheduled services to Lagos only. Aerocontractors offer 21 weekly departures
from Benin City with a Dash 8-300. Virgin Nigeria operates the Lagos route with an ATR-52 at a
frequency of 13 departures a week. The smaller-capacity aircraft on this route reflects the airline’s
estimation that frequency is preferable to capacity, and that this route cannot support the utilisation of
a larger aircraft.
Indeed, Warri Airports’ major route is to Lagos, operated by Aerocontractors with 26 weekly flights.
Port Harcourt’s 2007 figures above are not an accurate reflection of the airport, given its closure for
reconstruction. Now fully reopened, it has a comparatively wider scheduled route network compared
to the other airports;
Table 2.9: Port Harcourt scheduled route network
Scheduled Route from Port Harcourt:
Departures per week
Airline operator Aircraft type
Abuja 20 Chanchangi Airlines; Aerocontractors B727; B737 Douala (Cameroon) 1 Bellview Airlines B737 Lagos 63 Chanchangi Airlines; Aerocontractors;
Bellview Airlines; Virgin Nigeria B727; B737
Paris (France) 4 Air France A319
Source: OAG October 2008
As evidenced above, the Port Harcourt-Lagos route still dominates the scheduled services at Port
Harcourt, as does the Lagos route at Owerri, Enugu and Benin City.
Lufthansa has been quoted as suggesting that it intends to reintroduce Port Harcourt services to
Frankfurt when possible, but this has yet to materialise. Port Harcourt also used to have direct service
to London operated by Virgin Atlantic. However upon formation of Virgin Nigeria, the airline took
the decision to hub all its Nigerian traffic through Lagos.
There is a clear pattern emerging from the analysis of the scheduled route networks from the neighbouring (and thus future competing) airports. Lagos is the core route from regional Nigerian cities. Lagos attracts feeder services to its hub,
and from there passengers can access international services.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-16 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-16 of 16 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
2.6 Air Traffic Demand Forecasts
Currently, residents of Anambra State must travel further than 100km in an often volatile environment
to gain access to an airport. A conventional passenger demand forecast will look at the level of
demand for air travel generated by the population within an airport’s catchment area. However, in this
case, the local demand for leisure travel is going to be initially very low on account of the fact that air
travel is, and will remain for some time in Nigeria, a privilege for a minority, at least until the average
wage increases significantly and air fares fall significantly. Although Anambra is home to over 4
million people, the level of leisure traffic demand stimulated by a new airport will be constrained by
the relative poverty of the local population. Business traffic demand, however, certainly could be
generated with the introduction of routes to the main Nigerian commercial centres such as Lagos,
Abuja and Port Harcourt, especially given the oil facilities and Onitsha Market close to the new
airport.
For the purposes of this report, we make the distinction between Scheduled traffic and Charter (ad
hoc) traffic.
2.6.1 Transport of Oil and Gas Facilities personnel
The primary objective of Orient in the development of Anambra Airport is to use it for the safe
transportation of the Oil and Gas Facilities personnel to and from the State.
The majority of air transport movements generated by transporting Oil and Gas Facilities personnel
will be Charter (ad hoc) in nature, but we estimate that around 30% of these air travellers will use the
new scheduled services connecting Anambra with Lagos over the course of the forecast period. Taking
this into account, the summary table below represents passengers and ATMs that are separate to the
scheduled traffic demand forecast, omitting 30% of the total demand from Oil and Gas Facilities
personnel from the table below, and absorbing that 30% of passengers into the scheduled forecast in
Section 2.6.2.
Table 2.10: Oil and Gas Facilities personnel demand forecast
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Passengers 9,408 17,976 24,696 29,400 31,080 31,080 31,080 33,264
ATMs 81 155 213 253 268 268 268 287
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Passengers 33,264 34,104 34,104 36,540 37,380 37,380 37,380 37,380
ATMs 287 294 294 315 322 322 322 322
(i) Assumptions
The assumptions feeding into this part of the traffic demand forecast are taken from Orient’s
expectations of growth at the Oil and Gas Facilities, and are detailed as follows;
• Anambra Airport is expected to commence operations mid-2009
• The Oil and Gas Facilities personnel comprise the following activities;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-17 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-17 of 17 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
o Oil Refinery workers
o Upstream exploration and production staff
o Gas processing/distribution and power personnel
o Supporting infrastructure staff
• The aircraft type used to transport personnel will be the B737-300, in Aerocontractors’
configuration of 116 seats.
• Strong growth in Oil and Gas activities from Year 1 to Year 3; and steadier growth in the
subsequent years.
• Workforce will consist of around 30-40% expatriates reliant on air travel to get to work and to
get home.
• Each of these workers reliant upon air travel will make an estimated 1 return flight per 2
months (i.e. 6 return flights per calendar year).
2.6.2 Scheduled Business and Leisure traffic demand – Mott MacDonald assumptions
We have forecast the demand for scheduled business and leisure air traffic at Anambra Airport
assuming 2009 as the base year of operations and extending the forecast period out to 2024.
(i) General assumptions
There are several core overriding assumptions that need to be understood. There are certain socio-
economic factors that must be put into context when building up this demand forecast;
• Catchment area; although a captive population of over 4 million people reside in Anambra
Airport’s proximity, the propensity to fly (or more to the point, the inability to afford air
travel) for Nigerians restricts air travel to only the most affluent sections of the population at
the present time.
• According to available information, the State of Anambra has a comparatively less-wealthy
local population than the majority of its surrounding States. Logically, this indicates that
Anambra Airport should not attain the levels of traffic throughput of airports in some of the
surrounding States (notably Owerri, Benin City and Port Harcourt Airports).
• Given the low level of air traffic throughput currently being experienced at Anambra’s
neighbouring airports, it is logical that a new airport in Anambra State will achieve similar, if
not lower levels of passenger and aircraft movements in an environment of unproven demand.
• Government personnel will use scheduled air services at Anambra Airport to travel to/from
Anambra State. Where there are no direct air services between Anambra and a local
government, personnel will connect via Lagos.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-18 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-18 of 18 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
• Although no evidence has been provided of the proposed Orient Oil Refinery’s economic
impact on the local populace, we are prepared to assume that it will have a positive effect on
the local economy, allowing greater propensity for air travel to be stimulated over the course
of the forecast period.
• Onitsha Market should help to stimulate business demand, particularly given that currently
traders at the market need to use road transport to access it. A regular air service may prove to
be highly attractive to those who can afford it and have the longest travel distances.
Table 2.11: Scheduled Traffic Demand Forecast
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Base Case 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Passengers (m) 0.10 0.20 0.26 0.35 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.55 0.60
% chg v prev. yr. 100% 31% 38% 9% 10% 9% 18% 10%
ATMs (000s) 1.1 2.2 2.7 4.2 4.4 4.9 5.2 6.4 6.9
% chg v prev. yr. 100% 24% 54% 5% 12% 6% 24% 6%
Low Case
Passengers (m) 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.31 0.32
% chg v prev. yr. 100% 4% 53% 5% 2% 13% 29% 4%
ATMs (000s) 0.7 1.5 1.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.1 4.0 4.0
% chg v prev. yr. 100% 0% 79% 0% 8% 11% 27% 0%
High Case
Passengers (m) 0.10 0.20 0.26 0.35 0.46 0.56 0.72 0.84 0.98
% chg v prev. yr. 100% 31% 38% 29% 24% 27% 17% 17%
ATMs (000s) 1.1 2.2 2.7 4.2 5.1 6.3 7.7 9.3 10.8
% chg v prev. yr. 100% 24% 54% 23% 24% 21% 20% 17%
High: High Case
Passengers (m) 1.11 4.44 4.64 4.84 5.06 5.29 5.53 5.78 6.04
% chg v prev. yr. 300% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4%
ATMs (000s) 12.4 49.5 51.7 54.1 56.5 59.0 61.7 64.5 67.4
% chg v prev. yr. 299% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%
Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AAGR %
Base Case 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2009-2024
Passengers (m) 0.66 0.72 0.80 0.88 0.96 1.06 1.17 17.9%
% chg v prev. yr. 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
ATMs (000s) 7.1 7.7 8.6 9.5 10.3 11.4 12.6 17.7%
% chg v prev. yr. 3% 8% 12% 10% 8% 11% 11%
Low Case
Passengers (m) 0.34 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.49 14.7%
% chg v prev. yr. 4% 12% 7% 2% 6% 6% 6%
ATMs (000s) 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 5.6 6.6 6.6 15.8%
% chg v prev. yr. 11% 10% 9% 8% 0% 17% 0%
High Case
Passengers (m) 1.03 1.07 1.22 1.32 1.41 1.49 1.63 20.6%
% chg v prev. yr. 5% 4% 14% 8% 7% 6% 9%
ATMs (000s) 11.2 11.2 12.9 14.6 15.0 17.2 17.5 20.3%
% chg v prev. yr. 4% 0% 15% 13% 3% 15% 2%
High: High Case
Passengers (m) 6.31 6.59 6.89 7.20 7.52 7.86 8.21 14.3%
% chg v prev. yr. 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4%
ATMs (000s) 70.4 73.6 76.9 80.3 84.0 87.7 91.7 14.3%
% chg v prev. yr. 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 5%
There are several underlying assumptions forming the basis of scheduled traffic as summarised below;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-19 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-19 of 19 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(ii) Base Case assumptions
• Year 1 of operations (half-year figures due to Airport opening mid-year); routes to Lagos and
Abuja at frequency of 1 return flight per day (2 airlines on Lagos route); all operations with
B737.
• Year 3; Kano route introduced at 1 return flight per weekday with B737;
• Year 4; Port Harcourt route introduced at 1 return flight per weekday with Dash 8-300;
• Frequencies to increase over forecast period; on all routes, frequencies increase incrementally
up to 3 daily return flights by Year 16; for Lagos/Abuja routes, increase to twice daily return
flights in Year 8; for Kano route, increase to twice daily return in Year 9; for Port Harcourt,
increase to twice daily return flight in Year 10.
• Passenger Load Factors (PLF %) at 65% on commencement of route – increasing with route
maturity and time
• Government personnel travelling to/from Anambra State using these scheduled services
account for 33% of scheduled passengers in Year 1 (approximately 33,000) and 18% by Year
16 (approx. 211,000).
• Key milestones; 0.5 million passengers per annum (mppa) by Year 8; 1.17 mppa by Year 16
• Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 17.9% between Year 1 and 16
(iii) Low Case assumptions
Same as Base Case; except –
• Only 1 carrier on Lagos route using B737.
• Kano route not operated
• Key milestones; 0.25 mppa by Year 8; 0.5 mppa by Year 16
• AAGR of 14.7% between Year 1 and 16.
(iv) High Case assumptions
Same as Base Case; except –
• Year 5; Kaduna route introduced at 1 return flight per day with B737
• Year 6; Sokoto route introduced at 1 return flight per day with B737
• Year 7; Maiduguri route introduced at 1 return flight per day with B737
• Key milestones; 0.5 mppa by Year 6; 1.0 mppa by Year 10; 1.5 mppa by Year 15
• AAGR of 20.6% between Year 1 and 16.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-20 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-20 of 20 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(v) High: High Case assumptions
Orient supplied its own set of demand forecast assumptions for scheduled traffic at Anambra Airport.
They are as follows:
• Lagos and Abuja domestic routes; 6 return flights per day at opening, increasing to 12 return
flights per day in Year 2.
• Kaduna, Kano, Jos, Port Harcourt, Warri, Calabar, Maiduguri domestic routes; 2 return flights
per day at opening, increasing to 4 return flights per day in Year 2.
• Libreville, Dakar, Douala, Abidjan international routes; 2 return flights per day at opening,
increasing to 4 return flights per day in Year 2.
• All flights using B737-300 (128 seats).
• Organic growth applied at 4.5% per annum from Year 2 to end of forecast period.
• 70% Passenger Load Factor on all flights.
Applying the ‘High: High Case’ assumptions yields a forecast which varies significantly from Mott
MacDonald’s assessment of demand at Anambra Airport for scheduled traffic. Essentially, the ‘High:
High Case’ forecast implies that Anambra Airport will achieve the level of passenger throughput in
Year 2 of its operations that Lagos Airport achieved in 2007 (approximately 4.4 million) after many
years of traffic stimulation. Given the current low level of traffic and paucity of scheduled services at
the neighbouring airports, we consider Orients’ assumptions to be over-ambitious for a new airport
that is in an area with no history of air services, particularly given the traffic levels of other Nigerian
Airports, and the somewhat chequered level of service provision across the country in the past. We do
however believe that there is the basis for a vibrant and growing traffic base at the airport in the future
but it would be optimistic to think that this would arrive very quickly upon opening, especially given
the relatively low seat capacity in the Nigerian market, particularly given the population size of the
country. While Nigerian carriers will undoubtedly increase the size of their fleets to meet future traffic
demands across the country, this has up to now been a slow process. With this in mind we recommend
that our somewhat more conservative forecast is adopted reflecting the wider market dynamics of
Nigeria.
2.6.3 Transport of Government personnel
The new airport will also be used to transport Government personnel to Anambra State. This section
of traffic has been absorbed into the demand forecast for scheduled traffic.
2.6.4 Air Cargo Traffic Demand
One of the objectives of the airport is to serve as a centre for transporting inbound and outbound cargo
to and from the local region.
The following assumptions for air cargo traffic throughput at the proposed Anambra Airport have been
supplied by Orient Petroleum Resources plc;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-21 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-21 of 21 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
• Anambra Airport will be used to transport ad hoc cargo for the construction and
subsequent operation of the Oil Refinery and Facilities.
• Markets in Anambra receive about 50 x 40ft containers per day, plus about 100 x 20ft
containers per day.
• Additionally, Anambra receives more than 200 trailers and trucks with imports per day.
• Anambra Airport will receive an estimated 2 cargo flights (inbound) per day at inception
and increase to 4 per day in the first six months of operation. Organic growth at 4.5% has
been applied in the subsequent years.
• There is also a requirement to transport Jet-A1 fuel (product of the Oil Refinery) to other
parts of Nigeria. This is estimated to comprise 4 daily outbound flights at inception.
• An estimation of potential cargo volume throughput (in tonnes) has been made. Between
Years 1 and 8, a figure of 10 tonnes per air cargo movement has been applied; between
Years 9 and 16, the figure increases to 15 tonnes per air cargo movement. This yields an
average annual growth rate of 14.5% throughout the forecast period.
Table 2.12: Orient – Air Cargo Traffic Demand Forecast
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
General Cargo mvts 728 2,912 3,043 3,180 3,323 3,473 3,629 3,792
Jet Fuel mvts 1,456 3,043 3,180 3,323 3,473 3,629 3,792 3,963
Total Cargo mvts 2,184 5,955 6,223 6,503 6,796 7,101 7,421 7,755
Estimated Cargo (tonnes) 21,840 59,550 62,230 65,031 67,957 71,015 74,211 77,550
Year 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
General Cargo mvts 3,963 4,141 4,328 4,522 4,726 4,938 5,161 5,393
Jet Fuel mvts 4,141 4,328 4,522 4,726 4,938 5,161 5,393 5,636
Total Cargo mvts 8,104 8,469 8,850 9,248 9,664 10,099 10,553 11,028
Estimated Cargo (tonnes) 121,560 127,030 132,746 138,720 144,962 151,486 158,302 165,426
Mott MacDonald has assessed the air cargo traffic figures generated by Orient’s assumptions. The
resulting air cargo throughput seems exceptionally high when compared to the cargo traffic at Owerri
Airport (288 tonnes per year) and Port Harcourt (2,014 tonnes per year). Even Lagos Airport only
handles 133,000 tonnes per year. Mott MacDonald has produced its own assessment of forecast
demand for air cargo traffic, using the following assumptions;
• For general air cargo; 1 return flight per week at inception
• For Jet Fuel cargo; 2 return flights per week at inception
• Organic growth thereafter at 5% per annum.
• Average of 5 tonnes of cargo per movement,
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-22 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-22 of 22 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Table 2.13: Mott MacDonald – Air Cargo Traffic Demand Forecast
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
General Cargo mvts 52 104 109 115 120 126 133 139
Jet Fuel mvts 104 208 218 229 241 253 265 279
Total Cargo mvts 156 312 328 344 361 379 398 418
Estimated Cargo (tonnes) 2,340 2,574 2,831 3,115 3,426 3,683 3,959 4,256
Year 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
General Cargo mvts 146 154 161 169 178 187 196 206
Jet Fuel mvts 293 307 323 339 356 374 392 412
Total Cargo mvts 439 461 484 508 534 560 588 618
Estimated Cargo (tonnes) 4,575 4,918 5,164 5,423 5,694 5,978 6,277 6,591
We estimate air cargo throughput to reach 2,340 tonnes in the 1st Year (half-year operation), and to
increase to over 6,500 tonnes by the end of the forecast period. This seems reasonable given the level
of cargo traffic at neighbouring Port Harcourt Airport, and indeed all other airports other than Lagos in
Nigeria. Whilst this figure remains somewhat smaller than the levels seen at Lagos, Nigeria’s primary
air cargo hub, the oil facilities and Onitsha Market should enable Anambra Airport to achieve higher
levels of cargo throughput than other regional airports in Nigeria. Should cargo levels increase
significantly beyond those of the forecasts, the facilities at the airport have been designed with to
accommodate substantially more cargo throughput should it be required.
2.6.5 Total Air Traffic Demand Forecast
Having provided a segmental breakdown, this section combines each segment’s contribution to
passenger and air transport movement throughput at Anambra Airport over the forecast period.
The Base Case Scheduled passenger and ATM demand has been added to the passenger and ATM
demand derived from the movements of Oil and Gas Facilities personnel. This has then been
combined with the air transport movements generated by cargo traffic, yielding the summary figures
below.
Table 2.14: Total Air Traffic Demand Forecast
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Annual Throughput 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Passengers (m) 0.13 0.26 0.33 0.43 0.47 0.51 0.56 0.65 0.70
ATMs (000s) 1.8 3.5 4.1 5.6 5.9 6.6 7.0 8.3 8.9
Estimated Cargo (000' tonnes) 2,340 2,574 2,831 3,115 3,426 3,683 3,959 4,256 4,575
Pax per ATM 74.8 74.8 79.7 76.1 78.5 77.8 79.7 77.5 79.6
Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AAGR %
Annual Throughput 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2009-2024
Passengers (m) 0.77 0.85 0.93 1.02 1.11 1.22 1.34 16.7%
ATMs (000s) 9.2 9.9 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2 15.6 15.7%
Estimated Cargo (000' tonnes) 4,918 5,164 5,423 5,694 5,978 6,277 6,591 7.1%
Pax per ATM 83.8 85.1 84.5 84.5 85.8 85.7 85.7
Key points of the forecast:
• Annual passenger throughput in Year 1 (half-year operation) is expected to reach 0.13 million;
0.5 million in Year 6; 1.0 million in Year 13.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-23 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-23 of 23 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
• Annual ATMs in Year 1 are expected to reach 1,800; 7,000 in Year 7; 15,600 in Year 16.
• Passenger throughput is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 16.7%; ATMs to grow
at 15.7%.
• The average number of passengers per ATM will remain around the 75-85 mark, on account
of the predominant use of B737s on passenger services.
