Post on 21-Sep-2020
transcript
GLOBAL EVALUATION OF OFFSHORE
WIND SHIPPING OPPORTUNITY
Presented to:
Danish Shipowners’ Association
and the Shipowners’ Association of 2010
Submitted by:
Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Woolgate Exchange, 5th Floor
25 Basinghall Street
London EC2V 5HA
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)207 469 1110
www.navigant.com
19 December 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 1
Notice and Disclaimer
This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the exclusive use of the Danish Shipowners’
Association and the Shipowners’ Association of 2010. The work presented in this report represents our
best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared.
Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any
decisions based on the report. NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all
liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data,
information, findings and opinions contained in the report.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 2
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Technical Units…………………………………………………………7
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 1. Introduction. ................................................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 2. Offshore Wind Markets and Forecasts ..................................................................................... 9 Chapter 3. Offshore Wind Vessels ............................................................................................................. 10 Chapter 4. Wind Industry Technology & Industry Trends .................................................................... 10 Chapter 5. Vessel Demand vs. Supply ...................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 6. Vessel Contracts Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12
Danish Shipping Industry Fact Sheet ................................................................................. 14
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 16
1.1 Report Structure ................................................................................................................................. 16 1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Supplementary Material ................................................................................................................... 18
2. Offshore Wind Market & Forecasts ............................................................................ 18
2.1 Installed Capacity by Country and Offshore Developer ............................................................. 18 2.1.1 Installed Capacity by Country........................................................................................... 18 2.1.2 Installed Capacity (Test Sites) By Country ...................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Installed Capacity by Turbine OEM ................................................................................. 20 2.1.4 Installed Capacity by Offshore Developer ....................................................................... 21
2.2 Historical Development – Technology and Size ........................................................................... 22 2.2.1 Historical Development by Turbine Technology ........................................................... 22 2.2.1 Historical Development by Plant Capacity ..................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Historical Development by Turbine Capacity................................................................. 23
2.3 Offshore Wind Forecast .................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.1 Introduction to Offshore Wind Market Forecast and Prediction to 2022 .................... 24 2.3.2 Methodology for Offshore Wind Market Forecast to 2017 ............................................ 25 2.3.3 Methodology for Market Prediction to 2022 ................................................................... 25 2.3.4 360° Market Analysis for Offshore Wind Power Development to 2022 ...................... 27 2.3.5 Global MW Demand 10-Year Forecast ............................................................................. 28 2.3.6 Forecast Sensitivities ........................................................................................................... 30
3. Offshore Wind Vessels .................................................................................................. 33
3.1 Segments in Ship-based Services for the Offshore Wind Industry ............................................. 33 3.1.1 Vessels Adopted in the Offshore Wind Project Life Cycle ............................................ 33 3.1.2 Definition of Vessel Types in the Offshore Wind Sector ............................................... 34
3.2 The Availability of Different Vessels Providing Service to Offshore Wind as of 2013 ............ 44 3.2.1 Overview of Geographic Distribution of Offshore Wind Vessels ................................ 44 3.2.2 Availability of different vessel types for offshore wind by region and country ........ 45
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 3
3.2.3 Availability of Key Offshore Wind Construction Vessels in Selected European
Countries .............................................................................................................................. 48
4. Wind Industry Technology & Industry Trends ........................................................ 51
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 51 4.1 Technology Focus & Market Trends – Historical Trends ............................................................ 51
4.1.1 Historical Trend - Rotor (diameter and weight) ............................................................. 51 4.1.2 Historical Trend - Tower (height and weight) ................................................................ 53 4.1.3 Historical Trend - Turbines MW size ............................................................................... 54 4.1.4 Historical Trend - Foundations (type and weight) ......................................................... 55 4.1.5 Distance From Shore ........................................................................................................... 58 4.1.6 O&M Developments ........................................................................................................... 59 4.1.7 Advances in Installation Techniques ................................................................................ 61
4.2 Summarized Technology & Market Trends – Scenarios .............................................................. 64 4.3 Implications of Technology Demands ............................................................................................ 66
5. Vessel Demand vs. Supply ........................................................................................... 68
5.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 68 5.1.1 MW Forecast ........................................................................................................................ 68 5.1.2 Technology Forecast ........................................................................................................... 68 5.1.3 Conversion Factors for Standard Vessel Types ............................................................... 69 5.1.4 Conversion Factors for New Vessel Types ...................................................................... 70 5.1.5 Vessel Demand Forecast..................................................................................................... 70 5.1.6 Vessel Supply ....................................................................................................................... 70
5.2 Supply vs. Demand Analysis ........................................................................................................... 70 5.2.1 Construction Vessels ........................................................................................................... 71 5.2.2 Survey Vessels ..................................................................................................................... 76 5.2.3 Service Vessels ..................................................................................................................... 79 5.2.4 O&M Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 82 5.2.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 84
6. Vessel Contracts Analysis ............................................................................................. 86
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 86 6.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 87 6.3 Contract Structures ............................................................................................................................ 87 6.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 107
