| 26 Aug 2025
Potentials of GIS-based analyses of Ajaokuta -Kaduna-Kano gas pipeline in Nigeria
Abstract. Geographic and Information System (GIS) Potentials and emerging technologies in overcoming topographic challenges during construction of Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano (AKK) gas pipeline was reviewed. The increasing utilisation of natural gas in Nigeria require development of more gas pipeline systems to increased supply with the existing gas pipeline infrastructures. Hence, in selecting a route for AKK gas pipeline construction project. This paper report on the effects of topography and probable challenges that may arise as a result of Ajaokuta Kaduna –Kano gas pipeline construction activities and solutions so as to reduce the overall rate of adverse natural gas pipeline incidents and effects on environment. The proposed Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano (AKK) gas pipeline is a 614 km-long being developed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) from Ajaokuta to Kano in Nigeria. Gas pipeline routes are defined by the pipeline size(s), terrain, soil erosion, and engineering analysis requirements. Major challenges and impacts of the AKK gas pipeline includes vegetation clearing; hills and contours; loss of biodiversity; loss of farmlands, crops, migration of wildlife, soil erosion, excavation damage and corrosion. GIS Potentials and emerging technologies could address AKK gas pipeline challenges and impact through detection as a higher priority than prevention. These can be addressed through improved technologies by focusing on carrying out topographical study of the area, detection as a higher priority than prevention. Proper selection of gas pipeline routes through GIS could generally reduce potential environmental impacts associated with pipeline construction and typically minimize negative effects on conserving sensitive environments and resources.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in the review of the manuscript, egusphere-2025-590, titled “Potentials of GIS-based analyses of Ajaokuta–Kaduna–Kano gas pipeline in Nigeria.” I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the interactive discussion.
I have completed my assessment of the preprint. While the topic of gas pipeline analysis is relevant, I have significant concerns regarding the manuscript's structure, methodology, and scientific depth. My overall assessment is that the paper in its current form reads more as a general project guideline or report than a scientific research article, as it lacks a clear methodological framework, empirically-derived results, and a focused research question.
Please find my detailed comments below, which I will also post on the interactive discussion platform as requested.
General Comments
The manuscript discusses the AKK gas pipeline, but falls short of the standards for a scientific research paper. The core issue is a disconnect between the title and the actual content; the use of GIS is minimal and not analytical, serving only to present a basic location map. The paper lacks a clear and reproducible methodology, and the results section does not present findings based on data analysis or experimentation, but rather offers general recommendations. A major restructuring and refocusing on a specific scientific analysis are required for it to be suitable for publication.
Specific Comments
Title & Focus: The title promises a focus on "GIS-based analyses," but the paper contains almost no spatial analysis. The GIS component is limited to a single figure (an elevation map), which does not constitute a "GIS-based analysis" of the pipeline's potentials. The title should be revised to accurately reflect the paper's content, which is primarily a descriptive overview of the pipeline route and associated engineering considerations.
Abstract: The abstract is too general and does not summarize the scientific methodology or specific findings of the work. It should be rewritten to clearly state: the research gap, the specific methods used, the key results obtained from the analysis, and the main conclusion.
Introduction and Literature Review: The introduction is excessively long and blends background information with a literature review. I recommend merging and streamlining these into a single, concise Introduction section. Much of the detailed description of the pipeline's location and specifications would be better placed in a dedicated "Study Area" subsection within the Methods section.
Methods Section: This is the section that requires the most significant revision. The current description does not outline a clear, scientific methodology. The authors should:
- Define a specific research question or hypothesis.
- Describe the data sources used (e.g., satellite imagery, soil data, population data) with precise details on resolution and origin.
- A step-by-step analytical framework or workflow. For example, "potentials," what is the GIS relevance and role? The methods must be described in sufficient detail to be replicable.
Results and Discussion: The current "Results" section contains generic guidelines for pipeline excavation and installation rather than presenting findings derived from the applied methods. The authors need to clearly separate results from discussion. The Results section should present the direct outputs of their analysis (e.g., maps, tables, statistical findings).