• Air cargo throughput to increase at 7.1% AAGR, from 2,340 tonnes in Year 1 to 6,591 tonnes
in Year 16.
2.7 Peak hour movements
While annual traffic levels are important from an investment and profitability point of view, these do
not have a substantial bearing on the design of airport facilities. It is Peak hour forecasts that
determine the required size of airport facilities.
Given the likely traffic profile of the airport, with a high degree of usage for business purposes (oil,
regional government, market trading), we would expect to see the airport to have a marked peak
period during the weekday mornings and late afternoon / early evenings, as scheduled flights to key
destinations arrive and depart, with the rest of the day being relatively quiet by comparison. As the
market grows we would then expect to see traffic start to grow in the non-peak periods, (such as
around the middle of the day) as airlines add frequency to existing routes, particularly if airlines
decide to base aircraft at the airport. This is a common profile for an airport with a high proportion of
business usage and Anambra Airport should be no different in this respect. However, a high degree of
charter flights could see the airport maintain a reasonable level of movements throughout the day,
although exactly when charter flights might arrive and depart is impossible to predict with any degree
of accuracy at this stage.
Freight aircraft tend to arrive and depart during periods that would normally be considered off-peak
for passenger operations.
Within three years of the airport opening we would expect to see a peak period of four scheduled
passenger aircraft in an hour, most likely comprising of two flights to or from Lagos (by competing
airlines), one to/from Abuja and one other destination. These services would be operated by aircraft up
to Boeing 737 (of various types) size or similar. Given continued growth of the Nigerian air transport
market it would be prudent to design around peak hour operations of Boeing 737-800 or Airbus A320
model aircraft (with all-economy seating of up to 189 passengers but more likely to operate in a 2
class configuration on a lower seating figure) as these will undoubtedly enter the Nigerian market at
some stage in the future.
Should airlines decide to base aircraft at Anambra Airport to operate scheduled flights, then the peak
periods will become pronounced in a series of waves across the day, as the aircraft leaves in the early
morning peak, arrives back later with a return flight, then departs again and so on throughout the day.
However even with based aircraft, the peak hour traffic level should not rise too greatly, as it enables
more of the flights to spread out across the day at the airport, rather than condenses movements into
one short period.
The impact of the peak hour operations on the airport design will be discussed in more detail later in
the report.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
2-24 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/2-24 of 24 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
2.8 Conclusions
From the analysis of the current state of the Nigerian air transport industry and of the Nigerian and
Anambran economy, it has been essential to reflect what has been happening and is likely to happen in
the future within the demand forecast for air traffic at Anambra Airport. In this sense, it is worthwhile
reiterating the following points;
• The Nigerian economy is expected to experience robust and continued growth in the next two
decades;
• This will inevitably increase the Nigerian population’s propensity for air travel.
• The Anambra Airport catchment area of approximately 4.2 million people can stimulate demand
for air services at the new airport, but only to a certain degree – the vast majority of the local
population will be prohibited from air travel because of price.
• The airport will see traffic generated from a number of different sources (oil, governmental,
Onitsha market, visiting friends and relatives etc). This diversity of traffic will mean the airport
avoids over-reliance on one type of traffic and therefore provides a more stable platform for long
term growth.
• Neighbouring airports currently have a low level of air traffic activity. This has a bearing on how
much air traffic we can reasonably expect Anambra Airport to achieve. The largest of the
neighbouring airports – Owerri – only handles 0.5 million passengers today, after many years of
operation. This suggests that the local demand for air services is currently low at today’s market
prices.
• The route network of scheduled services from neighbouring airports is still limited. Each of
Owerri, Enugu, Benin City and Port Harcourt airports effectively acts as ‘feeder airports’ with
links to Lagos, enabling domestic passengers to connect on to international services. This is the
role we envisage for Anambra Airport.
• Mott MacDonald’s calculations for air traffic demand at Anambra Airport assume that the
neighbouring airports of Owerri, Enugu, Benin City and Port Harcourt remain operational
throughout the forecast period. It may transpire that the introduction of a competing airport in
Anambra State culminates in the closure of one or more of the neighbouring airports, or an airline
operating there to curtail services and move them to Anambra. This could result in Anambra
Airport serving a wider local population, and indeed could become a large regional airport.
• Nigerian airlines have yet to reach a level of market maturity with comprehensive, cohesive route
networks. This has meant that regional airports are still suffering from somewhat limited flights
and routes than would be expected for the local catchment area population size.
• While the oil facilities and Onitsha market will provide a basis for freight traffic at Anambra
Airport, this has to be tempered in line with the reality that even Lagos Airport, serving Nigeria’s
major trade and commerce centre, and its main international gateway and national hub, only
manages an annual throughput of around 133,000 tonnes. Freight traffic elsewhere in Nigeria is
still only on a small scale and we do not foresee regional airports generating high levels of freight
traffic in the forecast horizon – particularly given the very low usage of dedicated freight aircraft
by Nigerian airlines.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3 Master Plan
3.1 Master Plan Assumptions
This chapter describes the principal Master Plan facilities.
In developing a Master Plan for the new Anambra State Airport there are several factors that have
been taken into account. The main elements to be considered are:
• Topography in the immediate vicinity of the airport
• Local development
• Meteorology of the area, including reference temperatures
• Primary proposed use of the airport, including planned design aircraft
Each of these factors must be considered so as to obtain the optimum placement and orientation of the
runway, as well as the dimensional requirements of the runway and associated airport infrastructure.
3.1.1 Preliminary Airfield Design Assumptions
In developing the preliminary airfield design the following assumptions have been made.
• The airport is to cater for aircraft in the Code E category, with the design aircraft being the
Boeing 747-400.
• The airport is to provide a 24 hour operational capability, to cater for delivery of crucial oil
refinery equipment
• The airport should have the capability to serve Code F cargo aircraft in the future, should they
be required for delivery of oil refinery equipment. Critical spatial dimensions will be to ICAO
Code F SARPS, but it is not intended to provide ant facilities sized for Code F aircraft in the
initial phases
• The aerodrome site is relatively flat and of a suitable ground quality to allow development
• There are no tall structures or high ground in the immediate vicinity (within 15km of the
aerodrome reference point), which could impinge on safe airport operations.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-2 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-2 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.2 Airfield Design
3.2.1 Wind Analysis
Wind rose data has been received from Orient Petroleum Resources Plc, which was issued to them by
the Nigerian Meteorological Agency, detailing its strength and direction at the location of the
proposed site.
It is stated within Annex 14 that the number and orientation of runways at an aerodrome should be
such that the usability factor of the aerodrome is not less than 95% for the aeroplanes that the
aerodrome is intended to serve.
It is also stated that in the calculation of the above it should also be assumed that landing or take-off of
aeroplanes is, in normal circumstances, precluded when the cross-wind component exceeds:
• 37 km/h (20kt) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1,500m or over.
• 24 km/h (13kt) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1,200m or over.
• 19 km/h (10kt) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is below 1,200m.
The wind data received from Orient Petroleum Resources Plc included the diagrams given in Figure
3.10.
Figure 3.10: Wind direction and wind speed diagrams
This diagram is in the form of a wind rose and illustrates both the direction and speed of the wind over
an undefined period. It is not possible to determine from the diagrams a consistent cross-tabulation of
wind direction and speed by frequency, which is required for the calculation of runway usability.
However, the following diagram (figure 3.11) suggests that on over 95% of occasions the wind is
below 10 m/s, which equates to 36 km/h or 18.52 knots.
This suggests that the runway will be sufficiently usable for all operations with a reference field length
of greater than 1,500m, which approximately equates to some aircraft of Code 3C and to all aircraft of
Code 3D, and Code 4.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-3 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-3 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.11: Frequency of wind speed in proposed location
Runway usability for operations of Aircraft Codes less than 3C is not discernable from Figures 3.10
and 3.11, although it is noted that the prevailing wind is from the west but with the strongest winds
from the north-east. The frequency of the Wind Speed diagram is not given and the diagram cannot be
fully interpreted.
Provisionally, it is suggested that an east-west alignment is optimal based on the wind data provided.
3.2.2 Topography
We have based our airfield siting and runway alignment within the Orient Petroleum site boundary,
and the land around the current land ownership boundary available for purchase to OPR, on the basis
of the 15km radius map provided by Orient Petroleum Resources, replicated in appendix B.
3.2.3 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
The runway location and alignment has been established through the analysis of wind data and the
initial assessment of the topography. The topographical assessment involved extracting a grid of
levels (250m x 250m) from the 15km digital terrain information provided. The result of this analysis
for each possible alignment, in conjunction with the wind rose analysis, has led to the development of
a preferred option.
However, it should be noted that the data provided is only topographical information. Calculations
have been made using ground levels, wherefore no allowance for obstacles such as trees, buildings or
pylons has been made, which would increase the magnitude of any penetrations. An aerodrome
obstacle survey should be conducted in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 as this will enable the full
extent of the obstacles to be accurately surveyed and assessed.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-4 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-4 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.2.4 Runway Alignment
The alignment of the runways has been assessed using the topographical information and wind rose
analysis provided.
Four runway alignment options had initially been developed:
(i) Alignment Option 1
This alignment exactly follows the East-West wind direction, but the airfield partially lies outside the
current OPR land ownership boundary. The land immediately outside the current OPR land boundary
is fairly level, therefore any earthworks required would be fairly similar in nature to the earthworks to
be performed within the current site.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-5 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-5 of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
However, using land outside of the current OPR land ownership boundaries might have additional
environmental impacts that have not previously been considered by the EIA.
(ii) Alignment Option 2
The second option is aligned parallel to the South-West to North-East site boundary, but is the least
properly aligned with the prevailing wind direction.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-6 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-6 of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(iii) Alignment Option 3
The third option is a compromise between the best fit within the site boundary and alignment with the
prevailing wind direction while taking into account the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. This option does
however significantly reduce the amount of land to the south of the runways that is available for
development.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-7 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-7 of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(iv) Alignment Option 4
Alignment option four combines the best possible fit within the site boundary and alignment with the
prevailing wind direction while allowing for a significant area of land within the site boundary to be
used for airfield development. This alignment also proved to be a favourable option towards the
topographic obstacle limitation surface study.
(v) Availability of Additional Land
In response to a request from OPR contained in an e-mail dated 20 November, the optimum runway alignment has been reassessed, removing the need for it to be constrained by the current land ownership boundary.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-8 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-8 of 8 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The image below shows the additional land now potentially available to OPR for the development of
Anambra Airport, plus it is understood that further land to the East of the site may also be available:
Figure 3.12: Land Potentially Available Outside Current OPR Land Ownership Boundary
Taking into consideration the potential availability of additional land, three additional runway alignment options have been developed. Two of these options have been developed for an East-West alignment (Options 5 and 6), which both show a significant number of penetrations, some in excess of 20m, to the critical Approach surfaces and Take-Off & Climb surfaces beyond the Eastern end of the runway. Moving these alignments further beyond the Western site boundary than Option 1 will result in similar issues on the Western side.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-9 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-9 of 9 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.13: Overview of Runway Alignment Options
With wind direction and speeds not likely to have any significant impact on the alignment of the runway, a third alignment (Option 7) has been developed, effectively being a fine-tuned version of option 4. This alignment attempts to minimise the level of penetrations of the ICAO Annex 14 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS), is aligned with the direction of the highest prevailing wind speeds and lies wholly within the current OPR site boundary, providing a safe runway with a very high usability level while minimising or even preventing additional land purchase.
This runway alignment, as shown below, lies entirely within the site boundary with the exception of
the Northern approach lights.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-10 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-10 of 10 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.14: Preferred Alignment Option 7
Using the supplied topographic data, we have repeated our analysis of the ICAO Annex 14 Obstacle
Limitation Surfaces (OLS) for this runway alignment, which shows a minimal number of penetrations
of the OLS surfaces. There are no penetrations of any of the critical Approach and Take-Off & Climb
surfaces and only one penetration of the transitional surface of 1.49m, which would be removed
during the overall levelling of the site. Option 7 also only has roughly 35% of the number of
penetrations of the other non critical OLSs calculated for Option 1, with the highest penetration in
Option 7 being roughly 20m lower than the highest penetration in Option 1. Based on the OLS
analysis this alignment is preferable to Option 1.
It should be borne in mind that all OLS analyses have been calculated using ground levels and do not
take into account the additional height of any obstacles such as trees, structures, etc. which would
increase the magnitude of any penetrations.
(vi) Preferred Alignment
On the basis of the wind data currently provided, it is not possible to differentiate between Options 1 and 7 in terms of runway usability, both appear to perform adequately. Additional analysis of the original wind data would be required to determine if there is a difference in performance between either runway alignment.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-11 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-11 of 11 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Option 7 has the least and lowest penetrations of the OLS surfaces as analysed in accordance with ICAO Annex 14, it also does not require any further land acquisition. It is our assessment, therefore, that on the basis of the available data this is the preferred alignment.
Figure 3.15: Option 7 in Relation to the Wind Rose
The grid coordinates of this option are as follows:
Easting Northing
Southern main runway threshold 488790.846 249977.440
Northern main runway threshold 492065.495 251712.692
Southern main taxiway threshold 488889.174 249791.882
Northern main taxiway threshold 492163.823 251527.134
Aerodrome Reference Point 490428.170 250845.066
N
EW
S
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-12 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-12 of 12 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.2.5 Navigational Aids
Several different types of navigational aids will be installed at the airfield and land needs to be
safeguarded for the different system elements, in accordance with the requirements of ICAO
Annex 10. Not all of these may be installed in the first phase.
- A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) system will be installed next to either end of the
main runway, located approximately 300m beyond the threshold alongside the touchdown
point.
Figure 3.16: PAPI System Next to a Runway
- The ILS localizer antenna is located at least 310m away from the threshold of the runway it
serves, across the extended runway centreline.
Figure 3.17: ILS Localiser Antenna
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-13 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-13 of 13 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
- The ILS glidepath antenna is also located between the threshold and the touchdown point,
offset to one or other side of the runway. In this case it would be on the opposite side to the
planned parallel taxiway.
Figure 3.18: ILS Glide Path Antenna
- The DME beacon is located on the same vertical axis as the ILS glide path antenna
- The site of the VOR beacon should be on the highest ground in the vicinity of the airfield in
order to obtain the greatest line-of-sight coverage and should be level or should slope away
from the station (at a downgrade not exceeding 4 per cent) to a distance of at least 300m and
preferably to 600m from the station. The site contours should be circular with respect to the
antenna array to a radius of at least 300 m.
- The NDB/DME and VOR systems will be provided by the NCAA
Table 3.15: DME/DVOR Array
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-14 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-14 of 14 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The array of approach lights to a precision instrument runway is 900m long (measured up to the
threshold). A simple array of approach lights (as may be required for the emergency runway) would
be 420m long.
3.2.6 Design Aircraft
The largest aircraft that is intended to serve is the Boeing B747F (freighter). This is classified by
ICAO Annex 14 as Code E (wingspan <65m) and would be used to determine spatial separations,
obstacle clearances and indicative pavement constructions (for cost planning purposes). Operations by
passenger aircraft of this size category are not envisaged in any of the phases under consideration in
this Master Plan.
Operations by Code D aircraft (wingspan <52m) would be permissible within all Code E limits.
Most domestic and regional air passenger services are undertaken by aircraft with a wingspan of <36m
(Code C) and many oil-related air-taxi services by aircraft with a wingspan <24m (Code B).
Regular operations by Code F aircraft (wingspan <80m, i.e. up to the Airbus A380), including the
Antonov An-124 are not envisaged, although an occasional visit carrying (say) an exceptional cargo
load is conceivable.
Of itself, such an occasional visit would not warrant designing and building the airfield to Code F
standards. However, some of the differences between the required separations and clearances for
Code E and Code F aircraft are not substantial. For example, the minimum separation between an
instrument runway and its parallel taxiway is 182.5m for Code E and 190m for Code F and the
respective taxiway centreline to object clearances are 47.5m and 57.5m. Therefore, planning the
position of runways and taxiways to allow for unhindered Code F movements would not increase
spatial requirements and costs to a significant extent. It is the provision of wider runways (60m for
Code F, compared with 45m for Code E) and to a lesser extent, wider taxiways (25m v 23m) that adds
significantly to the construction cost. Therefore it is proposed to plan the airfield with suitable spatial
clearances for Code F aircraft, such increases in pavement widths could then be readily added at some
later date, and only then, if demand for regular services by Code F aircraft were to develop.
For airport planning purposes, helicopters with a single rotor disc of up to 19m diameter (such as the
EH101 or Sikorsky Sea King) will be accommodated on at least one helicopter parking position. If
other positions are required they may be planned for a 16m diameter rotor disc, which will
accommodate the Puma, Sikorsky S76 and smaller rotary-winged aircraft.
3.2.7 Runway Length
The length of the runway has been defined based upon the length required to serve the design aircraft,
the Boeing 747-400. It is recognised that some of the older Boeing 747 variants may require a slightly
longer runway length, but as many of these are being phased out, and to reduce the costs and land take
required, the decision was made to use the -400 variant.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-15 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-15 of 15 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The initial phase in assessing the runway length requirement was performed utilising the Airport
Design Manuals related to the B747-400, as published by Boeing. These manuals include aircraft
performance graphs which, given a defined take off weight and range requirement, can be used to
ascertain a runway length for specific aircraft types. In this case, these graphs were assessed with
respect to the aircraft maximum take off weight. The runway length required was found to be 3400m.
It should be noted, however, that this runway length is based upon Standard Atmospheric (ISA)
conditions at sea level, at a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, assuming a standard temperature
gradient. Such a standard gradient is not observed in this region. At higher altitudes and
temperatures, with respect to the Standard Atmosphere, the air density is lower and aircraft must
achieve higher speeds before take-off. Hence a longer runway is required. With respect to the
Anambra site, its altitude will be close enough to sea level for that effect to be ignored. Its reference
temperature has been taken from the dry bulb temperature, provided to us by OPR, which is
39 degrees Celsius. This figure has therefore been used to adjust the runway length on the following
basis:
The ICAO recommendation is to increase the Runway Length by 0.1% for every degree above ISA
temperature.
The adjusted runway length is therefore:
(Standard Runway length at ISA conditions plus 15 degrees Celsius x (0.01 x 9 deg)) + (Standard
Runway length at ISA conditions plus 15 degrees Celsius) = 3706m
This runway length has been used within our Master Plan.
3.2.8 Runway Width and Other Parameters
A runway of this length will be classified by ICAO as a Code 4E runway
The runway width will be 45m with a 7.5m wide shoulder each side.
At this stage we assume that the runway will have a constant longitudinal fall from east to west of
0.54% (20m).
The runway strip width will be 300m for the main instrument approach runway and need be only
150m for the emergency visual approach runway. The Runway End Safety Zones (RESAs) will be
240m long by 150m wide.