7. Appendix A. Profiles of Leading Operators by Vessel Type ............................... 109
7.1 Profiles of leading Accommodation Vessel operators ................................................................ 109 7.2 Profiles of leading Cable Laying Vessel operators ...................................................................... 111 7.3 Profiles of leading construction support vessel operators ......................................................... 114 7.4 Profiles of leading safety support vessel operators .................................................................... 117 7.5 Profiles of leading Heavy-lift Vessel operators ........................................................................... 118 7.6 Profiles of leading Jack-up Vessel operators................................................................................ 121 7.7 Profiles of leading multi-purpose project vessel operators ....................................................... 124 7.8 Profiles of leading multi-purpose vessel operators .................................................................... 128 7.9 Profiles of Leading Service Crew Boat Operators ....................................................................... 130 7.10 Profiles of leading survey vessel operators.................................................................................. 135
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 4
7.11 Profiles of leading Tugboat operators .......................................................................................... 138
Appendix B. Vessel Demand by Country and Year……………..…140
Appendix C. Summary Results of Contracts Questionnaire………149
Appendix D. Summary Results of the Associations Survey………157
Appendix E. Offshore Wind Ports Review ....................................................................... 164
8.1 Overview of Ports for Offshore Wind .......................................................................................... 164 8.1.1 Global Distribution ........................................................................................................... 164 8.1.2 Port types and general requirements ............................................................................. 165
8.2 Port by type with track record ....................................................................................................... 165 8.2.1 Construction Phase Ports ................................................................................................. 165 8.2.2 Manufacturing ports ......................................................................................................... 167 8.2.3 Operation & Maintenance Ports ...................................................................................... 168 8.2.4 Storage and Logistics Ports .............................................................................................. 168 8.2.5 Potential Offshore Wind Ports......................................................................................... 169
8.3 Profiles of Major Installation Ports ................................................................................................ 170 8.3.1 Port of Esbjerg, Denmark ................................................................................................. 170 8.3.2 Port of Bremerhaven, Germany ...................................................................................... 173 8.3.3 Port of Belfast Harbour, U.K. ........................................................................................... 177
Figure 1. Danish Offshore Wind Vessels ............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2. Danish Offshore Wind Vessels by Vessel Type and Year of Construction..................................... 15 Figure 1-1. Report Structure .................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2-1. Market Share of Different Turbine Technologies............................................................................ 23 Figure 2-2. Historical Development by Plant Capacity ..................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-3. Average Turbine Size for Historic Global Offshore Wind Farms ................................................. 24 Figure 2-4. Global Offshore Wind Forecast by Country 2013-2022 .................................................................. 30 Figure 2-5. High and Low Global Offshore Wind Scenarios ............................................................................ 32 Figure 3-1. Segments in Ship-based Services for Offshore Wind ..................................................................... 33 Figure 3-2. Fugro Seacher Offshore Survey Vessel............................................................................................. 35 Figure 3-3. Pacific Orca Offshore Turbine Installation Vessel .......................................................................... 35 Figure 3-4. Wind Server O&M Vessel .................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 3-5. Oleg Stashnov Heavy Lift Vessel ...................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3-6. CLV SIA Cable Laying Vessel ........................................................................................................... 38 Figure 3-7. M/S Honte Diving Support Vessel .................................................................................................... 39 Figure 3-8. Aarsleff Bilfinger Berger JV 2 Cargo Barges .................................................................................... 39 Figure 3-9. Island Patriot Platform Supply Vessel .............................................................................................. 40 Figure 3-10. DJURS Wind Crew Boat .................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 3-11. Tuucher O. Wulf 3 Tugboat ............................................................................................................. 41 Figure 3-12. ESVAGT CORONA Emergency Response Rescue Vessel ........................................................... 41 Figure 3-13. ESVAGT OBSERVER Multi-purpose Project Vessel .................................................................... 42 Figure 3-14. Wind Solution Accommodation Vessel ......................................................................................... 43
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 5
Figure 3-15. PALESSA Multi-Purpose Cargo Vessel ......................................................................................... 43 Figure 3-16. Geographic Distribution of Vessels Capable of Providing Services to the Offshore Wind Sector
................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 3-17. Vessels in Operation With or Without Track Records in Offshore Wind ................................. 45 Figure 3-18. Availability of Different Vessel Types by Region (In-operation Only) ...................................... 46 Figure 3-19. Vessels by Region (Under construction or planned only) ........................................................... 47 Figure 4-1. Historical Development of Rotor Diameter (1991-2012) ................................................................ 52 Figure 5-1. Methodology for Vessel Supply vs. Demand Analysis .................................................................. 68 Figure 5-2. Next Generation Jack-up Vessel Supply and Demand .................................................................. 71 Figure 5-3. Heavy Lift Vessel Supply and Demand ........................................................................................... 73 Figure 5-4. Cable Lay Vessel Supply and Demand ............................................................................................ 74 Figure 5-5. Diving Support Vessel Supply and Demand .................................................................................. 74 Figure 5-6. MPPV Vessel Supply and Demand .................................................................................................. 75 Figure 5-7. Platform Supply Vessel Supply and Demand ................................................................................. 75 Figure 5-8. Cargo Barge Supply and Demand .................................................................................................... 76 Figure 5-9. ROV Support Vessel Supply and Demand ...................................................................................... 77 Figure 5-10. Geophysical Survey Vessel Supply and Demand ......................................................................... 78 Figure 5-11. Geotechnical Survey Vessel Supply and Demand ........................................................................ 78 Figure 5-12. Multi-Purpose Survey Vessel Supply and Demand ..................................................................... 79 Figure 5-13. Tugboat Supply and Demand ......................................................................................................... 80 Figure 5-14. Safety Vessel Supply and Demand ................................................................................................. 81 Figure 5-15. Accommodation Vessel Supply and Demand ............................................................................... 82 Figure 5-16. Service Crew Boat Supply and Demand ........................................................................................ 83 Figure 5-17. Tailor-made O&M Vessel Supply and Demand ........................................................................... 84 Figure 5-18. Service Operations Vessel Type 2 Supply and Demand .............................................................. 84 Figure 6-1. Pros and Cons of Each Contract Type and the Percentage of Participants Using One versus the
