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.


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



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



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



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



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


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.



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



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



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



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.



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.



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:



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%


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:



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


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.



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;



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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;



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.



• 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;



(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.



(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 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


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,



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


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


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.



• 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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



(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.



(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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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



- 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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



Figure 3.20: Airfield Layout



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.



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.



Figure 3.21: New Airfield Lay-Out Option



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.



(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:



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.



(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.



(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.



(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



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.



(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.



(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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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



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.



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.



Figure 3.34: Balancing Ponds

Figure 3.35: Balancing Pond at Auckland Airport, NZ



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



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



Figure 3.37: Phase 1 Airfield Layout



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



Phase 3 - Commercial cargo operation

• Cargo building

• Standby runway

• Helicopter parking

• Remaining fuel farm stand



3.11.3 Phase 4 - International Airport meeting international standards

• Passenger terminal building

• Additional car parking

• Car rental

• Additional passenger aircraft apron

• VIP facility



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.



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.



Figure 3.41: Ground Floor Indicative Plan



Figure 3.42: Upper Floor Indicative Plan



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;



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



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;



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;



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



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.



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;



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



(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



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.



Figure 3.49: International Arrivals Immigration and Customs



(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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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:



• 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 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


- 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)


- 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 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.


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.


5.5.1 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.


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.


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.


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


5.7 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.


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


5.8 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 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.


6.2.2 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.


6.2.6 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


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



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


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


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


6.4.2 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


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


6.5 Summary Revenues

Freetown-Lungi

Average

Burkina Faso

Average

Average

USD revenue per passenger 36.87 33.52 35.20


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.


6.8.2 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


Cargo Ops

June 2011 110,000,000 305,000,000 2011 at 70% level


International Ops

December 2011 60,000,000 365,000,000 2012


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


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


6.10.1 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.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.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


PHASE 2


GB £ GB £ US$

1 BUILDINGS

Temporary Terminal Structure 700 m2 1,000 700,000 1,092,000


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


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


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



Total Phase 1 and 2 Cost 124,256,637 193,840,354

Say 125,000,000 195,000,000


PHASE 3


GB £ GB £ US$1 BUILDINGS

Temporary Terminal Structure 700 m2 1,000 700,000 1,092,000


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


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





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



Stream culverts/Stream Diversions item 200,000 312,000 Security Posts 600 m2 1,000 600,000 936,000


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


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



Total Phase 1 to 3 Cost 193,167,910 301,341,940

Say 195,000,000 305,000,000


PHASE 4


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


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




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



Stream culverts/Stream Diversions item 200,000 312,000

Security Posts 600 m2 1,000 600,000 936,000


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


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



Total Phase 1 to 4 Cost 234,086,881 365,175,534

Say 235,000,000 365,000,000

state work

Economy & Finance