3.2.9 Runway Configuration
Options for the runway configuration were discussed in detail in the Scoping Report. It was agreed
that the airport would have a main instrument runway capable of 24-hour operations. In addition the
spatial planning for a full length parallel taxiway would be to permit that taxiway to also act as a
reserve visual runway. This is the configuration with which we have proceeded. However, while
there is no intention to provide the reserve runway with an instrument landing system, or any other
aids to permit precision approaches to that runway, it would be relatively simple to utilise some of the
other navigation aids and/or GPS (once permitted) to undertake non-precision instrument approaches
to that runway. We have therefore added a discussion in this revision on the implications of allowing
for non-precision instrument approaches to the reserve runway.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-16 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-16 of 16 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
As it is intended that the main parallel taxiway can also act as a reserve runway, in all cases, the
separation between that and the next taxiway must at least be the relevant runway to taxiway
separation and not the taxiway to taxiway separation.
Figure 3.19: Single Runway with Reserve Runway
In terms of aircraft size, as mentioned above, the airport has been designed to initially cater for Code E
aircraft operations, but with the spatial separations and clearances to enable it to be readily upgraded
to serve Code F cargo aircraft, should they be required at some time in the future. The minimum
runway to taxiway separation that safeguards for Code F instrument approaches is 190 m, whereas the
minimum runway to taxiway separation that safeguards for Code F visual approaches is 115 m.
Therefore, the minimum separation between the main instrument approach runway and the parallel
taxiway / reserve runway would be 190 m and the minimum separation between the reserve visual
approach runway and the next parallel taxiway would be 115 m. If the second runway were used for
non-precision approaches, no change in the minimum runway to runway separation is required.
If the main runway is closed, then we must consider what activity could take place on that runway
while flying operations take place on the reserve runway. This is influenced by the runway strip
width, which extends 75 m each side of its centreline for a visual approach runway and 150 m each
side for an instrument approach runway. Permitted heights of objects are then determined by the
transitional surface that extends upwards and outwards each side of the runway strip at a slope of
1 in 7. For the purpose of this study, we assume that both parallel runways and any parallel taxiways
are at the same level when measured across the airfield and thus have the same longitudinal fall.
With a main runway to reserve runway separation of 190 m, the main runway centreline would be
115 m from the edge of the reserve visual runway strip, which would limit the height of any object on
the closed main runway to 16.4 m at its centreline and 13.2 m at the nearest runway edge. We
consider this adequate for most likely purposes, although the tail fin of a B747 stopped on that runway
would be 19.4 m high. However, if the second runway were used for non-precision approaches, the
main runway centreline would be only 40m from the edge of the reserve instrument runway strip,
which would limit the height of any object on the closed main runway to 5.7 m at its centreline and
just 2.4 m at the nearest runway edge. This would be inadequate to permit runway maintenance or
aircraft recovery work.
A separation of 210 m improves the instrument runway clearance heights to 8.5 m at the centreline and
5.3 m at the nearest edge, which may still be considered limiting for recovery work, but probably
sufficient for most runway maintenance equipment.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-17 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-17 of 17 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The respective clearance heights are 19.3 m and 16.1 m respectively for visual approaches. In
addition, a 210m separation also allows dependent visual operations from both runways and so offers a
significant improvement in operational flexibility for a modest increase in dimension.
The runway to runway separation recommended and shown on our figures and drawings is 210 m.
3.2.10 Taxiways
Figure 3.19 shows the simplified runway and taxiway arrangement. The runway to runway separation
would be 210 m and the reserve runway to apron taxiway separation would be 115 m (or 190 m to
safeguard for instrument approaches on the reserve runway). Applying the minimum clearances to
safeguard for Code F operations results in the closest object clearance line (or nearest edge of the
aprons) being of 382.5 m from the main runway centreline (or 457.5 m to safeguard for instrument
approaches on the reserve runway) with a height limit of 13.9 m at that point in either case.
At the inception of most new airports, there is usually no need for a full-length parallel taxiway. This
is because traffic needs time to develop and so there is rarely any issue with the runway capacity
constraint that occurs due to “back-tracking” of aircraft along the runway. However in the long-term,
such a capacity constraint would become very limiting to the peak hour capacity of the airport as a
whole and the construction of a partial or a full-length parallel taxiway is likely to become necessary.
In the case of the new Anambra Airport, we would have allowed space for a full-length parallel
taxiway in the Master Plan, even if there were no need for a reserve runway. However, as referred to
in paragraph 3.2.8 above, in this case it has been located at a separation that enables the client’s
request that, as far as possible, the airport can continue operations in the event of a closure of the main
runway for maintenance or minor runway incidents, to be met by using the taxiway as an emergency
or reserve runway. A similar arrangement exists at London Gatwick in the UK.
The main parallel taxiway defined within the Master Plan has therefore been designed and
dimensioned to meet the requirements of an emergency runway. When first built, it could be
constructed to any required length and width suitable for its initially intended use. It is shown in this
report as having the same 45 m width as the main runway, to suit operations by Code E aircraft.
The minimum taxiway to taxiway separation that safeguards for Code F operations is 97.5m. For
comparison purposes, the respective minimum taxiway to taxiway separation for Code E and Code C
operations are 66.5m and 44.0m. Straight lengths of Code E taxiway would be 23m wide. This is the
minimum width of its upper surface that is suitable for Code E aircraft. The actual pavement width
may be wider and the width of the lower levels of construction will be even wider as taxiway
pavements do not have a retained edge. Taxiways must also be widened on bends and at junctions to
maintain the required minimum undercarriage clearances.
3.3 Code F Runway and Taxiway Widths
Even though we are recommending that Code F centreline spacing and clearances are used in this
Master Plan, we are not proposing that the runways or the taxiways are constructed to the
recommended widths for Code F aircraft. This is because we do not envisage operations by Code F
aircraft in the short, or the medium-term, but because they may occur in the long-term. However, any
drainage runs and the primary cables for runway and taxiway edge lighting should be laid at an offset
that would allow these pavements to be widened to Code F standards, without requiring these to be
relocated.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-18 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-18 of 18 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.4 Apron Design
As with the taxiway system, the apron area provided within the Master Plan has been designed to meet
the initial requirements of the airport operations whilst traffic levels build up, whilst ensuring
maximum future flexibility. This design is also intended to minimise initial costs.
The apron has been designed with three distinct sections – passenger apron, cargo apron and an apron
for use by aircraft transporting fuel – although they are each linked by an apron taxiway and a series of
roads to allow flexibility of apron operation.
An area between the initial passenger and cargo aprons has been designated for long-term apron
development to meet increased demand on either the cargo or passenger side or both.
The main passenger apron can be configured in numerous ways, with rows of stands parallel or
perpendicular to the runways and include additional taxiways or taxilanes, as necessary, to give access
to and from the aircraft parking stands.
The simplest arrangement is shown in Figure 3.20 below. However, this limits all future apron
development to the southeast side of the access taxiway (i.e. to the side opposite from the runways).
We therefore now need to consider other possible apron configurations.
The simplest improvement is to allow for remote aircraft parking stands on the runway side of the
apron taxiway. No additional taxiways are required with such an arrangement. The closest edge of
any apron on that side must allow for the Code F taxiway to object clearance of 57.5 m, but any such
parking apron must be clear of the runway strip and allow an adequate clearance height for aircraft,
equipment and any floodlighting masts. As the centreline of the parallel taxiway may be positioned so
as to place the wingtip of the largest intended aircraft at the edge of the runway strip (in this case a
Code F aircraft with a wingspan of 80m), the runway to taxiway separation must be increased above
the minimum permitted to allow for any apron development in this area.
In considering these issues, relevant object heights are as follows:
Narrow Body Aircraft: Airbus A318 12.6 m high (31.45 m long, which if parked forward on the stand would be the critical narrow bodied aircraft) A319/A320/A321 11.8 m high (up to 44.5 m long) Boeing B737 new generation narrow bodies (all lengths) 12.6 m high earlier generations are lower, the shortest 31 m, the longest 42.1 m
Wide Body Aircraft: B747-400/B747F 19.4 m high (70.7 m long) A380 24.1 m high (79.6 m long)
Floodlighting (as a rule of thumb: anti-glare fittings throw light horizontally a distance of
about twice their height), thus the desirable mast height is over 30m at the head of a wide
body stand, but as will be seen, that would require a substantial separation from a runway.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-19 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-19 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.20: Airfield Layout
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-20 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-20 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-21 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-21 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
In this part of the study we have assumed nose-in parking facing towards runways, perpendicular for
most types, but possibly angled for longer types, with the runway, taxiways and aprons all at the same
lateral (or cross-field) level.
The following object clearance height / separation combinations have been considered:
Visual Secondary Runway: Semi width of runway strip is 75m, transitional surface at 1 in 7. 5 m high object (e.g. vehicle): min separation to Secondary Runway: 110 m 10 m high object (e.g. short floodlighting mast): min separation to Secondary Runway: 145 m 12.6 m high object (e.g. NB tail fin): min separation to Secondary Runway: 163 m 19.4 m high object (e.g. B747 tail fin): min separation to Secondary Runway: 211 m 25 m high object (e.g. Code F WB tail fin): min separation to Secondary Runway: 250 m 30 m high object (e.g. floodlighting mast): min separation to Secondary Runway: 285 m
Non-Precision Instrument Approach Secondary Runway: Semi width of runway strip is 150m, transitional surface at 1 in 7. 5 m high object (e.g. vehicle): min separation to Secondary Runway: 185 m 10 m high object (e.g. short floodlighting mast): min separation to Secondary Runway: 220 m 12.6 m high object (e.g. NB tail fin): min separation to Secondary Runway: 239 m 19.4 m high object (e.g. B747 tail fin): min separation to Secondary Runway: 286 m 25 m high object (e.g. Code F WB tail fin): min separation to Secondary Runway: 325 m 30 m high object (e.g. floodlighting mast): min separation to Secondary Runway: 360 m
There is an element of rounding and tolerance in these calculations. During detailed design it is likely
that the cross-field levels will vary from these assumptions to reflect the existing ground levels and
facilitate the provision of drainage. These heights and clearances would then have to be adjusted
accordingly.
Universal Option:
Head of stand located 360 m and apron taxiway centreline located 510 m from reserve instrument
runway centreline. This allows wide-bodied aircraft and 30m high floodlighting masts on the remote
stands, but the increase on the minimum separation of 190 m is 320 m, which is very significant.
Minimum VR NB Option:
12.6 m high tail fin for 31m long narrow-bodied aircraft at least 163 m from reserve visual runway
centreline, 10 m wide head of stand road 110 m from reserve visual runway centreline, head of stand
120 m from reserve visual runway centreline, apron taxiway centreline 230 m from reserve visual
runway centreline. Increase on minimum separation of 115 m is 115 m. Floodlighting would be
difficult. No remote parking of B747F opposite Cargo Area would be possible with these dimensions
and Code F clearances.
This option is the minimum separation that provides some apron development potential between the
apron taxiway and the runways. All approaches to the reserve runway will be visual only.
Minimum VR WB Option:
19.4 m high tail fin for 71 m long wide-bodied aircraft located 211 m from reserve visual runway
centreline, head of stand 140 m and apron taxiway centreline 280 m from reserve visual runway
centreline. Increase on minimum separation of 115 m is 165 m. Floodlighting would be difficult.
Remote parking of B747F opposite Cargo Area would be possible with these dimensions.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-22 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-22 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Minimum IR NB Option:
12.6 m high tail fin for 31 m long narrow-bodied aircraft at least 239 m from reserve instrument
runway centreline, head of stand 200 m and apron taxiway centreline 315 m from reserve instrument
runway centreline. Increase on minimum separation of 190 m is 125 m. Floodlighting would be
difficult. No remote parking of B747F opposite Cargo Area would possible with these dimensions.
Compromise Option:
This is a development of the last option.
10 m wide head of stand road with nearest edge 185 m from reserve runway centreline, head of stand
195 m from reserve runway centreline, apron taxiway centreline 310 m from reserve runway
centreline. Tail of stand 252.5 m from reserve runway centreline (stand 57.5m deep after applying
Code F taxiway clearance - a 10 m deeper stand would be possible until Code F aircraft operate).
Increase on separation of 190m is 120m. Floodlighting remains difficult. We would place masts in-
between parking stands at about 227 m from reserve runway centreline (but masts would still be
limited to 11m high). Angled remote parking of B747F opposite Cargo Area would be possible with
these dimensions and Code F clearances.
These dimensions allow departures and non-precision instrument approaches on the reserve runway
with narrow-bodied aircraft parked on remote apron, but only visual approaches onto the reserve
runway with a B747 or other wide-bodied aircraft parked at an angle on the remote apron.
Recommended Option:
It is always difficult to balance the need to maintain future flexibility with that of construction cost.
Once runways and primary taxiways are constructed, it usually becomes impractical and unaffordable
to alter their positions, so it is important to get those correct from the outset. The need to use the
reserve runway should be low, although advantage can be taken of its existence to reduce maintenance
costs by undertaking those tasks in daylight hours. When in use, the need for an instrument approach
to that runway will result in an even less frequent combination of events. However, airport closure
due to periods of heavy rain or other types of poor visibility can be protracted and non-precision
navigational aids will be available to assist such an approach. If domestic and regional air passenger
services develop to a significant extent, then the ability to facilitate a reliable service becomes
increasingly important to this sector as well as to the oil refinery’s interests.
We would therefore recommend the compromise option. Narrow-bodied aircraft could remain parked
on a remote stand and it would be practical to tow off any wide-bodied aircraft parked on a remote
stand (and they would always be small in number) in the event of a need to facilitate non-precision
instrument approaches on the reserve runway. This is shown in Figure 3.21 below.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-23 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-23 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.21: New Airfield Lay-Out Option
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-24 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-24 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.4.1 Passenger Apron and Terminal Configuration Options
With regard to passenger operations, the initial services are expected to be by narrow-bodied aircraft
up to Code C in size (Boeing B-737, Airbus A320), but this apron area will be safeguarded to
accommodate Code E aircraft stands if required in future construction phases. The passenger apron
has been designed to initially provide sufficient area for four Code C stands
It has also been suggested that a temporary terminal facility may also be required, in which case it
would be located adjacent to the planned passenger terminal site, to allow the airport to operate during
the construction of the main terminal.
Figure 3.22: Examples of a Temporary Terminal Building
Several different phased options have been developed for the basic layout of the main terminal
building and adjacent passenger apron, which resulted in the selection of a preferred concept. The
main four options considered are listed below, with option 1 as the preferred option and options two to
four included with their reasons for rejection.
(i) Option 1A Phase 1
The preferred option is designed with four Code C aircraft adjacent to the back of stand road, with the terminal building offset from the head of stand road, allowing for the area between the head of stand road and terminal building to be used for fixed link bridges, bussing gates and GSE parking, etc. This lay-out allows for the future introduction of Code E aircraft directly in front of the terminal.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-25 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-25 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(ii) Option 1A Phase 2
In phase 2 a Code E stand is added to the West of the terminal building, along with a pier to provide
access to this stand. Two of the four Code C stands are now replaced by one Code E Multiple Aircraft
Ramp System, or MARS stand:
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-26 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-26 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.23: E MARS Stand Diagram
This type of stand allows for a greater amount of flexibility. An E MARS stand is of the same width as
two Code C stands and of the same depth as a regular Code E stand. Although larger in size than either
of its parts, it allows for greater flexibility and therefore efficiency. As illustrated above, an E MARS
stand can accommodate either one Code E size aircraft or simultaneously accommodate two Code C
size aircraft. In this design the MARS stand is served by a single passenger boarding bridge, but
alternately a double boarding bridge can be chosen in order to simultaneously serve the two Code C
aircraft or allow for faster boarding/disembarkation of a Code E aircraft. The fixed links to these
passenger boarding bridges may need to be reconfigured in the long-term, but this should not be
difficult with the proposed concept for the passenger terminal.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-27 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-27 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(iii) Option 1A Phase 3
In the third and final phase a second Code E stand is added and the westerly pier is expanded to a full
size pier.
(iv) Advantages and Disadvantages
- Straightforward linear terminal expansion - Unoccupied space in front of Code C stands in first two phases can be put to functional use,
e.g. GSE parking. - Flexibility
Disadvantages:
- Higher initial capital expenditure - Greater land take
(v) Option 1B - Phase 1
This option is designed with four Code C aircraft directly in front of the terminal building. In this lay-out both the stands and the terminal building have been offset from the back of stand road to allow for the future introduction of Code E aircraft directly in front of the terminal building. The passenger boarding bridges have been positioned on the second and fourth stand, once again to allow for the future introduction of Code E aircraft. This lay-out therefore requires a small pier to connect the easternmost stand with the terminal. The nature of this lay-out prevents the area between the back of stand and back of stand road to be used for anything other than providing aircraft with access to the stands.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-28 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-28 of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(vi) Option 1B Phase 2
In the second phase, two Code E stands are added on either side of the terminal building, both with
piers to access these stands.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-29 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-29 of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(vii) Option 1B Phase 3
In phase 3 the four Code C stands are replaced by two Code E MARS stands.
(viii) Advantages and Disadvantages
- Straightforward linear terminal expansion
Main reasons for rejection:
- Higher initial capital expenditure - Greater land take - Unoccupied space behind Code C stands in first two phases cannot be put to functional use
(ix) Option 2 Phase 1
Option 2 has the lowest initial construction costs and land take and still allows for expansion in future construction phases, although full linear expansion will potentially be hampered if Code E aircraft are introduced. Phase 1 of the first option sets out with four Code C stands positioned directly in front of the terminal building and the back of the stand positioned adjacent to the back of stand road. This configuration
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-30 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-30 of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
ensures low initial capital expenditure. All stands have been provided with passenger boarding bridges.
(x) Option 2 Phase 2
The second phase sees the addition of the first Code E stand and a small pier to access this stand. All Code C stands will now be served by a passenger boarding bridge. To allow access to the eastern Code C stand a small pier will be added to the east of terminal.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-31 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-31 of 8 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(xi) Option 2 Phase 3
The third and final phase sees the introduction of a second Code E stand to the West and an additional Code C stand to the East. The original westerly pier has been extended to join with the new full size pier to access the second Code E stand.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-32 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-32 of 9 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(xii) Advantages and Disadvantages
- Low initial capital expenditure - Minimal land take
Main reasons for rejection:
- Linear terminal expansion hampered by increased stand depth of Code E stands to the west of terminal
- Low flexibility in future development phases
(xiii) Option 3 Phase 1
The first phase for Option 3 has been designed to exactly the same specifications as Option 2 Phase 1, with four Code C stands directly in front of the terminal and adjacent to the back of stand road with two stands served by passenger boarding bridges.
(xiv) Option 3 Phase 2
As this option takes into account a conservative growth in traffic, the second and final option only sees the addition of two angled Code E stands, enabling the airport to serve a wide variety of aircraft types
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-33 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-33 of 10 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
while handling a more conservative number of passengers. All stands are served by passenger boarding bridges and the two Code E stands are each connected to the main terminal by piers.
(xv) Advantages and Disadvantages
- Low initial capital expenditure - Minimal land take
Main reason for rejection:
- Apron and terminal expansion impractical without demolishing piers
(xvi) Overall Stand Options
In most cases where a Code E stand is shown the option to designate it as a Code E MARS stand, as introduced under Option 1A, is available. This will allow for greater operational flexibility, but will require a slightly greater land take.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-34 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-34 of 11 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.4.2 Cargo Apron
It is recognised that one of the main purposes of an airport development in this region is to serve the
neighbouring oil refinery. The airport must therefore have the capability to serve some of the largest
cargo aircraft, enabling rapid delivery of refinery equipment to the region so as to ensure continuity of
oil supply.