Other ......................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 6-2. Percentage of Survey Respondents Indicating Use of Particular Contract by Country………92
Figure 6-3. Typical Split of Responsibility Between Employer and Contractor Under Multi-Contracting.91
Figure 6-4. Offshore Wind Capital Costs Breakdown ........................................................................................ 93 Figure 6-5. Multi-Contracting Structure in which each Construction Package is Responsible for its Own
Logistics .................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Figure 6-6. EPC Structure Where Single Contractor Handles All Major Works. In this Case EPC Contract is
a Vessel Operator .................................................................................................................................................... 98 Figure 6-7. Comparative Analysis of EPC Versus Multi-Contracting ............................................................. 99 Figure 6-8. How Respondents Perceived the Importance of Risk Mitigation versus Cost Reduction ...... 101 Figure 6-9. Key Contractual Criteria and Their Relative Importance to Survey Participants .................... 102 Figure 6-10. Multi-Contracting Structure in which Installation has been Bundled/Packaged under each
Construction Contract, thus Illustrating “Mini-EPC” Effect ........................................................................... 104 Figure 6-11. Multi-Contracting Structure in which One Contractor Handles All WTG-Related Works while
an EPC Contractor Handles All Works Pertaining to the Balance of Plant .................................................. 105 Figure 8-1. G lobal Distribution of Offshore Wind Ports as of 2013………………………………………..164
Table 1. Danish Offshore Wind Companies (partial list) .................................................................................. 15 Table 1-1. Offshore Wind Databases Included With This Report .................................................................... 18 Table 2-1. Installed MW Capacity of Offshore Wind by Country, as of end of 2012 ..................................... 19 Table 2-2. Installed Capacity of Offshore Wind Test Turbines by Country .................................................... 20 Table 2-3. Installed Capacity of Offshore Wind by Turbine OEM, as of end of 2012 .................................... 21 Table 2-4. Top 10 Offshore Wind Operators (end of 2012), MW ...................................................................... 21
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 6
Table 2-5. Offshore Wind Market Analysis ......................................................................................................... 28 Table 2-6. Global Offshore Wind MW Forecast 2013-2022 ................................................................................ 29 Table 2-7. Global Offshore Wind Forecast Scenarios ......................................................................................... 31 Table 3-1. Offshore Wind Service vs. Vessel Types ............................................................................................ 34 Table 3-2. Availability of Different Vessel Type by Region as of 2013 (In-operation Only) ......................... 45 Table 3-3. Different vessels type by region as of 2013 (Under construction or planned) .............................. 46 Table 3-4. Availability of Jack-up Vessels by Category and Region (In-operation Only) ............................. 47 Table 3-5. Availability of Heavy-lift Vessels by Category and Region (In-operation Only) ........................ 48 Table 3-6. Availability of Cable Laying Vessels by Category and Region (In-operation Only) ................... 48 Table 3-7. Availability of Jack-up Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation Only)49 Table 3-8. Availability of Heavy-lift Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation Only)
................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 3-9. Availability of Cable Laying Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation
Only) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 5-1. Conversion Factors for New Vessel Types ........................................................................................ 70 Table 5-2. Supply vs. Demand Summary ............................................................................................................ 84 Table 8-1. Port types in the offshore wind sector ............................................................................................. 165 Table 8-2. Construction Phase Ports ................................................................................................................... 166 Table 8-3. Manufacturing Ports ........................................................................................................................... 167 Table 8-4. O&M Ports ........................................................................................................................................... 168 Table 8-5. Storage and Logistics Ports ................................................................................................................ 168 Table 8-6. Potential Offshore Wind Ports .......................................................................................................... 169
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 7
Abbreviations and Technical Units
Abbreviations
AC Alternating Current
AHTS Anchor Handling, Tug & Supply
BOP Balance of Plant
BIMCO Baltic and International Marine Council
BOP Balance of Plant
CAPEX Capital Expenditures
CCTV Closed-circuit Television
CTV Crew Transfer Vessel
DC Direct Current
DSA Danish Shipowners’ Association
DSV Diving Support Vessel
DP Dynamic Positioning
EBIT Earnings Before Interest & Tax
EPC Engineering, Procurement, & Construction (also known as turn-key)
ERRV Emergency Response & Rescue Vessel
FIDIC Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils
GBS Gravity Based Structure
GW Gigawatt
HLV Heavy-Lift Vessel
LD Liquidated Damages
LOGIC Leading Oil and Gas Industry Competitiveness
LO/LO Lift-on, Lift-off
MPPV Multi-purpose Project Vessel
MPV Multi-purpose Vessel
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt Hour
NEC New Engineering Contract
nm Nautical Mile
O&G Oil & Gas
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 8
O&M Operations & Maintenance
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OPEX Operating Expenditures
OSW Offshore Wind
PSV Platform Supply Vessel
R&D Research & Development
RO/RO Roll-on, Roll-off
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
ROW Rest of the World
SOV Service Operations Vessel
SSCV Semi-submersible Crane Vessel
TIV Turbine Installation Vessel
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
Technical Units
km = kilometer = 1,000 metres
kJ = kilo Joule = 1,000 Joule
kW = kilo Watt = 1,000 Watt
MW = Mega Watt = 1,000 kW
GW = Giga Watt = 1,000 MW
MVA = Megavolt-Amp
k = kilo = 1,000 = 103
M = Mega = 1,000,000 = 106
G = Giga = 1,000,000,000 = 109
T = Tera = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1012
kWh kilo Watt hour = 1,000 Wh = 3,600 kJ = 0.086 kg of oil
MWh Mega Watt hour = 1,000 kWh
GWh Giga Watt hour = 1,000,000 kWh = 1,000 MWh
TWh Tera Watt hour = 1,000,000 MWh = 1,000 GWh
Tonne = Metric ton = 1,000 kg
Ton = Imperial ton (aka long ton or weight ton) = 2,240 pounds = approximately 1,016 kg
U.S. ton (aka short ton) = 2,000 pounds = approximately 907.2 kg
% 100 x hours 8760 x (kW)capacity plate nameWTG
(kWh) ProductionEnergy Annual (CF)Factor Capacity
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 9
Executive Summary
Chapter 1. Introduction.