The cargo apron has therefore been designed to accommodate twin Code E cargo aircraft in a nose-in
configuration. To ensure that the most onerous cargo loads can be carried, and taking into
consideration the fact that the cargo aircraft are equipped with nose loading capability, the assumption
has been made that the head of stand area for the western cargo stand will be of a size equal to the
aircraft length plus 30m of additional apron area to allow for loading and unloading of cargo from
nose loading aircraft. The current planned cargo building is 100m wide and 60m deep.
The apron would be expected to be located so as the back of the parking stand would be at a Code F
separation from the apron taxilane (57.5 m).
Figure 3.24: Cargo Apron
3.4.3 Helicopter Apron
Three helicopter parking spaces are located on the airfield, to the East of the maintenance hangar. One
parking space is provided for helicopters with a rotor diameter of up to 19m, such as the EH 101, and
two parking spaces for helicopters with a rotor diameter of up to 16m, such as the Super Puma and the
Sikorsky S61.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-35 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-35 of 12 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Helicopters are assumed to land on the main parallel taxiway and then hover or ground taxi to the
helicopter parking spaces.
Figure 3.25: Helicopter Apron
Figure 3.26: Example of a Helicopter Parking Space
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-36 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-36 of 13 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.5 Ancillary Support Facilities
3.5.1 Fire Station, Air Traffic Control Tower and Operations Zone
The fire station and ATC facilities are seen as the core of an Operations Zone. As well as these two
facilities, it would be appropriate to locate the airside operations and maintenance bases, airside
vehicle and equipment maintenance facilities, main electrical switch rooms, uninterrupted power
supplies and emergency power generators in the vicinity of these key support functions. This would
also enable some staff to undertake multiple functions in the operation and maintenance of the airport.
Airside vehicle access points can either be located adjacent to this complex, the passenger terminal, or
the cargo terminal. Our preference at this stage is to also place a single vehicle access point near to
this operations zone. Any staff cars that normally operate in landside areas or travel to and from the
airport would not then normally be allowed across into the secure airside area, but park in an adjacent
landside car park and those staff then proceed airside through a local security screening.
The location of this operations complex has been moved from earlier proposals to be near the mid-
point of the runway. This is to provide consistent minimum Rescue and Fire Fighting (RFF) response
times, improve the visual oversight of the runway and minimise the required height of the visual
control room (VCR).
The size of the fire station is determined by the size of the largest passenger carrying aircraft serving
the airport. In this long term this may be a Boeing 747-400 or similar sized aircraft. At 70.67m long,
this would require a code 9 fire station with a minimum of 3 fire engines. If the largest passenger
aircraft is a Code C aircraft, that may be the determining factor. However, it would be useful if the
station also has a parking space for one spare appliance.
The fire station is connected to the runway, passenger and cargo aprons via the airside road and the
main parallel taxiway and is also provided with a through road allowing direct access to the main
runway. The location of the building is isolated enough to ensure calamities at other airport facilities
are unlikely to affect the fire station. The estimated response time to an emergency at the furthest point
on the runway is 100 seconds, which is within the 120 second recommendation set down by ICAO.
The air traffic control tower and its support buildings can be integrated with the fire station building,
allowing for more efficient construction and land use, but more importantly to allow it to operate
independently from the main terminal building in case of calamities at and/or evacuation of the
terminal building.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-37 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-37 of 14 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.27: Fire Station and Air Traffic Control Tower Area
Figure 3.28: Integrated Fire Station and Air Traffic Control Tower at Southampton Airport, UK
3.5.2 Aircraft Maintenance Area
The airport is served by a maintenance hangar that allows for two Code C aircraft to be parked nose-
in, fully inside the building. Alternately it allows for one Code E aircraft to be parked nose-in, leaving
the tail section outside the building. As general weather conditions in Nigeria allow for these
operations, constructing a maintenance hangar with a Code C height will reduce construction costs.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-38 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-38 of 15 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.29: Maintenance Area
3.5.3 Airfield Boundary
The plans of the airfield have the boundary fences marked in green. The position of the boundary
fence has been determined by calculating the nearest point it can be located to the runway and
buildings without penetrating the OLS, plus 10m to allow for an access road to circumnavigate the
airfield. A 3m fence height has been assumed and a double fence has been included at client direction.
A single vehicle access point is recommended and the location for that has been discussed in
paragraph 3.5.1
During the detailed design process, existing features on the site may mean that it is appropriate to
make some local adjustments to this boundary, which is permissible providing the minimum
clearances are all still met.
Emergency crash gates will be needed towards the runway ends and on the opposite side of the
runway to the main terminal and operations zone. These need to be located to provide emergency
vehicle access to and from the airfield. They therefore need to be positioned in relation to existing
roads and tracks and avoiding existing streams and other obstacles.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-39 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-39 of 16 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.30: Examples of Security Fences
3.5.4 Car Parking
The car park in the main car parking area, surrounded by the forecourt access road and recirculation
road together with the secondary, roughly triangular area to the south, has been designated for car
parking, shuttle drop off and bus parking and car rental. This area can accommodate the equivalent of
1500 passenger cars.
It will probably sensible to provide a new passenger terminal to serve the long-term apron
development area. This is because the planned terminal will probably be at the end of its working life
by that date and a new terminal on a new site will be much less disruptive to build. If the car parking
area is also a reasonable distance from the likely location of such a second replacement terminal, then
it can also help to serve the increased parking demand of that facility.
Figure 3.31: Car Parking Area
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-40 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-40 of 17 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.5.5 Fuel Farm
A fuel farm has been included to the East of the airfield, as far away from densely occupied areas as
possible in order to maximise safety. The fuel farm is provided with fuel directly from the Orient
Petroleum Resources refinery via a pipeline.
Figure 3.32: Fuel Farm
Figure 3.33: Example of Fuel Farm Structure
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-41 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-41 of 18 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.6 Refuelling Stands
Two stands have been located to the west of the fuel farm for use by aircraft transporting fuel to other
airports.
3.7 Flight Catering
If required, this will be located across the airside/landside boundary so that supplies can be delivered
landside and finished product delivered by catering trucks that are normally based permanently airside.
However, the demand for flight catering may be insufficient in the initial phases to warrant such a
facility at that time. If this is the case, the catering facilities in the passenger terminal may provide
food and beverage for any schedule and business aviation flights that require it.
3.8 Flight Crew Facilities
Again, this will be located across the airside/landside boundary so that flight crew can arrive landside
and, after their flight preparation and security clearance, proceed airside using dedicated airside
transport.
Again, initial demand is unlikely to warrant the provision of such a separate facility in the initial
phases. This function will then be provided in the passenger terminal building.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-42 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-42 of 19 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.9 Drainage
There appears to be a number of streams that cross the site. These will need to be culverted or
diverted, as a substantial area will be required both lengthways and widthways to accommodate the
runway and the safely profiled land around it. Diversion of streams, rather than culverting is generally
preferred as it has less impact on the environment and costs less. However, this may raise issues in
relation to encouraging potentially hazardous wildlife. At the crossing of the airside boundary, the
design must ensure that people, and larger animals cannot gain access to the site, whilst avoiding
blocking the outflow of storm water.
The drainage network should include the installation of oil interceptors to capture potentially
contaminated water runoff from the apron areas, to ensure that oil and other substances do not enter
the local water courses. We assume that it is reasonable to discharge drainage water into the river to
the west of the site (a subsidiary of the Niger), after it has been through acceptable treatment and any
attenuation.
The plans of the airfield give the possible location of balancing ponds to capture the surface water
drainage in the event of a storm and release it at a rate commensurate with the capacity of the
downstream system into which it discharges. The exact size of the attenuation ponds will be
determined by the size of the watercourse into which the water will run. If the water is designed to run
into a small stream, the ponds will need to have a larger capacity than if the flow discharges into a
brook and even less, or perhaps not required at all if discharging into a tributary of the river serving
this catchment. Any such ponds must be designed to discourage bird life.
Foul drainage will need to be treated on site before discharge and we would expect the sewage
treatment works to be located adjacent to any such attenuation ponds.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-43 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-43 of 20 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.34: Balancing Ponds
Figure 3.35: Balancing Pond at Auckland Airport, NZ
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-44 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-44 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.10 Apron Area and Airport Facilities Overview
The figure below provides an overview of the main apron areas and airport facilities:
Figure 3.36: Anambra Airport Apron Area
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-45 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-45 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.11 Phasing of the Airfield and Airport Facilities
In discussions with OPR, we have established an appropriate phased development of the airfield and
the facilities provided. The following paragraphs detail the infrastructure and facilities added in each
consecutive phase.
3.11.1 Phase 1 - Minimum requirement for an operational airfield
• Main runway
• Navaids
• Airfield ground lighting
• Instrument landing system (this could be deferred)
• Control tower
• fire station
• Fencing
• Approach roads
• Drainage/utilities etc
• Fuel farm
• Maintenance hangar
• Cargo apron
• One fuel farm stand
• Apron to hangar (this can then effectively handle the private charter flights)
• Minimum taxiways
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-46 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-46 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.37: Phase 1 Airfield Layout
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-47 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-47 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.11.2 Phase 2 - Minimum Requirement for a Domestic Airport , Meeting Security and Civil Aviation Requirements
• Temporary terminal building
• Passenger aircraft apron
• Additional taxiways
• Half the car parking
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-48 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-48 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.38: Phase 2 Airfield Layout
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-49 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-49 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Phase 3 - Commercial cargo operation
• Cargo building
• Standby runway
• Helicopter parking
• Remaining fuel farm stand
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-50 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-50 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.39: Phase 3 Airfield Layout
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-51 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-51 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.11.3 Phase 4 - International Airport meeting international standards
• Passenger terminal building
• Additional car parking
• Car rental
• Additional passenger aircraft apron
• VIP facility
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-52 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-52 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.40: Phase 4 Airfield Layout
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-53 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-53 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
3.12 Passenger Terminal Building Design
The facilities for the terminal building have been sized on the basis of the design aircraft and the
number of passengers in the busy hour. For the purposes of planning the facilities at the airport, the
B737-800 has been chosen because all the airlines that are likely to use the airport currently operate
with the -200 variant of the B737, and are likely to upgrade to the -800 in the future. Indeed, this
process has already begun. It must be noted that the analysis for facilities requirements is not based on
the annual forecasts, which are only relevant for the investment appraisal of this project.
The facilities requirements for the terminal building have been calculated using IATA’s Rules of
Thumb given in their Airport Development Reference Manual (ADRM) (Version 9). Level of Service
(LOS) Standard C has been selected as it provides a good level of service with acceptable costs and is
recognised to be the normal standard upon which to base the development of an airport terminal. In
addition to the assumptions that IATA make, estimations of time taken for processing passengers have
been made, as highlighted in Table 3.17. Usually, processing times are taken from existing facilities,
but as there are none in this case estimations have been made based on experiences at other airports of
a similar status. The resulting quantities or space for each facility should therefore be considered as
approximate and treated as guidance.
Table 3.16: Assumptions made for terminal facilities requirements
Assumption Basis of assumption
Number of passengers in busy hour for Phase 1
570 4 B737-800s in busy hour with 190 seats assuming 75% load factor
Number of passengers in busy hour for Phase 2
570
Percentage of business passengers 0
Average processing time at check-in in seconds
120
Average processing time at outbound passport control in seconds
45
Average processing time at central security check in seconds
30
Average processing time at immigration in seconds
45
The number of passengers in the busy hour has been based on 4 B737-800s being present at the airport
at once. This assumption seems reasonable when looking at the traffic forecasts as explained in
Chapter 2, although these were based on the B737-300 which has fewer seats. However it is better to
plan the terminal building on a more liberal basis so that if more passengers use the facility than
expected, a good level of service will still be maintained.
The same number of passengers in the busy hour has been assumed for Phase 2. This is because the
nature of the potential flights forecasted at Anambra suggests that it is unlikely that 5 or more
passenger flights will be present at the airport, even in Year 16. Although passengers per annum will
increase with time, the actual number of passengers expected in the busy hour is envisaged to remain
the same.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-54 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-54 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The percentage of business passengers has been assumed to be zero at this stage, because a separate
premium check-in facility will not be provided in the early stages of development. During the first few
years of operation, the level of service in this terminal will be high whilst traffic picks up. A premium
check-in area could be developed in the future when the terminal is expanded to cope with higher
levels of traffic.
Using these assumptions together with IATA’s calculations for their Rules of Thumb (as discussed
above) gives the facilities requirements for this airport as listed in Table 3.18.
Table 3.17: Facilities requirements for terminal building
Facility or space requirement from IATA's Rules of Thumb Amount
Check-in desks 14
Passport control desks 5
Security check servers 4
Passport control outbound desks 12
Baggage claim units 2
Arrivals hall area in metres squared 209
Calculations for space requirements for other areas within the terminal building have been carried out
by applying space standards for individuals in IATA’s ADRM and factoring this up by the maximum
number of passengers expected to be present in that area during the busy hour. This method has been
used to calculate the space requirements for the areas given in Table 3.19.
Table 3.18: Space requirements derived from IATA’s space standards for individuals
Space requirement by facility area (in metres squared) Amount
Departures concourse 131
Check-in queuing area 289
Passport control outbound queuing area 40
Security queuing area 29
Passport control inbound queuing area 120
Although an airport of this size could easily accommodate a terminal on one floor only, it has been
requested that it is planned over 2 floors so that boarding bridges can be used to make it easier for
passengers to enter and exit the aircraft. This is expected to provide a competitive edge over others in
the area.
It is assumed that the airport will begin Phase 1 with 4 B737 stands for passenger operations. The total
width of these stands plus the space in between comes to about 166 m. However the actual terminal
itself does not need to be as long as this to accommodate the expected number of passengers in a busy
hour comfortably. Instead, the terminal has been planned so that the facility and space requirements as
detailed above are met, which allows for a smaller building with the potential for piers to be
constructed at either end. If the number of stands were increased in the future passengers can access
aircraft at both ends using boarding bridges. Areas for expansion to the left and right of the terminal
building can be identified that ‘fill in’ the areas behind the piers. It is important that provision for
expansion is considered from the start so that the number of facilities and space available can be easily
increased with minimum impact on the operations of the airport.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-55 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-55 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.41: Ground Floor Indicative Plan
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-56 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-56 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.42: Upper Floor Indicative Plan
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-57 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-57 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
In the layouts given in Figures 3.31 to 3.36, the BHS system and check-in area could be expanded to
the right of the building in the future and the baggage reclaim area could be expanded to the left, by
adding on more space for immigration and then constructing another baggage belt.
Renderings of the terminal are given in Appendix A. They show the potential form of the terminal
building and will be largely unaffected by any future rearrangement of the internal facilities. The
terminal shown in Figure 3.41 and Figure 3.42 above are described in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
(i) Terminal Concept
This is a concept design for a multi-level passenger terminal that can be developed in two or more
phases. The building has been designed with a ground floor and first floor that covers about two-
thirds of the ground floor, but leaves the area above the landside check-in and arrivals area open to the
roof. This should give this area an open, light, airy feel, and also gives some scope to providing
seating or a café on the first floor so that passengers can enjoy the view. Likewise, the first floor
overlooks the apron and the rest of the airfield, which again gives some potential for seating and a
food and beverage area making full use of the scene.
A mezzanine facilitates segregation between arrivals and departures passengers and a bus gate
facilitate passenger transport to remote parking stands.
Provision has also been made in Phases One and Two for a landside lounge upstairs in the area
planned for long-term use as an International departures waiting lounge, so that visitors to the airport
can also enjoy the view of the airfield.
The final phase is assumed to have the following principal features, although a smaller and simpler
version that only has facilities for domestic and private aviation is likely to be constructed as a first
phase:-
1. Facilities to handle Domestic and International scheduled and charter commercial passenger traffic;
2. Additional facilities to handle business and other forms of private aviation;
3. Secure airside areas with access for passengers and staff via a security screen;
4. Segregation of outbound and inbound International passengers and inbound International and inbound Domestic passengers.
5. Optionally, segregation of outbound International and outbound Domestic passengers and outbound and inbound Domestic passengers;
6. The ability to install baggage security screening equipment to current standards for International passenger baggage (which would also be used for Domestic baggage);
7. Passenger and commercial facilities to modern International standards;
8. Use by several airlines, but probably only one airline handler;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-58 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-58 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
9. The provision of three Code C and one Code E contact stands equipped with apron drive passenger boarding bridges (PBBs);
10. The ability to extend the terminal to each side and then to also serve additional contact stands;
11. Facilities to board airside passenger vehicles (APVs, or “busses”) serving remote stands and disembark arriving passengers from APVs. Business aviation flights are assumed to be served in this way;
12. Front-line offices and apron support accommodation;
13. A landside office complex;
14. Toilets, fire escape stairs and plant rooms
The concept is based on a two-level terminal, with an additional mezzanine floor along the airside face
providing vertical segregation between inbound and outbound passengers. For departing passengers,
single check-in and passenger security screening areas would serve both outbound Domestic and
International passengers. A separate access is proposed for business aviation passengers. For arriving
passengers, the baggage reclaim hall can be divided to separately serve International and Domestic
flights, or be combined to serve just Domestic flights. A single greeters area is provided to enable
escorts to meet up with passengers emerging from either baggage hall exit.
The airside departure lounge would be on the main upper floor and be divided as required between
Domestic, International and Private passenger facilities and provide access to the contact stands and
APV boarding gates. A viewing gallery and catering outlet with landside access can also be provided
at one or other end of the upper floor to allow visitors and those meeting passengers to wait with a
view of the aircraft apron. The separate landside access to the landside offices could also provide
access to this at the International end of the terminal.
Fixed links with ramps access the apron drive PBBs and the APV boarding gates, the latter from a
separate structure. A canopy covers the pavement access to and from the APVs themselves.
Figure 3.43: APV (Bus) Gates
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-59 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-59 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Blue routes are departures, green routes are arrivals, yellow is either.
The number of APV positions reflects the limited anticipated use in the initial phases, but additional
positions can be provided along with terminal expansion.
(ii) Service Standards
The general layout and spatial dimensions are to modern international standards.
(iii) Structure
This is a concept design and does not purport to include for any architectural features. It would
however be important that the final design incorporates all of the characteristics of this concept if it is
to meet the functional requirements.
The concept has the following structural features:-
1. It is based in a 7.2m by 7.2m planning grid;
2. The concept for the ground floor and the mezzanine bridge link is that there will generally be columns supporting the floors above at each intersection point of the planning grid. The resulting structural depth of the floor and floor beams would be about 0.36m, which would increase to between 0.4m and 0.45m with the addition of floor finishes;
3. The main exception is the baggage sort hall, where some columns may need to be omitted or displaced to provide a column-free zone for vehicle manoeuvring. Structural spans of up to 14.4m may result and structural beams depths would increase to about 0.72m;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-60 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-60 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.44: Double Spans over Baggage Sort Hall Roads
4. The roof structure will probably be supported by columns on a 7.2m by 14.4m or 14.4m by 14.4m grid;
5. The main structure could be built in steel or reinforced concrete. The roof structure would probably be of steel;
6. Fire escape stairs may be enclosed with masonry, but may also be constructed in solid reinforced concrete to also provide sway bracing to the frame;
7. Levels on the drawing are relative to a zero datum that would represent ground level outside the airside face of the main part of the terminal building;
8. The ground floor would be slightly above this with a finished floor level (FFL) at +0.18m to prevent rainwater penetration into the building;
9. The arrivals mezzanine and bridge link finished floor level would be at +3.0m. This would leave a headroom beneath of about 2.4m, which would have to have a thin ceiling finish and be free of deep services and fittings. This mezzanine floor is therefore limited in width;
10. The main upper floor FFL is at +5.76m, which should leave a headroom below the structure of at least 5.1m. This will be reduced by service ducts and any areas of false ceiling, but should still offer a good height over several of the main ground floor public spaces, such as outbound security, inbound immigration and baggage reclaim;
11. Where the gate access route crosses over the arrivals mezzanine, the span is limited to 3.6m, which should allow a headroom of at least 2.4m below;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-61 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-61 of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
12. The underside of the roof structure will probably be at a relative level of between +10m and +12m. The main entrance lobby, greeters waiting area and check-in queuing area are open clear to the roof;
13. The fixed links providing access to the PBBs are assumed to be independently supported structures with their beam or longitudinal strength provided in their side walls (using a deep beam or truss structural form) and floors spanning their width in order to limit floor depth and maximise headroom below. The links close to the building and their ramps down to the arrivals mezzanine will limit headroom on the inner road to less than 3.0m and so this will only be suitable for some vehicles to pass under. There is a half landing (FFL: 4.2m) at the outer end of the ramps and the apron be at a lower level of at least -0.28 at that point. Therefore headroom over the main head of stand road of 4.2m to 4.3m should be achievable. A further set of ramps will allow the node height at the fixed end of the apron drive PBBs to be at 2.8m on the Code C stands. This height will be necessary (relative to a ground level at the head of these stands of -0.4m) in order to provide PBB access to a wide range of regional aircraft types, including those with relatively low door cill heights.
14. Stairs, lifts, toilet blocks and plant rooms are relatively inflexible and difficult to adapt to accommodate future change. These have therefore been located together and where possible near the front or back of the terminal.
15. This facilitates future extensions of the building to each side. In addition, the demand for access to the airside face of the building is very high. Plant rooms have therefore been located along the landside face, which also simplifies maintenance service entry and access.
(iv) Passenger Circulation and Segregation
Arriving passengers will proceed either from the PBB serving their contact stand, or an APV or
minibus from a remote stand onto the arrivals corridor at mezzanine level via a series of link bridges.
This will lead to a bridge deck that crosses the baggage reclaim hall. The bridge deck will provide
segregated routes for Domestic and International passengers. Various combinations of gate
assignment will be possible between Domestic and International traffic. Segregation can be
maintained by using a combination of doors. However, some combinations of gate use will not allow
the simultaneous disembarkation of a mix of Domestic and International flights. This effect can be
minimised if International flights are allocated stands at one end of the terminal (the left, or Code E
stand end as viewed on the plans) and the Domestic flights at the other end. Given the relatively low
frequency of flights and the relatively short time it takes to disembark all passengers from an aircraft,
this is not seen as a major reduction in service standards and simplifies the building in comparison
with a design that provides all segregation options to and from any gate at any time.
Figure 3.45: Fixed Link
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-62 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-62 of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.46: Upper Floor Departure Lounges
The departures lounge is also biased on the basis that International flights are allocated a stand at the
“left” end and Domestic at the “right” end. However, it should be noted that the fixed link ramps and
the fire escape stairs can also provide controlled access to the arrivals mezzanine level. When not in
use handling arriving passengers, this corridor could therefore also be used to distribute passengers to
contact stands at the opposite end from the internal airside lounge layout.
We have shown a combined main entrance for by both inbound and outbound passengers and any
escorts. This simplifies building security. However, a separate “Arrivals” exit and “Departures”
entrance could be provided by relocating the ticket counters shown on the landside face.
Level changes will be achieved by a combination of ramps, stairs, escalators and lifts (or elevators).
Departing passengers will enter the building at ground level and proceed to check-in at that level.
They will only then proceed to the main upper floor after depositing their hold baggage and having
passed through security. This will be a primary circulation route and we have therefore proposed an
escalator as well as a stair and lift to serve this change in levels. Access from this level via the gate
control points and fixed link bridges to the PBBs is entirely via a system of ramps at a gradient of 1 in
12 with each section no more than 9m long between landings. The exception is that access from the
half landings at the 4.2m level down to the apron level is by stairs These routes can be used as fire
escape routes and by staff. Those to the Departure Bus Gates are also provided with a lift. Ramps
have not been used down to apron level due to the total length and space required. An escalator could
be used into the bus gates, but no escalator can be used into a confined space unless a free exit can be
guaranteed. In this case, any delay in loading APVs could result in a crowd forming in the Bus Gate
and so this has been omitted.
In the reverse direction, an escalator is proposed to take passengers up to the half landing at the 3.6m
level and then along a single ramp to the arrivals mezzanine at the 3.0m level. The lift serving Bus
Gate 1 can also be used as a controlled means of accessing the half landing at the 4.2m level and then
using the ramps to the arrivals mezzanine.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-63 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-63 of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
International and Domestic arriving passengers are kept segregated and have separate vertical
circulation routes down to the reclaim hall at ground level. Again, as these are primary flow routes,
they are each provided with stairs and escalator and a lift (see Figure 3.49 on page 3-70). Passengers
remain at ground level thereafter.
We have shown a consistent lift size, designed to accommodate the infirm, wheelchair and pram or
child buggy users and those that would prefer to use a lift, but not in substantial numbers. The lifts are
“walk through” lifts with doors on both ends of the car. This avoids the need to turn wheelchairs and
trolleys around within the lift prior to exit. The only exception is a single goods lift near the central
security screen, which may be larger and is needed to provide access for screened goods deliveries to
the commercial outlets on the upper floor.
A stair is shown adjacent to all escalators. This is essential in the event that the escalators unavailable
and dismantled for major maintenance, particularly because most routes may also act as fire escape
routes. A staircase is also less steep to walk on than a stopped escalator and also provides a reverse
flow for staff, or if needed, for other reasons. This does mean that these escalators could be omitted,
but we would advise that the space for their later installation should be safeguarded in such an event.
The lifts shown are all required from the outset to provide disabled and other essential access. Most
lifts are from the ground floor to the upper main floor. The lifts serving the bus gate move between
the ground and landing at the 4.2m level. The lift between the Domestic reclaim hall and the arrivals
mezzanine bridge stops at that level. The lift from the International reclaim hall access to the upper
international departures waiting lounge could be used for controlled access by Immigration staff
serving both the inbound and outbound passport controls.
Where stairs or lifts cross segregation boundaries, they must be normally locked shut and only opened
by authorised staff. In the case of fire escape routes, they must also be alarmed and possibly
monitored by a member of the security staff or CCTV to ensure that no unauthorised access can occur.
Similarly baggage handling belts and service ducts must not offer a means of achieving unauthorised
access to the secure airside, or other areas.
(v) Passenger Boarding Bridges
All contact stands are planned to be equipped with apron drive telescopic boarding bridges (see Figure
3.45). These have been located and their “node” or terminal end given an assumed floor level based
on the following:-
1. The head of each stand is constructed with a finished paving level of -0.4m relative to all other quoted levels;
2. The stand continues to fall away from the terminal at a gradient of 1%;
3. The relative position of the node as shown on the passenger terminal sketches, which show a depth of 4.6m (from the head of stand) and an offset of 12.5m (from the stand centreline) on the Code C stands and a depth of 8.6m and an offset of 15.75m on the Code E stands;
4. An aircraft parking tolerance of ± 0.6m in each direction;
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-64 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-64 of 8 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
5. An assumed generic design and telescopic range;
6. A maximum overall floor slope of 10% and a preferred maximum floor slope of 8%;
7. The ability to serve most if not all Code B and Code C aircraft on the Code C stands, including those with low deck and door cill heights;
8. The ability to serve most if not all Code D and Code E aircraft on the Code E stands and Code C jet aircraft with engines mounted under-wing, but in this case excluding most Code B and Code C aircraft with low deck and door cill heights.
(vi) Check-in
An information desk and flight information would be provided on entry through the main doors.
Ticket counters are near the main entrance or to one side of the check-in area. Two groups of 8/9
check-in desks are shown (see Figure 3.47). In addition, there are three desks for passengers checking
in without hold baggage and one for out-of-gauge checked bags. We assume that check-in desks will
normally be assigned to particular airlines unless they have infrequent services.
The number of check-in desks in Phase 1 can be reduced from the numbers shown. Preferably, no
more than 14 desks should be directed through a single in-line hold baggage security screen. Toilets
are provided at the rear of the check-in queuing area. In the long-term the check-in hall can be
expanded to the right.
Figure 3.47: Check-In and Baggage Sort Hall
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-65 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-65 of 9 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(vii) Airside Security
The layout shows three X-ray machines to screen hand baggage and
two archway metal detector (AMD) arches. Queues can be
managed using rope or “Tensar” tape barriers. A by-pass route is
shown for rush passengers, staff and goods deliveries, although the
latter should be arranged to occur outside of busy periods.
Once through the security screen all passengers proceed to the
departures waiting lounges on the main upper floor.
Staff, management and private screening booths are provided
adjacent to this area, as are staff toilets.
In the long-term this can be expanded to take over the retail area
between this and the greeters area.
(viii) Airside Waiting
This all occurs on the main Upper Floor, divided as stated earlier between International and Domestic
Zones (see Figure 3.46). The International Zone can be used for Domestic traffic or partitioned and
used for a landside waiting and commercial area until it is required to serve International flights. The
sketches indicate an arrangement of seats (generally in blocks of ten) and blocks of catering and retail
space. A business (or CIP) lounge is also shown at this level. This could be divided on a permanent
or flexible basis to serve International and Domestic flights. The layout should be considered as
indicative and not a final arrangement.
Toilets are provided to separately serve the International and Domestic waiting areas.
In the long-term the upper floor can be expanded both to the left and to the right.
(ix) Baggage Handling
Baggage is all circulated at ground level apart from two conveyor belt crossing points in the baggage
sort hall and the delivery belt to the island re-circulating sortation unit (see Figure 3.47).
Figure 3.48: Security
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-66 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-66 of 10 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Outbound baggage is delivered from the weigh, tag and delivery belts at each check-in desk to a rear
collector belt. In the long-term, these collector belts will normally operate in opposite directions,
although be reversible and convey all checked baggage in the event of a critical failure in one or other
part of the system. Turns are achieved using perpendicular belts. The collector belts will feed into an
in-line Level 1 and 2 explosives detection (EDS) X-ray machine via a set of short belts designed to
space bags out as required. A belt of at lest 12m length follows the EDS. This provides time for the
automated and manual decision process. Cleared bags are directed by a short reversible conveyor to
the rear line and thence on to a recirculation unit for manual sortation. Uncleared bags proceed to a
level 3 CTX machine and/or a particle analyser station. When finally cleared, bags are re-injected into
the delivery system to the recirculation units. Space for two such sets of equipment is shown. Given
the cost of this equipment, that provided in Phase 1 will be as considered appropriate and necessary by
the Nigerian security authorities.
A dedicated X-ray and straight belt is provided at one end for out-of-gauge and non-conveyable
baggage items, which will be manually screened and handled. No significant volumes of transfer
baggage or “early checked bags” are assumed.
Inbound baggage is delivered to the passenger baggage reclaim units on the airside face of the
terminal. Simple straight belts feeding onto roller beds return out-of-gauge baggage items.
(x) International Immigration Control
Passengers queue in front of the six booths shown and then proceed to baggage reclaim around the
Customs and Immigration accommodation block. This provides an opportunity to supervise inbound
passenger behaviour.
Toilets are provided in a single block to serve both sides of this control and staff.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-67 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-67 of 11 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 3.49: International Arrivals Immigration and Customs
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
3-68 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/3-68 of 12 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
(xi) Passenger Baggage Reclaim
Two reclaim units are shown in Phase 1. Additional units can be provided by extending the terminal
to the left. A baggage enquiry facility is provided under the arrivals mezzanine bridge designed to
serve both International and Domestic passengers while retaining staff airside access.
(xii) International Customs Control
Customs inspection desks are provided prior to exit from the International baggage reclaim hall and an
x-ray machine shown to aid inspections. If red and green channels are required, this area would be re-
configured accordingly.
(xiii) Greeters Area
A single greeters area avoids the risk of confusion, particularly if the International reclaim area is
being used to handle a Domestic flight.
Retail, catering and toilet facilities are adjacent to this area.
(xiv) Business/Executive and VIP Facilities
The segregated entrance offers greater privacy and
security and the opportunity for a higher standard
of service. Baggage can be manually handled
separately from this point and taken to the main
check-in facility for injection into the baggage
handling system. Passenger airside security
screening would also be handled at this point.
Access to the upper Floor and a CIP/VIP waiting
area is shown. Immediate exit to airside transport
via a door in the end wall would also be possible.
(xv) Landside Offices
These have their own entrance to the left of the
main terminal entrance and, as stated before, may
provide access to a landside waiting and
commercial area. Some of this space may be
exchanged for airside commercial or office space or
vice versa.
Figure 3.50: CIP/VIP Check-In
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
4-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/4-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
4 Environmental Review
4.1 Introduction
The Orient Petroleum Resources (OPR) airstrip Development Project Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) (draft, October 2008) is generally detailed and well written. However, following a
review by MM, it has been noted that there are some omissions and areas where clarification or further
information is required, as identified below. There are also a number of errors which may have
occurred as a result of over-writing a previous EIA; this is of some concern as it may be that there is
irrelevant or incorrect information within the report which cannot be picked up by third party review,
e.g. results from sample analysis etc.
Comments are presented on a chapter by chapter basis using section references, as per those within the
OPR EIA.
4.2 General Comments
There is no Non-Technical Summary (NTS) – it is useful to be able to provide a general overview of
the report to people who are not environmental specialists. This is of particular importance during
public consultation to enable easy portrayal of key issues to people of varying backgrounds.
4.2.1 Chapter 1 - Introduction
Only very basic location plan has been provided within the EIA – are there any figures to go with the
EIA report? For example, watercourses (Igwo, Out-Uto and Oyi streams) are mentioned in section 1.3
but there is no map to identify their relevance with regards to how far they are from the proposed
development. Similarly, there is no information about how close the development is to local
settlements, etc. Inclusion of a more detailed description of the site area and its location would be of
benefit.
It is important to include a map showing details of the proposed development, e.g. location of the
runway, terminal buildings, etc in relation to topographical features and local settlements.
In Section 1.7, the EIA methodology is discussed. Whilst the principles of the methodology appear
robust, there are several occasions where the need for acquiring information regarding the seabed and
marine habitats is mentioned. Whilst hydrological issues certainly need to be considered, this should
be in terms of local water resources - as the site is located some distance from the coastline, marine
issues are not considered to be of significance and should not require assessment as part of this
development. Confirmation is required as to whether this is simply misuse of terminology or has been
left in the text by error, or whether sampling of the “floral and faunal composition of the seawater
column” has in fact been undertaken.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
4-2 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/4-2 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Consultation is also discussed at the end of Section 1.7. However, there is no mention of any
consultation being undertaken with the public. Given that the development will involve loss of land
currently used by local people for agriculture, this is of particular importance. Evidence is required to
show that plans for the development have been communicated to the public through either face to face
meetings or through advertisement in appropriate media. Similarly, more information is required about
what, if any, compensation has been provided to people who use the land, regardless of whether or not
they have any ownership rights.
The Administrative and Legal Framework is detailed and well presented (Section 1.8). However,
whilst the IFC Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for Airports are documented clearly,
there is no mention of the Equator Principles (EP). Since the EP would be enforced by any lending
bodies who may be approached, it is important that they be appropriately referenced and their
requirements highlighted.
Also within the description of the IFC EHS Guidelines (Section 1.8), the need for measures to be put
in place during cold weather is mentioned on several occasions. Given the climate within Nigeria, it is
not considered that such considerations are necessary or relevant for this development.
4.2.2 Chapter 2 – Project Justification
Section 2.4 discusses Project Sustainability. Whilst the points raised are relevant, there does not
appear to be any inclusion of the need for incorporation of sustainability into the design of the airport,
e.g. use of energy efficient heating/cooling, use of renewable energy sources, reduction in water
consumption through sustainable design, etc. It is considered that this section should give an overview
of the potential areas where sustainability can be incorporated through close liaison with
environmental/sustainability specialists and the design team.
Section 2.4.3 identifies that the existing villages within the airport vicinity shall be relocated. Much
greater detail is required regarding any resettlement that may be required, in terms of the number of
people that will be affected, details of the existing land use/ownership, any communication that has
been undertaken between users/occupiers of the land, and any compensation/settlement that has been
agreed. Resettlement is a key consideration under the IFC Guidelines and must be undertaken to an
acceptable level if funding is to be approved.
4.2.3 Chapter 3 – Project Description
Chapter 3 in general appears to contain a fair amount of baseline information relating to ecology,
noise, ground conditions etc. It is considered that this information would be better placed elsewhere
within the EIA (possibly Chapter 4) rather than within the Project Description Chapter. This chapter
should rather present a factual account of the development and of the construction and operational
activities that require consideration during the EIA process.
Limited details are provided about the actual construction activities in Section 3.4 – greater detail is
required to be able to fully assess the effects that the construction phase will have on the local
environment. It would also be of use to have an approximate construction programme included in the
EIA, as some effects may be seasonally dependent. For example, the ground clearing works described
in Section 3.4 under Site Preparation may affect birds or other animal species through loss of habitat
during breeding/nesting seasons. Whilst a limited programme is provided at the end of Chapter 3, it is
not nearly detailed enough for the construction phase.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
4-3 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/4-3 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Section 3.4 also discusses the likelihood that borrow pits will be used to provide raw materials. It is
important to understand the size/scale of the borrow pits and where they are located in order to
identify the effects that they may have on landscape and visual amenity, groundwater, etc. Similarly,
the approximate location of quarries intended to be used as sources of raw materials should also be
identified where possible at this stage. Local sources should be encouraged to avoid the need for
excessive transportation.
The drainage section does not mention the presence of any oil interceptors within the proposed
drainage system. Given the presence of fuel stored on site and the general site activities, it is
considered that interceptors will definitely be required as a preventative measure in the event of any
spills or leaks. Similarly, there is no mention of any settlement ponds within the airport design. It is
anticipated that the sediment loading of run-off will be reasonably significant given the local climatic
and ground conditions, and therefore settlement will be important prior to discharge into local
watercourses. Drainage is later mentioned within Section 3.6, where it suggests that run-off will
“empty into a dry land in the area”. This must be appropriately assessed to ensure that the draining
waters are of suitable quality, both in terms of potential contamination and sediment loading. It is also
important that the gradient of the discharge is sufficient to prevent ponding of water, which may
encourage flies and create an unpleasant odour in the surrounding area. Confirmation should be sought
whether or not a permit or consent from the statutory authorities will be required for such a discharge.