The Danish Shipowners’ Association and the Shipowners’ Association of 2010 (collectively, the
Associations) are seeking a unique insight which identifies and maps all players providing shipping
services to the global offshore wind industry. This strategic review maps all active and prospective ships in
the offshore wind industry; identifies and profiles all key players in the sector; provides detailed country-
level offshore wind 10-year forecasts for all existing and potential offshore wind markets; and delivers a
supply versus demand analysis across all major shipping activities which interact with the offshore wind
industry. It defines the best practices regarding contracting strategies and harbour requirements and
concludes with an identification of the market opportunities for Danish vessels and operators.
Each of the remaining chapters of the report contribute to answering the central question of how members
of the Associations can capitalise on the global offshore wind potential. Additional deliverables for this
project include two databases and five appendices, which are an integral part of the report.
High level findings and conclusions for each of the remaining chapters are summarised below.
Chapter 2. Offshore Wind Markets and Forecasts
A cumulative total of 5,111 MW of offshore wind installations was installed at the end of 2012. The U.K.
leads the market with almost 3 GW of capacity installed, followed by Denmark with more than 920 MW
and Belgium with almost 380 MW. Germany and China both started installing offshore turbines in 2009
and continue to expand their portfolios.
Siemens and Vestas remain the market leaders in offshore wind turbine generator (WTG)
manufacturing, with cumulative market shares of 55% and 27%, respectively, based on their total
installations by the end of 2012. There is no doubt, however, that companies like REpower, Areva Wind,
BARD, Sinovel and Goldwind will see more turbines installed in the coming years and that new entrants
from the Far East, notably Japan and South Korea, will soon enter the offshore market. DONG and
Vattenfall are the leading developers, which own and operate 17% and 15%, respectively, of cumulative
offshore wind capacity as of the end of 2012. Seven of the top 10 are leading European utilities, while
Chinese Longyuan Power Group represents the only Asian presence in the top 10 list.
Offshore wind turbine technology has been dominated by multi-MW designs. In 2012, the average size
of newly installed turbines increased to 4.03 MW as projects have increasingly deployed 5.0 MW and 6.0
MW turbines. Traditional drive train design, incorporating a fast speed asynchronous generator (induction
generator) and a three stage gearbox, still dominates the current offshore wind market, although direct
drive systems have been gaining an increasing share. A number of manufacturers have opted to find a
compromise between the traditional drive train using a three stage gearbox and direct drive systems that
totally dispense with a gearbox, settling instead on medium speed systems with fewer stages in the
gearbox. Reliability is the key to reducing lifecycle O&M costs, minimising investment risk and improving
financial viability.
Annual global offshore wind installations will surpass the milestone of 10 GW by 2018. In the medium
term to 2022, offshore wind power will account for 9.3% of global wind power installation. The average
annual growth rate for new installations in the next ten years is expected to be 15.4%. The near term (2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 10
to 2017) forecast is based upon project-specific data and only includes projects that have a high likelihood
of being installed. The long term (2018 to 2022) forecast has higher uncertainty and is derived from
information such as: U.K. Round 3 offshore wind farm licensing, projects in detailed planning stages, and
projects proposed by governments with realisation within the prediction time period.
By the end of 2022, Europe will account for 60% of total global offshore wind installation and will
maintain its position as global market leader. The U.K. and Germany will account for 44% and 24%,
respectively, of total offshore wind installation in Europe by 2022. In China, installation of 20.7 GW is
expected by 2022, representing 25% of total global offshore wind power generating capacity at that time
and making it the largest offshore wind market in the world after the U.K. A total of 5.5 GW is expected to
be installed on the North American continent by 2022.
Chapter 3. Offshore Wind Vessels
At least 18 different types of vessels are needed during the offshore wind project life cycle. The
following vessel types are considered:
» 8 types of construction vessels (Jack-up, Heavy Lift, Intra-Array Cable Laying, Export Cable
Laying, Diving Support, Multi-Purpose and Project, Cargo Barge, and Platform Supply);
» 4 types of survey vessels (ROV Support, Geophysical Survey, Geotechnical Survey, and Multi-
purpose Survey);
» 4 types of service vessels (Tugboat, Safety/Standby ERRV, Accommodation, and Service
Operations Vessel), and
» 2 types of O&M vessels (Service Crew Boat, Tailor-made O&M Jack-up Vessel).
Navigant’s offshore wind vessel database indicates that 865 vessels can provide offshore wind services.
Of this total approximately 798 vessels are in operation and nearly 70 vessels are currently under
construction, or in the pipeline. 53% of vessels currently in operation have direct experience in the offshore
wind sector. The top three vessel types in the manufacturing pipeline are Service Crew Boats, Jack-up
Vessels, and Multi-purpose Project Vessels (MPPVs).
The U.K., Denmark, and the Netherlands are the leading owners and operators of offshore wind vessels
currently in operation. 245 vessels are operated by British companies, 132 by Danish companies, and 126
by Dutch companies.
Chapter 4. Wind Industry Technology & Industry Trends
The physical characteristics (e.g. length, height, weight) of key components have steadily increased over
the past two decades. WTG rotor diameters have increased from approximately 40-60m in the 1990s to 60-
110m in the 2000s to 110-140m since 2010. WTG tower height has steadily increased from approximately
40-45m in the early 1990s to 60-65m in the 2000s to 80-90m in the last few years. Tower weights ranged
between 25-75T in the 1990s, 100-160T in the 2000s, and 210-450T over the last few years. Over the past two
decades, offshore WTG unit generation capacity has increased from the first 450 kW Bonus machine in
1991 to the 6.15 MW size range today.
The combination of diverse seabed conditions, deeper water, and larger turbines will likely push the
industry away from monopile foundations to alternatives. Alternatives to the monopile include jackets,
tripods, GBS, and suction caissons. Space frame designs (e.g., jackets and tripods) are typically preferred
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 11
for deepwater sites. GBS or suction caissons may be viable in the shallower more protected locations,
particularly those where seabed geology, rocks, or boulders make it challenging to drive pilings.
European developers are increasingly building offshore wind plants further from the coast and in
deeper waters. The plants are located further from shore to capture higher wind speeds and thus higher
capacity factors. For far offshore facilities beyond 30 nm from a potential servicing port, servicing could
resemble an offshore drilling rig, or even a ship with hoteling facilities such as a modified cruise ship.
Increased turbine size, plant size, and distance from shore all have direct consequences on O&M
practices, which will in turn affect vessel requirements and strategy. Larger plants will justify service
and crew transfer vessels, while smaller plants will opt for sharing of vessels. The size of turbines will also
have an impact on the choice of Service Crew Boat size. Larger plants farther from shore can justify
purpose built equipment. Other O&M trends have implications on vessel strategy, such as the increased
use of proactive maintenance methods resulting in an increased need for coordinated and flexible
scheduling.
Navigant has developed five scenarios to characterise the technology trends in offshore wind that could
impact the demand for vessels. Three scenarios rely on traditional foundation types (i.e. monopoles,
gravity-based, jackets, etc.) while two other scenarios entail the use of floating foundations. Currently
essentially all offshore plants are consistent with the scenario known as Today’s Standard Technology.
Under a medium-to-high-growth scenario, Next-Generation Technology would take hold in 2015 and
continue through 2020. With continued medium-to-high-growth, a third scenario, Future Advanced
Technology, would take hold in 2021 and last through 2030.
Chapter 5. Vessel Demand vs. Supply
Navigant produced a forecast of the 2013-2022 demand for each vessel type and compared it to the
current supply. The forecast methodology includes the use of an Offshore Wind Vessel Requirements
model to determine vessels per MW conversion factors for various standard vessel types. For vessel types
that are not covered by the model, Navigant used alternative methodologies and assumptions to determine
the conversion factors. The vessel demand forecast was produced by multiplying the conversion factors by
the MW forecast that was developed in Section 2.3. The current supply for each vessel type was
determined from analysis of Navigant’s Offshore Wind Vessel Database as described in Section 3.2.
For most vessel types, the forecasted demand is expected to overtake current supply within a few years .
The following vessels types are expected to have shortages within the forecast period:
» Next Generation Jack-up Vessels
» MPPVs
» Platform Supply Vessels
» Cargo Barges
» Geotechnical Survey Vessels
» Standby ERRVs
» SOV Type 2 Vessels
» Service Crew Boat s
» ROV Support Vessels » Tailor-made O&M Vessels
For some vessel types, supply is expected to exceed demand or will be approximately in balance. The
following vessels are not expected to have significant shortages within the forecast period:
» Today’s Technology Jack-up Vessels » Geophysical Survey Vessels
» HLVs » Multi-Purpose Survey Vessels
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 12
» Cable Lay Vessels
» Diving Support Vessels
» Tugboats
» Accommodation Vessels
Chapter 6. Vessel Contracts Analysis
Navigant conducted a survey of offshore wind industry participants to identify and analyse the prevailing
contractual structures that are employed in regards to offshore vessels. The issues that are addressed
include the following:
» How different stakeholders, including utilities and banks, view offshore vessel contracts and their
particular provisions;
» Whether Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) or multi-contracting is the way
forward;
» Whether cost reduction or risk mitigation is of greater importance; and
» What types of contracting standards (e.g. FIDIC, BIMCO) are being used, for what purposes, and
in which countries.
There are a number of key contractual considerations that should be taken into account when negotiating
vessel contracts. First it is essential to ensure that there is sufficient planning and that the timing between
various milestones will be sufficient to account for unforeseen risks. Vessel availability is also essential. If
a vessel is unable to execute the works, then vessel operators need to allocate alternative time slots and
vessels.
Furthermore, contracts need to give due consideration towards the management of interfaces. One way of
managing interfaces is by keeping the number of contracts to a minimum (2-6 in total) and where
installation works are bundled under each main construction contract.
The overall liability structure is based on the “knock-for-knock” principle in that each party shall hold the
other harmless and attempt to handle potential claims via insurance. Insurance coverage should be
comprehensive and involves effecting the following forms of coverage: third party liability, hull and
machinery, protection and indemnity, as well as workmen’s compensation. Where occurrences are not
insurable, liabilities are enforced via liquidated damages (LDs), which are typically capped at 15-25% of
contract price.
The industry consensus is that multi-contracting is the preferable option over EPC contracting, because
there are few experienced (and financially robust) contractors willing to carry out EPC on a
bankable/viable basis. The price difference between an EPC versus multi-contracting setup is roughly 10-
25%. At the same time, multi-contracting places interface risk squarely on the employer and considerable
resources have to be dedicated towards managing these interfaces.
58% of respondents indicated that risk mitigation was more important than cost reduction, whereas 42%
said that both were equally important. However, none of the respondents indicated that cost reduction by
itself was more important. This is attributed to the fact that the industry remains risk averse and that cost
reduction upfront could potentially mean greater risks and thereby additional costs over the long-term.
Virtually all respondents indicated that they used FIDIC and many of them made direct reference to the
Yellow Book. At the same time, FIDIC is primarily an onshore civil engineering contract and is not
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 13
particularly suited to offshore wind farm installation work. This is perhaps why respondents also
indicated that they relied heavily on LOGIC and BIMCO Supplytime as well. Both of these contracts are
primarily marine contracts with a long track record of use in the oil & gas business. The general formula
seems to be that FIDIC Yellow Book is used as the base template and that marine-related elements from
LOGIC/BIMCO are then fed into this base contract.
Lastly, there is a strong need to implement some form of standard structure within the offshore industry.