The landscaping section under Section 3.4 identifies the soft landscaping proposed in the area
immediately around the airport development. However, it does not have any mention of any of the
effects that the development will have on the area, nor consider the need for compensatory planting
outwith the airport area as a replacement for the habitats lost during ground clearance activities.
Under Section 3.5, there is once again mention of de-icing and anti-icing – this is not considered
appropriate for an airport in Nigeria.
Within Section 3.5, Fuel Storage and Refuelling is discussed. It would be advisable to avoid
underground fuel storage tanks where possible; if considered necessary, very stringent mitigation
measures will be required to ensure that any leaks from the tank will be appropriately contained and
will not affect the surrounding soils and groundwater.
Section 3.6 identifies the need for reducing waste creation and segregation of different waste streams.
However, recycling of appropriate materials is not discussed; it would be valid to include the need for
recycling of different waste streams at this stage.
Bird control by habitat/nest removal is identified in Section 3.7. This is acceptable if undertaken
outwith the breeding season, but should not be done when nests are active.
4.2.4 Chapter 4 – Existing Environment Description
Whilst the level of detail provided is good, this chapter is somewhat confusing as it provides
methodologies and baseline information interspersed with comments about potential effects relating to
the proposed airport development. The chapter would be improved if it avoided all interpretation and
simply set out the facts relating to the existing environment on site and in the surrounding area. The
alternative is to have a separate chapter for each technical discipline, where each chapter goes through
the full baseline, assessment, mitigation process for the relevant topic.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
4-4 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/4-4 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Section 4.5.1 – sub-section relating to Ambient Air Quality and Noise has no noise-related
information, therefore the heading should be amended accordingly.
Table 4.7 provides results for groundwater analysis in comparison with WHO limits. However, the
WHO limits only cover less than a half of the parameters. Alternative limits should be investigated
and used for comparison purposes to identify if baseline concentrations are significant, otherwise the
results are meaningless.
Results from soil analysis indicate that ground conditions are acidic with relatively high
concentrations of sulphates. Such conditions can have a corrosive effect on concrete foundations and
underground services, therefore need to be taken into account during material selection prior to
construction.
The description of the birds identified on site, presented in Section 4.5.5, is lacking in detail. No
information is provided about the survey methodology, when the surveys were undertaken, over what
time period, flight paths of various species around the area, etc. Much more detailed information is
needed.
Section 4.5.6 describes the hydrological conditions in the area surrounding the site. Whilst generally
detailed and well presented, it once again suggests that de-icing activities may present a risk to surface
watercourses. It is unlikely that de-icing will be necessary at the proposed airport due to climatic
conditions.
Section 4.6.13 describes the reaction of local communities to the proposed airport. This indicates that
public consultation has been undertaken, but there is no information regarding how or when this was
done, and with how many people. Similarly, there needs to be more information provided about how
land was acquired and what compensation has been agreed, in addition to details about any
people/groups that are still unhappy about the proposals.
No landscape and visual amenity, traffic and access, or archaeology baseline information is provided
within Chapter 4. This is a significant omission.
4.2.5 Chapter 5 – Associated and Potential Impact Assessment
Impacts seem to be discussed in terms of ecology and socio-economics. Ecology does not represent
the whole of the environment and should not be used as an interchangeable term (for example, see
Section 5.2.1).
Table 5.1 – are great crested newts really likely to be an issue? There has been no previous mention of
their presence within Chapter 4.
Based on the information presented in Chapter 4, it is considered that the clearance of land and
subsequent loss of habitats is likely to be more of medium than low magnitude. This would change the
scoring to 15, making it of high significance (Table 5.1).
Whilst the risk of loss of archaeological remains and risks relating to increase in traffic movements are
identified in Table 5.1, no baseline information has been provided for either topic in Chapter 4.
Further information required.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
4-5 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/4-5 of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
No risks to landscape and visual have been included within Table 5.1, although they are discussed
briefly in the text afterwards. Significant effects will be caused by the proposed development on the
local landscape during both construction and operation of the airport and these effects must be
appropriately assessed and mitigated using an approved assessment methodology.
De-icing mentioned again in Table 5.1 – not relevant.
The Decommissioning section in Table 5.1 is very brief. Either more detail should be provided, or else
reference could be made to the effects from construction as relatively similar activities are likely to be
carried out during both phases.
Section 5.4.2 discusses air emissions in detail. However, the information is very generic and would be
of more use if it was made more site-specific with a quantitative assessment of how air quality in the
local area will change as a result of the development. This is likely to require modelling.
The loss of habitat is a significant impact which may have an adverse effect on endangered and
vulnerable species. Although the risks have been qualified in Table 5.1, it is worth including more
detail, as completed for the air quality and noise aspects.
Again, whilst mentioned in Table 5.1, the socio-economic text does not highlight the critical issue of
land acquisition and the effects that this may have on local communities.
4.2.6 Chapter 6 – Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 6.1 – are great crested newts really likely to be an issue in Nigeria? This should possibly refer to
all fauna encountered on site.
For clearance of vegetation, the mitigation measure is simply to minimise the extent of clearance for
the development. It would be appropriate to offer to provide either compensatory planting on another
area of land within close vicinity, or enhancement of an alternative site to create new habitat.
Where possible, it would be beneficial for OPRNL to offer to pay for road improvement works on
unsurfaced roads. This will improve both access to the site and relations with the local community.
The mitigation regarding roosting bats/birds indicates that OPRNL will undertake bird survey/roost
inspections ‘where practicable’. This is insufficient and should be considered essential to avoid
disturbance.
Avoidance of a risk in itself is a form of mitigation. In order to provide a full audit trail of how
environmental issues have been incorporated, there needs to be a section which details how
environmental risks have been avoided through an iterative design process.
The final impact in Table 6.1 relates to changes in rural characterisation. However, the proposed
mitigation measures discuss the need for wearing appropriate PPE etc, which does not seem relevant.
Much more detail is needed to show what mitigation measures will be put in place to minimise the
significant effects that the development will have on the local landscape.
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
4-6 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/4-6 of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Mitigation measures for operational air emissions (Table 6.2) need to include pilot training to
minimise fuel use through flight techniques. Operational methods such as avoiding planes running
their engines for long periods of time whilst on the ground should also be implemented to reduce
ground-level emissions.
De-icing mentioned again in Table 6.2 – not relevant.
In general, the mitigation measures do not go beyond best practice construction methods. In order to
appease all stakeholders, it is important that more effort is taken to enhance the area where possible,
rather than doing the minimum necessary. Environmental training of all staff is also vital in such a
location, as it is likely that awareness of environmental issues is relatively low.
4.2.7 Chapter 7 – Environmental Management Plan
Great crested newts are mentioned in Table 7.1 but were not noted as being present within Chapter 4.
As Table 7.1 is a modified version of the information provided in Tables 5.1, 6.1 and 6.2, comments
noted above should also be taken into account for the EMP.
There is no information about a complaints procedure for during both construction and operational
phases.
A register of consents and permits should be prepared for inclusion in the EMP to highlight where
they may be required and the effect they may have on the programme if not applied for at the
appropriate stage.
It is anticipated that there will be discharge of water from the site into a wastewater treatment works,
or into surface waters. Sampling/monitoring is likely to be required at the discharge points to ensure
water quality is acceptable. It should also be identified at an early stage whether or not consents to
discharge are required as application for such permits may have an effect on the programme if not
undertaken within the appropriate timeframe.
The environmental monitoring programme does not distinguish between construction and operational
phases. It is anticipated that monitoring frequency and locations will vary for each phase.
The EMP covers all key topic areas but is a bit too generic and would benefit from being more site-
specific. The EMP should be provided to the construction contractor prior to commencement of
construction to ensure that the required measures are put in place. In order to ensure that this occurs,
the EMP must be a usable document which includes specific actions for completion by defined
responsible parties.
4.2.8 Chapter 8 – Conclusions
The conclusions chapter is too brief – whilst it provides a summary of the report, it does not discuss
the significant issues in sufficient detail.
4.3 Summary
Key issues to be addressed include the following:
Anambra State Airport Mott MacDonald Final Report Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited
4-7 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/4-7 of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
• Overall, the report is a bit too generic and needs to be more site-specific.
• It contains errors which are likely to have resulted from basing this EIA on a similar report.
This inevitably raises doubts as to the relevance and accuracy of the information presented.
• There is no Non Technical Summary.
• No landscape and visual, archaeology or traffic and access baseline data or method of
assessment have been presented.
• It does not appear that a landscape and visual amenity impact assessment has been undertaken.
• There is insufficient detail about construction activities and programming to facilitate suitable
impact assessment.
• There is insufficient information about what public/statutory consultation has been undertaken
and what process has been followed to acquire land for the development. Much more
information is needed regarding any resettlement and the compensation packages agreed with
land users.
5-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
5 Procurement Options
5.1 Introduction
Mott MacDonald was commission by Aircraft Support International (Nigeria) (ASI) on behalf of
Orient Petroleum Resources Plc (OPR) to carry out a study into the development of a new airport in
Anambra State, Nigeria.
This report explores potential procurement strategies for development of the new airport and begins by
identifying the key interfaces. It is the control and risk management of these interfaces that direct us
towards potential procurement methods.
It should be noted that the choice of form of contract cannot usually be settled until the procurement
method and type of contract have been established.
5.2 Key Project Interfaces
Airport development projects typically adopt a staged approach, whereby the key facilities are
constructed following a staged development programme.
The key facilities identified are:
• Civils works
• Air Traffic Control
• Services access
• Terminal building
• Cargo & maintenance
• Utilities – power, water, communications
• Accommodation – secure compound
• Catering
• Fuel farm/refuelling
By focusing on these key airport facilities, we can identify the interfaces for Anambra State Airport.
Many of these interfaces highlight details which are unknown at this stage of the project.
“Unknowns” are risks and therefore will often affect the contract price.
Physical Interfaces:
• Land ownership
- Access routes to airport
- Land for approach lights
5-2 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-2 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
- Obstacle clearance
- Flight procedures
• Surveys
- Topographical
- Geotechnical – Will affect the cut + fill earthworks balance
- Hydrogeological
- Archaeological investigation
• Materials
- Aggregate quality and availability
- Bitumen supply
- Build materials
- Material supplier (local, long distance, import)
- Specialist equipment
• Environmental
- Environmental Impact Assessment (considerations, required actions)
- Flight path over developed areas e.g. towns
- Previous land use, e.g. farmland
Human Interfaces:
• Skills set
- Availability of workers
- Contractors & equipment (local/international)
- Capability of the contracting market
- Track record, experience
- Designers
- Supervisory staff
- Shared expertise with oil refinery project
• Political
- Key relationships with State and Federal Agencies
- Sources of workers, local issues
• Safety & Security
- Accommodation compound/camp
- Welfare support facilities, e.g. medical centre
- Access to site
Regulatory Interfaces:
• Local/National Government
- Approvals (design & planning departments)
5-3 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-3 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
- Resettlement (e.g. displaced farmers and farm holdings)
- Environmental approvals
• Government Agencies
- Police
- Immigration
- Customs
- Tax Department
• Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority
- Aviation approvals
- Approach lighting
- Flight procedures
Financial Interfaces:
• External funding (off-shore)
• Internal funding (on-shore)
Please note that the above list of interfaces is by no means exhaustive. The risks associated with each
of these interfaces will need to be confirmed and quantified, and then presented in a format that can be
understood by all parties e.g. in a risk matrix.
5.3 Project Requirements
In addition to the key interfaces, it is important to recognise the requirements of the project in order to
best ensure that the project can be realised effectively and at best value. Further discussion with ASI
is advisable, but at this stage we envisage the following items to be project requirements:
(a) Short construction programme – we understand the client has an early completion requirement to enable the airport to support the refinery construction.
(b) Management capability – the works will demand significant project management resource.
(c) Capable contractor with good track record/experience – Only a major national or international contractor is likely to be suitable for this undertaking.
(d) Contractor is familiar with the territory – experience working in Nigeria or other countries in the region is essential.
(e) Solid build, low maintenance solution – A quality build requiring low maintenance is likely to be the preferred approach for this development as it better lends itself to local labour resource in both the construction phase and in the longer term maintenance programme. The requirements on building services maintenance is likely to be reduced with a simple, functional build.
(f) Quality control can be achieved more easily with a simple, functional, low maintenance development solution.
(g) The contractor takes responsibility for the design – This is vital for a successful project where there are a number of “unknowns” and the design phase is to be completed in a short duration. Reasonable flexibility and adaptability is a must.
(h) Project budget – An early indication of funds available will assist in evaluating potential scope of development and construction duration.
5-4 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-4 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
5.4 Methods of Procurement
It is generally accepted that there are three main methods of procurement: Traditional, Design and
Build, and Management. It is the apportioning of risk that separates these methods and therefore it is
important to consider what risk the client can accept and what risks can be sensibly transferred to the
contractor/consultants.
1. Traditional
In a traditional or conventional approach, design and construction are seen as separate elements. The
client engages consultants and contractors on separate appointments and this allows the client to
exercise reasonable control over the design and construction, however the sequential process of design
then construction takes longer than other procurement routes. Depending on the contract type there
can be some certainty of cost, e.g. lump sum, but if it is not possible to define the quantity or nature of
work, approximate quantities, provisional sums or cost reimbursement can be adopted. However it
should be understood that price is invariably subject to adjustments for variations, delays etc and in a
traditional procurement method it is the client who retains the majority of the risk.
2. Design & Build
Design and build implies a more integrated approach. The client appoints a contractor who will have
single point responsibility for the design and workmanship. This set up risk is desirable for clients
who do not want or do not have the resources to manage separate design and construction contracts.
Although the contractors will price to cover their risk, the advantage of a design and build
procurement route is that risk is transferred to the contractor and this gives the client increased
certainty regarding time and cost. The client will have little scope to influence the design
development, but fully specified design requirements should ensure that the design meets the client’s
needs. There is also the opportunity for overlap between the design and construction phases, which
will allow for a shorter project programme.
3. Management Procurement
There are several variants of management procurement, but management contracting and construction
management are the two most common. In both methods the contractor is hired for the quality of his
management of the construction process and in return is not expected to take the full commercial line
responsibility for the performance of sub-contractors. The principle difference between management
contracting and construction management is that the Management Contractor stands in the contractual
line between the client/employer and the works contractor, however the management contract has
provisions to give relief from line responsibility to the employer for certain aspects of performance to
the extent that the Management Contractor is not able to enforce and recover on those aspects against
the Works Contracts. By contrast the Construction Manager is appointed outside that contractual line
of responsibility and the client/employer enters into contracts directly with all other contractors on the
advice of the Construction Manager. Therefore the main disadvantage with this method is that most
risk is retained by the client including contractor insolvency. There is also no cost certainty and it can
often expensive for the client to achieve programme certainty.
5-5 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-5 of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
The key features of the three main procurement methods are summarised in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Comparison of Main Procurement Options
Key features Traditional Design & Build Management
Client control over design and
construction *
Limited client influence over
design *
Single point of contact for client * *
Significant demand on client
resources to manage separate
design and construction contracts
*
Certainty of costs for client *
Price premium to cover risks *
Client retains majority of risks * *
Allocation of client risk to others *
Certainty of programme * *
Shortened project programme
(overlap design & construction
phases)
*
Shorter procurement period *
Expertise of a Management
Contractor *
In addition there are many variants, hybrids or compound versions of these methods.
5.5 Recommended Methods of Procurement
Considering the identified project requirements listed in section 5.3 of this report, we recommend the
two different procurement options: Traditional for project enabling works and Design & Build
Turnkey for the main development works.
5-6 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-6 of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
5.5.1 Traditional Procurement for Enabling Works
Enabling works can be undertaken very early in the project programme and often will comprise of
straightforward discrete tasks such as clearing and grubbing of the site, initial site surveys. The risk in
these tasks is also fairly low and so the works can be contracted directly by the client via a traditional
procurement route. The client therefore would not need to pay the risk premium that is added by a
contractor if responsibility and risk were to be passed on. Engaging a range of suppliers to undertake
short term enabling works is likely to be much quicker than engaging a prime contractor to carryout
the full construction works.
5.5.2 Design & Build Turnkey for Main Development Works
This procurement route involves the client appointing a prime contractor to undertake both design and
construction. It is advisable that the client seeks the services of an advisor(s) (technical, legal) prior to
and during the appointment of a prime contractor.
The table below sets out Design & Build Turnkey procurement method for the airport project.
Table 5.1: Key Features of Design & Build Turnkey Procurement
Description
Project Party Relations Allocates single point responsibility to the prime contractor. Non
adversarial team approach as the design and construction teams are
considered a single entity.
Risk Allocation The majority of project risk is passed onto the contractor who is best
placed to manage such risks. It is essential that the project requirements
are fixed early in the project as the reallocation of risk also means losing
the ability to influence the design.
Programme Opportunity for overlap between the design and construction phases,
which will allow for a shorter project programme. Programme certainty
is ensured through financial incentives to deliver on time or financial
disincentives if late (see Liability)
Build & Innovation The contractor ensures that the design is suitable for a build that can
achieved both quickly and easily. There is scope for innovation by the
contractor as long as the design/construction is in compliance with
project specifications.
Works packages The prime contractor is responsible for all the works which can be
broken down into packages. These packages can then be individually
negotiated and subcontracted to other contractors. Responsibility for
project mobilisation will remain with the prime contractor.
5-7 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-7 of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Costs & Pricing If a lump sum option is pursued, a high level of project definition, i.e.
fully specified project, is required as the contractor will include a
premium in his price to cover risks, particularly risks associated with
“unknowns”. Other pricing options that could be viable for the project
are Cost Plus moving to Schedule of Rates, and Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP).
If payment is on a cost plus basis, the contractor undertakes to carry out
an indeterminate amount of work on the basis that he is paid the prime
or actual cost of labour, plant and materials plus a fee to cover
management, overheads and profit. It is important for there to be
sufficient contingency in the budget particularly with an indeterminate
amount of work. Checking the prime costs which are directly related to
the works is relatively straightforward. The variable is the fee, which
should be agreed beforehand establishing precisely what it covers. The
basis of fee can give rise to many variants including cost plus
percentage fee, cost plus fixed fee, cost plus fluctuating fee. There
should be an obligation placed on the prime contractor to ensure that the
design options proposed are value engineered in order for there to be
some control over project costs. There is also an opportunity to include
shared savings incentives to benefit both client and contractor. Once
risks (or project “unknowns”) are better understood, payment can move
onto a Schedule of Rates basis, which should improve price certainty.
In addition, a GMP can be sensibly offered by the contractor and this
will improve price certainty for the client.
Liability In order to programme certainty, the contract should include liquidated
damages and delayed release of retention.
Quality Assurance Quality control will be the responsibility of the prime contractor and
therefore the client must set down the exact quality requirements at the
start of the contract (include in Works Information).
Health & Safety,
Welfare
The prime contractor will oversee and be responsible for project H&S
and welfare. This will include security of the site to ensure a safe
environment (compound) for workers.