Although BIMCO Windtime is a first step in this direction, it nevertheless does not cover some of the major
works that are occurring offshore. The Windtime contract does not apply to all aspects of offshore wind,
which is natural since it is a very diverse segment. As such, future research should be dedicated towards
identifying ways in which offshore vessel contracting can be standardised by merging various elements
together from across FIDIC (Yellow/Silver), LOGIC, and BIMCO Windtime.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 14
Danish Shipping Industry Fact Sheet
» There are more than 1,000 seafarers in Denmark employed due to offshore wind.
» There are currently 132 Danish operated vessels active in the offshore wind industry. The fleet
consists of at least 12 different vessel types which are used in all phases of an offshore wind
project. There are also 8 Danish operated vessels currently in construction.
Figure 1. Danish Offshore Wind Vessels
» The Danish fleet is second only to the U.K. in the total number of vessels active in offshore wind.
» Danish vessels have been active in offshore wind since the birth of the industry over 50 years ago.
The fleet has grown steadily over the years, particularly in Service Crew Boats and Jack-up Vessels
in the past few years.
Category Vessel Type # of Vessels
Jack-up Vessels 7
Heavy Lift Vessels 1
Cable Laying Vessels 11
Cargo Barge 1
Platform Support Vessels 8
Multi-Purpose Project Vessels 17
Diving Support Vessels 2
Survey Vessels Multi-Purpose Survey Vessels 3
Tugboats 5
Emergency Response (ERRV) 28
O&M Vessels Service Crew Boats 30
Inbound Vessels Multi-Purpose Vessels 19
Total 132
Service Vessels
Construction Vessels
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 15
Figure 2. Danish Offshore Wind Vessels by Vessel Type and Year of Construction
» There are at least 23 Danish companies active in offshore wind.
Table 0-1. Danish Offshore Wind Companies (partial list)
Company Core business Website
A2Sea A/S Installation of Offshore WTGs www.a2sea.com
Blue Star Line A/S Seabed survey, guard vessels, cable
undergrounding
www.bluestarline.com
Blue Water Shipping A/S Transport of WTG components and
operation of floating hotels
www.bws.dk
Clipper Group Ro/Ro transport of WTG components www.clipper-group.com
CT Offshore Cable installation and maintenance www.ctoffshore.dk
DBB Service and maintenance of WTGs www.dbbjackup.dk
DONG Energy Offshore wind farm operator www.dongenergy.com
DFDS Transport Transport of WTG components www.dfdstransport.com
Esvagt A/S ERRVs www.esvagt.com
Fred. Olsen Installation and Operation and
Maintenance
www.windcarrier.com
Hanstholm Bugserservice Tugboats for the offshore industry www.tugdk.com
Hyperbaric Consult Subsea operations, seabed
investigation for wind, oil & gas
www.hbc-tec.dk
J. A. Rederiet Heavy lift, support, tugboats www.jashipping.com
J. Poulsen Shipping Special transport www.jpsh ip.dk
J. D. Contractor Cable installation and maintenance www.jydskdyk.dk
KEM Offshore Administration of labour and
equipment
www.kem-offshore.dk
Nordane Shipping Cable layout, crew boats and tugboats www.nordane.dk
Northen Offshore Services Transport, subsea services and crew
transport
www.n-o-s.se
NT Offshore Crew management and guard boats
etc.
www.nt-offshore.dk
Offshore Marine Services Chartering etc. www.oms-offshore.dk
Peter Madsen Rederi A/S Seabed preparation, Cable installation
and Diving Support
www.peter-madsen.dk
Seatruck Ro/Ro transport of WTG components www.seatruckferries.com
Svendborg Bugser Tugboats www.svendborgbugser.dk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 16
Swire Blue Ocean Installation of offshore WTGS www.swireblueocean.com
World Marine Offshore Guardships, subsea mv. www.wm-offshore.com
1. Introduction
The Danish Shipowners’ Association and the Shipowners’ Association of 2010 (collectively, the
Associations) are seeking a unique insight which identifies and maps all players providing shipping
services to the global offshore wind industry. This strategic review maps all active and prospective ships in
the offshore wind industry; identifies and profiles all key players in the sector; provides detailed country-
level offshore wind 10-year forecasts for all existing and potential offshore wind markets; and delivers a
supply versus demand analysis across all major shipping activities which interact with the offshore wind
industry. It defines the best practices regarding contracting strategies and harbour requirements and
concludes with an identification of the market opportunities for Danish vessels and operators.
1.1 Report Structure
Figure 1-1 is a diagram that shows how the various chapters of the report contribute to answering the
central question of how members of the Associations can capitalise on the global offshore wind potential.
Figure 1-1. Report Structure
1.2 Methodology
The purpose, methodology, and data sources for each chapter are described below.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 17
Chapter 2 (Offshore Wind Markets and Forecasts) provides an overview of historical development in
terms of megawatt (MW) capacity installed; geographic distribution; major actors in wind turbine supply;
operators/owners of offshore wind farms; and provides a special focus on the track record of Danish
players in the industry. A market forecast for offshore wind development is provided for 2013-2022,
including a detailed view on project capacity for all countries with an identified offshore wind potential.
This research is founded on Navigant/BTM’s recent Offshore Report 20131 as well as work recently
completed for a number of our existing clients. It leverages our proprietary projects pipeline database
which identifies all historic, under construction, and pipeline (under development) projects and key
features (e.g. turbines, project size, location, owner structure, developers, etc.). This work was updated
throughout the course of this study to reflect the very latest data and market trends.
Chapter 3 (Offshore Wind Vessels) provides a complete overview of the types of vessels used in today’s
offshore wind market, along with future expected requirements covering all supply chain requirements
from site scoping & evaluation, through to installation, operation and maintenance and decommissioning.