In understanding the Nigerian contractual climate, we appreciate that the local government, project
stakeholder or other influencing party may wish to nominate a contractor to undertake certain works.
The Design & Build Turnkey procurement method will mean that the nominated contractor will
become a nominated sub-contractor. The appointed prime contractor will manage the nominated sub-
contractor and also carry the associated risk, which is likely to be a desirable arrangement for the
client.
To present a balance view of our recommended procurement method for the main development works,
we have summarised the advantages and disadvantages for the client in Table 5.2.
5-8 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-8 of 8 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Table 5.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Design & Build Turnkey
Feature Advantage Disadvantage
Single point of contact for client *
Non adversarial team approach *
Allocation of client risk to prime contractor *
Project requirements need to be fixed early in the project *
Certainty of programme *
Shortened project programme (overlap design & construction phases) *
Design solution by contractor ensures quick and easy build *
Design solution may not meet client aspirations *
Scope for innovation (by contractor) *
Prime contractor is responsible for all the works and project mobilisation *
Certainty of costs *
Value engineering is inherent in the contract *
Quality control responsibility by others *
Tension between cost and quality *
Meeting Health & Safety and Welfare standards is the prime contractor’s
responsibility *
5.6 Project Organisation
Figure 5.1 depicts our vision of the project set up. The solid blue connectors define contractual
relationships/contract responsibilities and the green connector defines practice relationships. The
items in red are some of the main project interface risks identified in Section 5.2 of this report, which
have been located on the diagram next to the project party best placed to manage the interface.
5-9 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-9 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 5.1: Project Organisation
Connections
Imports
Detailed
surveys
Cut + Fill
balance
Materials Materials
RESOURCES
CLIENT (Procurements Dept)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
REGULATORY APPROVALS
PRIME CONTRACTOR
ADVISERS
(Technical & Legal)
DESIGN SURVEY
ENVIRONMENTAL,
HEALTH & SAFETY,
SOCIAL
CIVILS WORKS
UTILITIES PAVEMENTS STRUCTURES & BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT FUEL FARM
Fire & Rescue
M&E services
AGL Security Baggage Air Bridges ATC Structure
Access routes - (strategic/regional plans) Resettlement Political Land
Ownership Tax
Finance
Imports
Preliminary
surveys
Safety & Security Political
Flight procedures
Utility supply
5-10 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-10 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
5.7 Project Execution Process
Selecting a procurement method to take the project forward is an early step in the project execution
process. Figure 5.1 identifies the principle stages of the project.
Once a procurement route has been selected it will be necessary to assess the market capacity, choose
a preferred contract route and put out a notice inviting potential contractors to submit an Expression of
Interest (EOI). The minimum requirement to be ascertained before requesting an EOI is a statement
on the scope of the project and therefore the EOI process can actually run parallel to exploring market
capacity and selecting the preferred contract route. Short listing the EOIs can be considered as a pre-
tender selection stage.
We recommend a two-stage tender for the airport project. In the first stage (Phase 1) an output term-
sheet is provided to the short listed contractors. This contains information such as the general scope of
work, outline specification, indicative form of contract, outline programme, definition of the enabling
works and any supporting information. Access to the site should be made available to the tenderers.
The intended output at this stage is for the tenderers to return outline concept designs for the project
including a price for the enabling works. These outline concept designs will also provide a basis for
evaluating guaranteed maximum price (GMP) should such be sought in the next stage of the tender.
At the end of Phase 1 tender it is intended that the client will have selected its preferred bidders.
The second stage of the tender process (Phase 2) is the process of finalising the contract with the
preferred bidder. This process is anticipated to last between three (3) and four (4) months and will
include the short listed bidder from Phase 1 preparing a preliminary design for the works. This
process essentially allows an early start to the design. Construction contract negotiations in this stage
may include seeking a GMP from the contractor. From the concept and preliminary design, the
uncertainty in the project is much reduced and therefore the contractor will be able to confirm a
competitive GMP. Risk and responsibility for the works will be retained by the contractor and not
passed back to the client. We also recommend that the contract includes independent certification for
the works, e.g. materials testing, in order to ensure specification and quality standards are achieved.
Contracts may be awarded for the enabling works at the start of Phase 2 tender which will allow
construction to commence as soon as a main construction contract is in place and a suitable design is
sufficiently complete.
We anticipate multiple completion dates for the various facilities at the airport in addition to an overall
opening date. It is important to ensure that the programme provides adequate time of testing,
commissioning and the approvals process.
The operations phase of the project will include the defects liability period as per the contract. The
prime contractor will still be responsible for ensuring maintenance is carried out as necessary until the
defects liability period ends.
5-11 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-11 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Figure 5.1: Project Execution Process
Phase 2 Tender
Completion (Multiple)
Market Capacity
Procurement Options
Phase 1 Tender
Shortlist EOIs
Expression of Interest
(EOI)
Preferred contract route
Award Build/ Construct
Operate
5-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/5-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
5.8 Conclusions & Recommendations
Our procurement strategy process began with identifying the key project interfaces, many of which are
considered “unknowns” at this time in the project. We have also made a number of assumptions on
the requirements of the project, but further discussion with ASI is required in order to generate a more
refined list. It is the control and risk management of these interfaces and consideration of the project
requirements that direct us towards potential procurement methods.
We presented a project organisation diagram showing contractual relationships and the project parties
best placed to manage some of the major interface risks. This arrangement lends itself toward our
recommended procurement strategy: Design and Build Turnkey for the main development works of
Anambra State Airport.
The key reasons for selecting this procurement method are:
9. Shortened project programme (overlap design & construction phase)
10. Single point of contact for client
11. Allocation of client risk to prime contractor
12. Certainty of costs
This procurement route involves the client appointing a prime contractor to undertake both design and
construction. The client can pass the majority of project risks onto the prime contractor who is best
placed to manage such risks. In addition the client has certainty of programme and can also benefit
from certainty of costs with careful selection of pricing/ payment options. It is however advisable that
the client seeks the services of an advisor(s) (technical, legal) prior to and during the appointment of a
prime contractor.
Despite the general disadvantages of a traditional procurement method, we are of the opinion that such
method is suitable for the enabling works if such works are undertaken very early on in the project
programme. As these works tend to be straightforward discrete tasks such as clearing and grubbing of
the site, the risk in these tasks is fairly low and so many of the identified procurement disadvantages
will not be relevant.
We also developed a project execution process, which describes how the project can move forward
and the main tasks to be implemented. The key element in this process is the two-stage tender. The
outputs of the first stage are outline concept designs and selection of a preferred bidder. The second
stage is the process of finalising the contract with the preferred bidder. The two-stage tender provides
an opportunity for an early start to the design and therefore there is potential to reduce the project
programme, which goes some way to addressing the early project completion requirement.
The project execution process diagram clearly shows that there is much work to be undertaken in order
for the airport development project to be realised. The earlier the process begins, the sooner the
interface “unknowns” can be resolved, and the better the chances are of achieving a quality built
airport within a reasonable timeframe and at a reasonable cost. Key to this will be developing a risk
matrix which can be fully understood by all the parties.
6-2 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-2 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6 Investment Appraisal
The following section details a high level investment appraisal for the operation of Anambra State
Airport, Nigeria up to the year ended 2026.
Revenues, operational costs and capital expenditure are considered in order to generate a high level
financial model. The Capital Cost Estimates used are given in Appendix C and Appendix D
As the airport is currently in an early design phase we have undertaken a benchmarking analysis to
provide an insight into potential revenues.
6.1 Currency Conversion
A United States Dollar (USD) base currency will be used in order to incorporate the cost planning
section which is calculated in USD’s.
1 Nigeria Naira = 0.0074 USD *source: Bloomberg 16 December 2008
6.2 Benchmarking Analysis
To consider the potential growth of the airport we will analyse the operations and financial
performance of similar airports in the region.
The key to this exercise is selecting relevant, comparable airports for which the appropriate data is
available.
6.2.1 West African Zone Countries
In terms of selecting countries with the same
demographics, the West African
neighbouring countries of Togo, Benin,
Burkina Faso, Ghana, Cameroon, Ivory
Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea are
considered as part of the data set.
6-3 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-3 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6.2.2 Anambra State Assumptions
In order to select and compare airports of a comparable size we will use the forecast of ~ 100,000
passengers and 1,100 air transport movements (including oil and gas operations) in the first year of
operation.
The passenger numbers forecast at Anambra State Airport in the first year of operation (2012) and the
end of the forecast period (2026) will form the parameters for selecting comparable airports.
6.2.3 ACI Worldwide Annual Traffic Reports
In order to provide further focus on similar airports to be used as part of the benchmarking process, we
will use data from the ACI Worldwide Annual Traffic Reports. The below table sets out a list of
neighbouring African airports, sorted in descending order of passenger numbers.
Anambra State passenger traffic forecasts are used as the upper and lower boundaries when
considering African Airports as a whole.
Subsequently, airports within the West African zone as mentioned above that fell within these
boundaries are considered;
Country City Airport Code Annual
Pax
Ghana Accra Kotoka Intl ACC 1,179,990
Ivory Coast Abidjan Felix Houphouet Boigny Intl ABJ 930,913
Cameroon Douala Douala Intl DLA 633,236
Benin Cotonou Cotonou Intl COO 401,073
Burkina Faso Ouagadougou Ouagadougou OUA 340,330
Togo Lome Gnassingbe Eyadema Intl LFW 274,235
Guinea Conakry G'bessia CKY 258,091
Cameroon Yaounde Yaounde-Nsimalen Intl NSI 194,077
Sierra-Leone Freetown Lungi FNA 133,606
Liberia Robertsfield Roberts Intl ROB 123,062
6.2.4 Benchmark Airports
Of the above 8 airports, only 2 have relevant and available data that could be used to carry forward a
benchmarking exercise. Sierra Leone’s Freetown-Lungi Airport and Burkina Faso’s
Ouagadougou Airport are thus selected as the benchmark airports.
6.2.5 Airport Revenues
Airport Revenues are generally broken down into two main components – aviation revenues, which
are derived from the necessary handling of aircraft, passengers and freight to enable the operations to
take place; and non-aviation revenues which can be described as the discretionary additional revenues
which can be obtained from the operation of the airport.
Financial data from Freetown-Lungi Airport and Burkina Faso Airport is considered and analysed to
set out aviation revenues, non-aviation revenues and thus total revenues.
6-4 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-4 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6.2.6 Revenues per Passenger
For the purposes of benchmarking, aviation revenues per passenger, non-aviation revenues per
passenger and total revenues per passenger are calculated. Local currencies are then exchanged into a
US Dollar base for the purposes of comparison.
6.3 Freetown-Lungi Airport Revenues
6.3.1 Freetown-Lungi Airport Aviation Revenues (million SLL’s)
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Landing charges 4,073 4,218 4,496 4,868 5,152 6,349
Airport charges 2,608 3,214 4,129 5,282 5,230 7,822
Fuel through-put fees 337 410 500 545 358 363
Handling concession 840 1,162 1,165 1,519 1,398 1,546
Enroute navigation fees 202 225 235 278 140 150
Project handling income 0 0 0 0 0 3,247
Total aviation revenues 8,059 9,229 10,523 12,490 12,279 19,476
Passengers 98,743 111,714 123,065 127,574 121,582 133,606
SLL per passenger 81,616 82,613 85,508 97,904 100,994 145,772
USD-SLL Exchange rate* 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3
USD per passenger 27.3 27.7 28.6 32.8 33.8 48.8
Source: SLAA Financial Statements 2001 to 2006; IMF, *Bloomberg
6.3.2 Freetown-Lungi Airport Non-Aviation Revenues (million SLL’s)
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Passenger - related 78 98 185 234 239 226
Rent – related 204 313 361 689 682 738
Miscellaneous 7 6 6 -4 0 25
Total non-aviation revenues 289 417 552 919 921 989
Passengers 98,743 111,714 123,065 127,574 121,582 133,606
SLL per passenger 2,930 3,735 4,492 7,211 7,573 7,406
USD-SLL Exchange rate* 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3
USD per passenger 0.99 1.78 1.50 0.97 2.54 2.48
Source: SLAA Financial Statements 2001 to 2006; IMF, *Bloomberg
6-5 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-5 of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6.3.3 Freetown-Lungi Airport Total Revenues (million SLL’s)
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Aviation revenue 8,059 9,229 10,523 12,490 12,279 19,476
Non-aviation revenue 289 417 553 920 921 989
Total revenues 8,348 9,646 11,076 13,410 13,200 20,465
Passengers 98,743 111,714 123,065 127,574 121,582 133,606
SLL per passenger 84,543 86,345 90,001 105,115 108,569 153,174
USD-SLL Exchange rate*
2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 2987.3 Average
USD per passenger 28.30 28.90 41.20 35.19 36.34 51.28 36.87
Source: SLAA Financial Statements 2001 to 2006; IMF, *Bloomberg
6.4 Burkina Faso Airport Revenues
6.4.1 Burkina Faso Airport Aviation Revenues (million CFA’s)
Year 2000 2003 2007
Landing fee 846 651 2,116
Night lighting 401 157 0
Aircraft assistance 1,341 995 0
Aircraft parking fee 12 18 12
Fuel 50 33 35
Pax taxes 342 698 3,615
Pax security tax 392 420 0
Cargo 232 157 162
Cargo customs 107 173 0
Total aviation revenues 3,724 3,303 5,940
Passengers 247,120 228,809 299,153
CFA per passenger 15,615 15,091 20,420
USD – CFA Exchange rate*
508.5 508.5 508.5
USD per passenger 30.71 29.68 40.16
Source: Burkina Faso Financial Statements 2001 to 2006; *Bloomberg
6-6 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-6 of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6.4.2 Burkina Faso Airport Non-Aviation Revenues (million CFA’s)
Year 2000 2003 2007
Total non-aviation revenues 135 151 169
Passengers 247,120 228,809 299,153
CFA per passenger 546 659 564
USD – CFA Exchange rate 508.5 508.5 508.5
USD per passenger 1.07 1.30 1.11
Source: Burkina Faso Financial Statements 2001 to 2006; *Bloomberg
6.4.3 Burkina Faso Airport Total Revenues (million CFA’s)
Year 2001 2002 2003
Aviation revenue 8,059 9,229 10,523
Non-aviation revenue 135 417 553
Total revenues 3,859 3,453 6,109
Passengers 247,120 228,809 299,153
CFA per passenger 33,781 42,157 37,024
USD – CFA Exchange rate
508.5 508.5 508.5 Average
USD per passenger 30.71 29.68 40.16 33.52
Source: Burkina Faso Financial Statements 2001 to 2006; *Bloomberg
6.5 Summary Revenues
Freetown-Lungi
Average
Burkina Faso
Average
Average
USD revenue per passenger 36.87 33.52 35.20
6-7 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-7 of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6.6 Nigerian Cargo Revenues
Local cargo revenues were provided by Aircraft Support Nigeria Limited;
Cargo Charges = Nigeria Naira 4-6 per kilo
Cargo Charges = Nigeria Naira 5 per kilo = $ 0.037 per ATM
Cargo Charges per tonne = $ 37.00 per ATM
6.7 Methodology for Calculating Revenues
a) Total passenger revenue = revenue per passenger X number of passengers
b) Total cargo revenue = cargo charge per tonne X number of cargo tonnes
c) Total revenue = total passenger revenue + total cargo revenue
d) 4 scenarios for passenger revenue: Low, Base, High and High-High
e) 2 scenarios for number of cargo tonnes: Low and High
f) Cargo Low applied to Low and Base passenger scenarios
g) Cargo High applied to High and High High passenger scenarios
6.8 Operating Expenditure (Opex)
With our knowledge and experience of airport planning and operations we have devised for the
following assumptions to be used in the operating cost make up;
Total opex = labour opex + non-labour opex
6.8.1 Labour Opex
a) Labour opex accounts for 40% of total opex
b) Labour salaries per month as per information provided by Orient Petroleum –mean averages
taken – i.e. managers = £1,500, employees = £600, security = £150.
c) Assumed 20/40/40 split of managers/ employees/ security
d) Number of staff derived from benchmarking analysis on number of passengers per employee.
e) A discount factor will be applied to allow for economies of scale with staffing as an
operational expenditure.
6-8 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-8 of 8 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6.8.2 Non-Labour Opex
f) Includes material expenses, insurance, lease payments, maintenance and repairs and utility
costs.
g) Non-labour opex accounts for 60% of total opex
h) i.e. Non-labour opex = labour opex * 1.5
6.8.3 Methodology for Calculating Estimated Opex
a) Total opex = staff opex + non staff opex
Staff Opex
b) Number of staff = Number of staff/ (passengers per staff * discount factor)
c) Staff split as above to give number of manager, employees, security
d) e.g. labour salaries of manager per month * 12 (months) * number of managers
= total cost of management staff
e) Total staff opex = total cost of management + total cost of employees + total cost of security
Non Staff Opex
f) Non staff opex = staff opex * 1.5
6.9 Capex Phasing
Capital expenditure occurs in four phases;
Description Period Ending Phase Cost Cumulative Cost Revenues
Received from
Phase 1 Airfield Construction December 2009 173,000,000
Phase 2 Commencement of
Domestic Ops
June 2010 22,000,000 195,000,000 2012
Phase 3 Commencement of
Cargo Ops
June 2011 110,000,000 305,000,000 2011 at 70% level
Phase 4 Commencement of
International Ops
December 2011 60,000,000 365,000,000 2012
6-9 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-9 of 9 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
2024 was the final year for the traffic forecasts but the traffic forecasts have been adjusted and
extended to 2026 to take into account the phasing of the airport development and the fact that
operations will not begin until 2011.
Phase 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 3a 4 5 6 7 8 9
2009 2010 2011 Jun-11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Base Case Passengers (m) 0.1 0.2 0.26 0.35 0.39 0.42
ATMS (000s) 1,100 2,200 2,700 4,200 4,400 4,900
Low Case Passengers (m) 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.2 0.21 0.21
ATMS (000s) 700 1,500 1,500 2,600 2,600 2,800
High Case Passengers (m) 0.1 0.2 0.26 0.35 0.46 0.56
ATMS (000s) 1,100 2,200 2,700 4,200 5,100 6,300
High High Case Passengers (m) 1.11 4.44 4.64 4.84 5.06 5.29
ATMS (000s) 12,400 49,500 51,700 54,100 56,500 59,000
Cargo Low Cargo (tonnes) 1,638 2,574 2,831 3,115 3,426 3,683 3,959
Cargo High Cargo (tonnes) 15,288 59,550 62,230 65,031 67,957 71,015 74,211
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Base Case Passengers (m) 0.46 0.55 0.6 0.66 0.72 0.8 0.88 0.96 1.06
ATMS (000s) 5,200 6,400 6,900 7,100 7,700 8,600 9,500 10,300 11,400
Low Case Passengers (m) 0.24 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.38 0.4 0.41 0.44 0.46
ATMS (000s) 3,100 4,000 4,000 4,400 4,800 5,200 5,600 5,600 6,600
High Case Passengers (m) 0.72 0.84 0.98 1.03 1.07 1.22 1.32 1.41 1.49
ATMS (000s) 7,700 9,300 10,800 11,200 11,200 12,900 14,600 15 17,200
High High Case Passengers (m) 5.53 5.78 6.04 6.31 6.59 6.89 7.2 7.52 7.86
ATMS (000s) 61,700 64,500 67,400 70,400 73,600 76,900 80,300 84,000 87,700
Cargo Low Cargo (tonnes) 4,256 4,575 4,918 5,164 5,423 5,694 5,978 6,277 6,591
Cargo High Cargo (tonnes) 77,550 121,560 127,030 132,746 138,720 144,962 151,486 158,302 165,426
For the purposes of the investment appraisal, revenue from domestics operations (which are
comparatively minimal) will be held back until the 2012 period. Cargo operations which commence in
June 2011 will account for 70% of the forecast cargo movements.