All vessel categories in the market today are identified and scoped to identify their key features, e.g.
country flag, size (dimensioning), carrying capacity, crane capacity, special requirements depending on
tasks: Jack-up devices/depth capabilities, Dynamic Positioning systems, deck-space for types of cable
laying (intra-array vs. export cabling): and O&M boats for catering daily service of material and service
crew. The chapter includes a vessel map matrix which indicates the suitability of the relevant vessels for
certain services in the offshore wind industry. This chapter also identifies which vessel types can undergo
adaptation/modification to play a role in more than one segment. This is an increasing trend that vessels
are re-mapped/re-designed and ultimately modified to deliver new services and cater to the fast evolving
offshore wind industry.
This chapter draws upon Navigant/BTM’s Offshore Report 2013, recent and ongoing consulting tasks in
the offshore space, Navigant/BTM’s proprietary offshore wind databases, and supplementary new
research to ensure that all key information is collected.
Chapter 4 (Wind Industry Technology & Industry Trends) provides a technology trend analysis for both
the near-term and medium-to-long-term. This analysis utilises the forecasts presented in Chapter 2 and
puts them into context for the next generation of wind turbines. This is a particularly critical task due to
the lead time in developing and adapting new and existing fleets to service the offshore wind industry.
This chapter makes use of Navigant/BTM’s internal database which maps turbine development and helps
to draw out technology positions for expected dimensions/scaling/weights/form of turbines and their
constituent components. The chapter includes trends and expected changes in O&M and the installation
process which have a significant impact on ship utilisation and effectiveness.
Chapter 5 (Vessel Demand vs. Supply) provides a complete demand forecast for all individual vessel
services in the offshore installation and decommissioning phases on a per country basis to identify where
the key opportunities reside. It then compares the demand forecasts with the current and near-term
forecasted supply of each vessel type.
Navigant developed a Vessel Demand Model to determine vessel per MW conversion factors for each
vessel type. The primary inputs to the model are the technology mix from Chapter 4 and the MW forecast
1 Offshore Report 2013, BTM Consult – A Part of Navigant, November 2012
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 18
from Chapter 2. The resulting vessel demand forecast is then compared to the vessel supply that is
determined in Chapter 3.
Chapter 6 (Vessel Contracts Analysis) provides an in-depth analysis of the contracting structures in the
supply chain for different offshore wind vessels. It provides both a diagrammatic and descriptive review
of the key contracting structures in place and identifies any evolutions in the contracting structures
expected in the future.
This chapter relies on data collected in an offshore wind vessel contracting survey. The survey questions
are shown in Appendix D and were answered by 13 companies. The chapter also draws upon the extensive
internal knowledge collected in the specialist wind team, selected interviews with key industry
participants, BTM/Navigant’s recent Offshore Report 2013, and Navigant/BTM’s proprietary Offshore Wind
Projects Database.
1.3 Supplementary Material
Additional deliverables for this project include two databases and five appendices which are listed in Table
1-1. These databases and appendices are an integral part of the report and are described in more detail in
the referenced chapters.
Table 1-1. Offshore Wind Databases Included With This Report
Reference
Chapter Description Features
3 Offshore Wind Vessels 865 vessels x 26 data fields
Appendix E Offshore Wind Ports Database
78 ports x 15 data fields. Key data fields
include size, facilities, cranes availability/
capacities, depth, entrance width, tidal
constraints, vessel acceptance, and links
to supporting infrastructure
3 Appendix A. Profiles of Leading
Operators by Vessel Type
Profiles of two leading operators from
each of 11 vessel types
5 Appendix B. Vessel Demand by
Country and Year
10-year vessel demand forecast for 16
countries and 16 vessel types
6 Appendix C. Summary Results of
Contracts Review Questionnaire
Summary of responses of 13 companies to
14 questions
8 Appendix D. Summary Results of
Associations Survey
Summary of responses of 8 companies to
10 questions
2 Appendix E. Offshore Wind Ports
Review
Detailed profiles of 3 major offshore wind
harbours
2. Offshore Wind Market & Forecasts
2.1 Installed Capacity by Country and Offshore Developer
2.1.1 Installed Capacity by Country
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 19
Table 2-1 shows the status of offshore installations at the end of 2012, listed by country. The figures
indicate how much capacity was installed by the end of each year, without taking into account whether the
turbines had been connected to the power grid. Although Denmark was the birthplace of offshore wind,
the U.K. has taken a leadership role both in the number and size of wind farms since 2009. The U.K. leads
the market with almost 3 GW of capacity installed, followed by Denmark with more than 920 MW and the
Belgium with almost 380 MW. Germany and China both started installing offshore turbines from 2009 and
continue to expand their portfolios. It is necessary to mention that all the offshore wind projects currently
installed in China are near shore or intertidal projects.
Table 2-1. Installed MW Capacity of Offshore Wind by Country, as of end of 2012
Accu. 2007
Installed 2008
Installed 2009
Installed 2010
Installed 2011
Installed 2012
Accu. 2012
Belgium 0 30 165 185 380
China 0 63 39 108 110 320
Denmark 398 228 207 833
Germany 0 60 108 30 80 278
Ireland 25 25
Netherlands 127 120 247
Norway 0 2 2
Portugal 0 2 2
Sweden 133 30 163
UK 730 194 262 925 750 2,861
Total World 1,413 344 645 1,444 140 1,125 5,111
Source: BTM Consult – A Part of Navigant, March 2013
2.1.2 Installed Capacity (Test Sites) By Country
Although a total figure of 5,111 MW for offshore installations is given in Table 2-1, it should be noted that,
unlike in other assessments, smaller projects with a few turbines are excluded. Such projects are
considered not to be commercial developments since they are mostly designed for R&D and testing
purposes. In addition, these turbines are mainly situated in near shore sites, so they do not face the typical
offshore challenges in their daily O&M activity. These test turbines and similar installations are listed
separately in Table 2-2. The geographic distribution of these projects is very wide.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 20
Table 2-2. Installed Capacity of Offshore Wind Test Turbines by Country
2.1.3 Installed Capacity by Turbine OEM
Table 2-3 shows the ranking of turbine suppliers based on their total installations by the end of 2012. With
many years’ experience, Siemens and Vestas remain the market leaders, supplying turbines to most of the
newest developments. There is no doubt, however, that companies like REpower, Areva Wind, BARD,
Sinovel and Goldwind will see more turbines installed in the coming years and that new entrants from the
Far East, notably Japan and South Korea, will soon enter the offshore market.