6.10 High Level Financial Model
1. Model in U.S. $million
2. Uniform inflation of 5% up to and including 2024 allocated to revenues and operating costs.
3. Capex depreciation on assets = 5% from 2013
4. The four traffic scenarios: Low, Base, High and High-High were evaluated with the related passenger
numbers/ATMs applied to the model
6-10 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-10 of 10 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Revenues
Low 0.00 0.00 0.07 2.29 7.22 12.41 20.73 29.91 39.56
Base 0.00 0.00 0.07 3.70 11.22 21.45 35.89 52.76 71.85
High 0.00 0.00 0.62 6.69 16.89 30.05 47.68 71.06 100.27
High High 0.00 0.00 0.62 42.25 209.15 392.29 592.88 813.07 1054.78
Opex
Low 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.33 0.48 0.49 0.47 0.51
Base 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.53 0.66 0.85 0.91 0.94 0.99
High 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.53 0.66 0.85 1.07 1.25 1.54
High High 0.00 0.00 3.09 11.78 11.75 11.72 11.74 11.79 11.85
Capex 173.00 22.00 110.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.25 17.34 16.47 15.65 14.86
Net Cashflow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Low -173.00 -22.00 -110.10 -58.06 -11.36 -5.41 3.77 13.79 24.18
Base -173.00 -22.00 -110.21 -56.83 -7.69 3.27 18.51 36.18 56.00
High -173.00 -22.00 -109.65 -53.84 -2.02 11.86 30.14 54.16 83.86
High High -173.00 -22.00 -112.47 -29.53 179.15 363.23 564.66 785.64 1028.07
NPV (rate = 0.1)
Low -173.00 -20.00 -90.99 -43.62 -7.76 -3.36 2.13 7.08 11.28
Base -173.00 -20.00 -91.08 -42.70 -5.25 2.03 10.45 18.57 26.12
High -173.00 -20.00 -90.62 -40.45 -1.38 7.36 17.01 27.79 39.12
High High -173.00 -20.00 -92.95 -22.19 122.36 225.54 318.74 403.16 479.60
Period 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Total Revenues
Low 20.73 29.91 39.56 51.13 66.76 83.71 175.66 204.87 236.93
Base 35.89 52.76 71.85 93.79 121.31 152.82 335.54 399.26 473.13
High 47.68 71.06 100.27 138.69 187.62 246.62 561.88 655.47 759.31
High High 592.88 813.07 1054.78 1320.09 1613.70 1935.86 3569.00 4068.14 4615.93
Opex
Low 0.49 0.47 0.51 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.74 0.75 0.78
Base 0.91 0.94 0.99 1.13 1.19 1.27 1.62 1.74 1.86
High 1.07 1.25 1.54 1.73 1.95 1.98 2.38 2.44 2.59
High High 11.74 11.79 11.85 11.93 12.02 12.12 12.69 12.88 13.07
Capex
Depreciation 16.47 15.65 14.86 14.12 13.42 12.74 10.38 9.86 9.37
Net Cashflow
Low 3.77 13.79 24.18 36.36 52.70 70.31 164.54 194.25 226.78
Base 18.51 36.18 56.00 78.54 106.70 138.81 323.54 387.66 461.90
High 30.14 54.16 83.86 122.83 172.25 231.90 549.12 643.17 747.35
High High 564.66 785.64 1028.07 1294.05 1588.27 1910.99 3545.92 4045.40 4593.49
NPV (rate = 0.1)
Low 2.13 7.08 11.28 15.42 20.32 24.64 39.39 42.27 44.87
Base 10.45 18.57 26.12 33.31 41.14 48.65 77.45 84.37 91.38
High 17.01 27.79 39.12 52.09 66.41 81.28 131.45 139.97 147.86
High High 318.74 403.16 479.60 548.80 612.35 669.79 848.87 880.40 908.80
6-11 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/6-11 of 11 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
6.10.1 Net Present Value
At a discount rate of 0.1, the net present value for investment in Anambra State Airport at the end of
the project and for the various levels of traffic would be;
2026 NPV USD Nigeria Naira
Low 44.8 million 6,054 million
Base 91.4 million 12,351 million
High 147.9 million 19,986 million
High High 908.8 million 122,810 million
A-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/A-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Appendix A Architectural Renderings of the Terminal
B-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/B-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Appendix B 15 Km Radius Topographic Map
C-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/C-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Appendix C Capital Cost Estimates
C.1 COST ESTIMATE
This report has been prepared to estimate the costs of the proposed Airport at Ivite-Umueri in
Anambra State, Nigeria.
C.2 BASIS OF ESTIMATE
The Estimate is based upon the preferred Option1 Proposal with indicative development areas for the
facilities at the airport. These requirements are subject to review during the master planning phase.
The Estimate is based on the view that most labour, skills and equipment for work of this nature are
available in Nigeria. There is very little labour imported into Nigeria.
Locally available materials will be used for the civil work including all aggregates and fillers, cement,
timber, fuels and certain grades of bitumen with the balance imported
It has been assumed that the project would be let as a traditional construction project with the
Contractor not being involved in the future running of the airport.
It has been assumed that with the exception of the electricity supply no incoming services will be
required with the water supplies coming in via a local borehole
C.3 PRICE DATUM OF ESTIMATE
All pricing is based on a 4Q 2008 Price Datum with no allowance being made for inflation.
Estimate Tolerance Range is between +/-20%.
Prices have been based on a UK datum and adjusted to reflect local labour and material costs in
Nigeria. Prices have been based on an exchange rate of £1.00 GB Pound to $1.56 US Dollars
C-2 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/C-2 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
C.4 ESTIMATE OF COST
The Summary of Costs are set out below and included in more detail in the Appendix A to this
Estimate.
Table C.1: Phased Capital Costs
The Prices show the total cost at 4Q2008 for the airport
C.5 EXCLUSIONS FROM ESTIMATE
The following costs are excluded from the estimate:
• Land reclamation costs
• Fit out of retail areas in Terminals
• Incoming roads beyond the boundary of the site
• General Landscaping and associated lighting
• Incoming electricity supplies beyond site boundary
• Perimeter Security Lighting
• Legal Fees
• Financing costs
• Professional fees
• Inflation
• Taxes, import duties
Option 1 Scheme GBP £ US $
Phase 1 111,000,000 173,000,000
Phases 1 and 2 125,000,000 195,000,000
Phases 1 to 3 195,000,000 305,000,000
Phases 1 to 4 235,000,000 365,000,000
C-3 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/C-3 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
C.6 RISK/CONTINGENCY
An allowance of 10% has been included in the estimate for Risk and Contingency to cover design
development of the costed scheme.
D-1 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/D-1 of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
Appendix D Capital Cost Elements
PHASE 1
Item Quantity Unit Rate Total Total Comments
GB £ GB £ US$
1 BUILDINGS
Air traffic control tower item 4,500,000 7,020,000 18 metre high
Aircraft Parking
Maintenance Apron 11,000 m2 100 1,100,000 1,716,000 Marshall Asphalt
Refuelling stand 9,000 m2 130 1,170,000 1,825,200 PQ Concrete
Cargo Apron 18,000 m2 100 1,800,000 2,808,000 Marshall Asphalt
Aviation
Maintenance Hanger 7,810 m2 700 5,467,000 8,528,520 Type C and D Aircraft
Fire Station
New Fire Station 1,678 m2 1,400 2,349,200 3,664,752
Hardstandings 375 m2 60 22,500 35,100
2 AIRFIELD
Runways 224,770 m2 105 23,600,850 36,817,326 Marshall Asphalt
Runway shoulders 55,590 m2 90 5,003,100 7,804,836 Marshall Asphalt
Taxiways 110,500 m2 100 11,050,000 17,238,000 Marshall Asphalt
Approach lighiting/PAPIL 1 item 5,500,000 8,580,000 ILS 1 item 1,700,000 2,652,000
Fuel Farm 1 item 6,500,000 10,140,000
Airside Concrete Roads 25,800 m2 110 2,838,000 4,427,280
Airside Asphalt Roads 3,990 m2 85 339,150 529,074 Security fence 26,648 m 145 3,863,960 6,027,778
Patrol Road 13,324 m 300 3,997,200 6,235,632
Balancing Ponds 1 item 750,000 1,170,000 Airfield drainage 5,000 m 170 850,000 1,326,000
Stream culverts/Stream Diversions item 200,000 312,000
Security Posts 600 m2 1,000 600,000 936,000
3 LANDSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE
Roads
Roads 45,340 m2 85 3,853,900 6,012,084
Roundabout 1 nr 150,000 150,000 234,000 Security Fence 6,020 m 145 872,900 1,361,724
Utility services
Generators 2 nr 180,000 360,000 561,600
Electrical mains cabling 4,000 m 135 540,000 842,400
Foul water drain 1,250 m 170 212,500 331,500 Water tower and borehole 1 nr 250,000 250,000 390,000
Water supply pipework 2,000 m 160 320,000 499,200
Sub-total 89,760,260 140,026,006
Contractors Design fees 12% 10,771,231 16,803,121
Risk/Contingency 10% 10,053,149 15,682,913
Total Phase 1 Cost 110,584,640 172,512,039
Say 111,000,000 173,000,000
D-2 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/D-2 of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
PHASE 2
Item Quantity Unit Rate Total Total Comments
GB £ GB £ US$
1 BUILDINGS
Temporary Terminal Structure 700 m2 1,000 700,000 1,092,000
Air traffic control tower item 4,500,000 7,020,000 18 metre high
Aircraft Parking
Terminal Aircraft Parking 17000 m2 100 1,700,000 2,652,000
Maintenance Apron 11000 m2 100 1,100,000 1,716,000 PQ Concrete
Refuelling stand 9000 m2 130 1,170,000 1,825,200 PQ Concrete
Cargo Apron 18000 m2 100 1,800,000 2,808,000 PQ Concrete
Aviation
Maintenance Hanger 7810 m2 700 5,467,000 8,528,520
Fire Station
New Fire Station 1678 m2 1,400 2,349,200 3,664,752 Hardstandings 375 m2 60 22,500 35,100
2 AIRFIELD
Runways 224770 m2 105 23,600,850 36,817,326 Marshall Asphalt
Runway shoulders 55590 m2 90 5,003,100 7,804,836 Marshall Asphalt
Taxiways 167950 m2 100 16,795,000 26,200,200 Marshall Asphalt
Approach lighiting/PAPIL 1 item 5,500,000 8,580,000 ILS 1 item 1,700,000 2,652,000
Fuel Farm 1 item 6,500,000 10,140,000 Airside Concrete Roads 33100 m2 110 3,641,000 5,679,960 Airside Asphalt Roads 3990 m2 85 339,150 529,074
Security fence 26648 m 145 3,863,960 6,027,778 Patrol Road 13324 m 300 3,997,200 6,235,632
Balancing Ponds 1 item 750,000 1,170,000 Airfield drainage 5000 m 170 850,000 1,326,000
Stream culverts/Stream Diversions item 200,000 312,000 Security Posts 600 m2 1,000 600,000 936,000
3 LANDSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE
Roads
Foreccourt 2000 m2 120 240,000 374,400
Roads 56340 m2 85 4,788,900 7,470,684 Roundabout 1 nr 150,000 150,000 234,000 Security Fence 6020 m 145 872,900 1,361,724
Car Parking
Shuttle bus parking 8120 m2 120 974,400 1,520,064
Utility services
Generators 2 nr 180,000 360,000 561,600 Electrical mains cabling 4000 m 135 540,000 842,400
Foul water drain 1250 m 170 212,500 331,500 Water tower and borehole 1 nr 250,000 250,000 390,000
Water supply pipework 2000 m 160 320,000 499,200
Sub-total 100,857,660 157,337,950
Contractors Design fees 12% 12,102,919 18,880,554
Risk/Contingency 10% 11,296,058 17,621,850
Total Phase 1 and 2 Cost 124,256,637 193,840,354
Say 125,000,000 195,000,000
D-3 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/D-3 of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
PHASE 3
Item Quantity Unit Rate Total Total Comments
GB £ GB £ US$1 BUILDINGS
Temporary Terminal Structure 700 m2 1,000 700,000 1,092,000
Air traffic control tower item 4,500,000 7,020,000 18 metre high
Aircraft Parking
Terminal Aircraft Parking 17000 m2 100 1,700,000 2,652,000 Marshall Asphalt
Maintenance Apron 11000 m2 100 1,100,000 1,716,000 Marshall Asphalt
Refuelling stand 18000 m2 130 2,340,000 3,650,400 PQ Concrete
Cargo Apron 18000 m2 100 1,800,000 2,808,000 Marshall Asphalt
Helicopter pads 3 nr 175,000 525,000 819,000
Aviation
Maintenance Hanger 7810 m2 700 5,467,000 8,528,520
Cargo Building 6000 m2 850 5,100,000 7,956,000
Fire Station
New Fire Station 1678 m2 1,400 2,349,200 3,664,752 Hardstandings 375 m2 60 22,500 35,100
AIRFIELD
2
Runways 692765 m2 105 72,740,325 113,474,907 Marshall Asphalt
Runway shoulders 55590 m2 90 5,003,100 7,804,836 Marshall Asphalt
Taxiways 167950 m2 100 16,795,000 26,200,200 Marshall Asphalt
Approach lighiting/PAPIL 1 item 5,500,000 8,580,000 ILS 1 item 1,700,000 2,652,000
Fuel Farm 1 item 6,500,000 10,140,000
Airside Concrete Roads 33100 m2 110 3,641,000 5,679,960 Airside Asphalt Roads 3990 m2 85 339,150 529,074
Security fence 26648 m 145 3,863,960 6,027,778 Patrol Road 13324 m 300 3,997,200 6,235,632
Balancing Ponds 1 item 750,000 1,170,000 Airfield drainage 5000 m 170 850,000 1,326,000
Stream culverts/Stream Diversions item 200,000 312,000 Security Posts 600 m2 1,000 600,000 936,000
3 LANDSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE
Roads
Foreccourt 2000 m2 120 240,000 374,400
Roads 56340 m2 85 4,788,900 7,470,684 Roundabout 1 nr 150,000 150,000 234,000
Security Fence 6020 m 145 872,900 1,361,724
Car Parking
Shuttle bus parking 8120 m2 120 974,400 1,520,064
Utility services
Generators 2 nr 180,000 360,000 561,600
Electrical mains cabling 4000 m 135 540,000 842,400 Foul water drain 1250 m 170 212,500 331,500
Water tower and borehole 1 nr 250,000 250,000 390,000 Water supply pipework 2000 m 160 320,000 499,200
-
Sub-total 156,792,135 244,595,731
Contractors Design fees 12% 18,815,056 29,351,488
Risk/Contingency 10% 17,560,719 27,394,722
Total Phase 1 to 3 Cost 193,167,910 301,341,940
Say 195,000,000 305,000,000
D-4 247895/01/A - 23 December 2008/D-4 of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITA\1_PROJECTS\247895 New Airport Anambra State\E - Reports & Documents\03 Outgoing Record Copies\Anambra State Airport Final Report vC.doc/
PHASE 4
Item Quantity Unit Rate Total Total Comments
GB £ GB £ US$1 BUILDINGS
Terminal Building 15414 m2 1,800 27,745,200 43,282,512
Increase rate to allow for alteration works to existing terminal
Air Bridges 5 nr 210,000 1,050,000 1,638,000
VIP Terminal Building 1000 m2 1,800 1,800,000 2,808,000
Temporary Terminal Structure 700 Item 1,000 700,000 1,092,000
Air traffic control tower item 4,500,000 7,020,000
Aircraft Parking
Terminal Aircraft Parking 17000 m2 100 1,700,000 2,652,000 Marshall Asphalt
Maintenance Apron 11000 m2 100 1,100,000 1,716,000 Marshall Asphalt
Refuelling stand 18000 m2 130 2,340,000 3,650,400 PQ Concrete
Cargo Apron 18000 m2 100 1,800,000 2,808,000 Marshall Asphalt
Helicopter pads 3 nr 175,000 525,000 819,000 PQ Concrete
Aviation
Maintenance Hanger 7810 m2 700 5,467,000 8,528,520 Type C and D Aircraft
Cargo Building 6000 m2 850 5,100,000 7,956,000
Fire Station
New Fire Station 1678 m2 1,400 2,349,200 3,664,752
Hardstandings 375 m2 60 22,500 35,100
2 AIRFIELD
Runways 692765 m2 105 72,740,325 113,474,907 Marshall Asphalt
Runway shoulders 55590 m2 90 5,003,100 7,804,836 Marshall Asphalt
Taxiways 167950 m2 100 16,795,000 26,200,200 Marshall Asphalt
Approach lighiting/PAPIL 1 item 5,500,000 8,580,000
ILS 1 item 1,700,000 2,652,000
Fuel Farm 1 item 6,500,000 10,140,000 Airside Concrete Roads 33100 m2 110 3,641,000 5,679,960
Airside Asphalt Roads 3990 m2 85 339,150 529,074
Security fence 26648 m 145 3,863,960 6,027,778 Patrol Road 13324 m 300 3,997,200 6,235,632
Balancing Ponds 1 item 750,000 1,170,000 Airfield drainage 5000 m 170 850,000 1,326,000
Stream culverts/Stream Diversions item 200,000 312,000
Security Posts 600 m2 1,000 600,000 936,000
3 LANDSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE
Roads
Foreccourt 2000 m2 120 240,000 374,400
Roads 56340 m2 85 4,788,900 7,470,684
Roundabout 1 nr 150,000 150,000 234,000 Security Fence 6020 m 145 872,900 1,361,724
Non Aviation by 3rd Parties
Car Rental 300 m2 950 285,000 444,600 Medical Centre 225 m2 1,650 371,250 579,150
Car Parking
Shuttle bus parking 5720 m2 120 686,400 1,070,784
Short term carparking 2000 spaces 900 1,800,000 2,808,000 Long term car parking 500 spaces 900 450,000 702,000
- Utility services
Generators 2 nr 180,000 360,000 561,600
Electrical mains cabling 4000 m 135 540,000 842,400
Foul water drain 1250 m 170 212,500 331,500 Water tower and borehole 1 nr 250,000 250,000 390,000
Water supply pipework 2000 m 160 320,000 499,200
Sub-total 190,005,585 296,408,713
Contractors Design fees 12% 22,800,670 35,569,046
Risk/Contingency 10% 21,280,626 33,197,776
Total Phase 1 to 4 Cost 234,086,881 365,175,534
Say 235,000,000 365,000,000