Project Country Units WTG Size Manufacturer MW Construction
Roenland (Siemens) DK 4 2.3 MW Siemens 9.2 2002
Fredrikshavn I DK 1 2.5 MW Nordex 2.5 2003
Fredrikshavn II DK 2 3 MW Vestas 6 2003
Fredrikshavn III DK 1 2.3 MW Siemens 2.3 2003
Setana I JP 2 0.66 MW Vestas 1.32 2003
Sakata JP 5 2 MW Vestas 10 2004
Roenland (Vestas) DK 4 2 MW Vestas 8 2005
Breitling (Rostock) DE 1 2.5 MW Nordex 2.5 2006
Kemi Ajos I FIN 5 3 MW WinWinD 15 2007
Beatrice I UK 2 5 MW Repower 10 2007
Bohai test project CN 1 1.5 MW Goldwind 1.5 2007
Hooksiel DE 1 5 MW Bard 5 2008
Kemi Ajos II FIN 5 3 MW WinWinD 15 2008
Avedøre DK 2 3.6 MW Siemens 7.2 2009
Pori Offshore Pilot FIN 1 2.3 MW Siemens 2.3 2010
Kamisu JP 7 2 MW Hitachi 14 2010
Jiangsu Rudong Intertidal trial project CN 16 1.5-3.0MW Nine Chinese OEMs 32 2010
Jiangsu Xiangshui Intertidal trial project CN 3 2.0/2.5MW Sewind/Goldwind 6.5 2010
Avedøre 2 DK 1 3.6 MW Siemens 3.6 2011
Demonstration offshore project of Jeju Island KR 1 2.0MW STX 2 2011
Jiangsu Xiangshui Intertidal trial project CN 1 3.0MW Goldwind 3 2012
Choshi Offshore Demonstration JP 1 2.4MW Mitsubishi 2.4 2012
Offshore of Kabashima JP 1 0.1MW Hitachi 0.1 2012
Demonstration offshore project of Jeju Island KR 1 3MW Doosan 3 2012
Total 164.42
Source: BTM Consult - A part of Navigant - March 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 21
Table 2-3. Installed Capacity of Offshore Wind by Turbine OEM, as of end of 2012
2.1.4 Installed Capacity by Offshore Developer
Table 2-4 shows that the top ten offshore wind operators account for 74% of the global offshore wind
market. Of these, the top-five are leading European utilities, while Chinese Longyuan Power Group
represents the only Asian presence in the market. The reduced share of the offshore market held by the top
ten operators, down from 85% two years ago, indicates increasing market diversification as more utilities,
independent power producers (IPPs) and most recently pension funds and industrial conglomerates enter
the sector.
Table 2-4. Top 10 Offshore Wind Operators (end of 2012), MW
Turibine OEMs Total installatrion by supplier (MW) Market share %
2,789 54.50%
1,397 27.29%
395 7.71%
170 3.32%
158 3.09%
100 1.95%
36 0.70%
30 0.59%
30 0.59%
10 0.20%
Source: BTM Consult - A part of Navigant - March 2013
Operater Country
Capacity in operation
(MW)
Market share
%
Denmark 889.0 17.38%
Sweden 783.0 15.30%
Germany 525.0 10.26%
Germany 459.0 8.97%
UK 344.0 6.72%
China 209.0 4.08%
Norway 158.0 3.08%
Norway 158.0 3.08%
UK 142.0 2.77%
Netherlands 120.0 2.35%
Others 1,329.0 26.01%
Total 5,116.00 100.00%
Source: BTM Consult - A part of Navigant - March 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 22
2.2 Historical Development – Technology and Size
2.2.1 Historical Development by Turbine Technology
Currently, conventional gear drive, medium speed and direct drive are three major drive train concepts
adopted by the wind industry. Conventional drive train design, incorporating of fast speed asynchronous
generator (induction generator) and a three stage gearbox, still dominates the current offshore wind
market. Figure 1-1 shows that by end of 2012, 97% of wind turbine installed at commercial offshore wind
farms were of traditional design. Turbine vendors still using the traditional design for their next generation
offshore wind turbine include REpower, BARD, Sinovel and CSIC Haizhuang.
While the market is dominated by traditional drive trains with gearboxes, direct drive systems have been
gaining an increasing share of the wind market. Direct drive turbine accounts 2% of global offshore wind
installation by the end of 2012, but its market share is expected to grow since Siemens, Alstom and
Goldwind’s next generation 6 MW offshore wind turbine has chosen the direct drive solution.
The interest in direct drive arises from a desire to improve turbine reliability, a critical parameter in the
offshore industry. However, price volatility of rare earth metals, which are used in the permanent magnet
generators (PMG) most often used in direct drive configurations, is causing the wind industry to question
if direct drive is the optimal path to achieving a more reliable turbine with a lower cost of energy.
Ultimately, a number of manufacturers have opted to find a compromise between the traditional drive
train using a three stage gearbox and direct drive systems that totally dispense with a gearbox, settling
instead on medium speed systems with fewer stages in the gearbox. A lower number of rotations, which
for medium speed designs can range between 100-500 rpm, is seen as fundamental to achieving increased
reliability. Furthermore, using medium speed systems enables a reduced top-head mass compared with a
direct drive system; the reduced mass makes logistics simpler while curbing tower and foundation costs.
In fact, medium speed permanent magnet generators yield the highest level of drive train efficiency of any
commercial wind design, with high efficiency seen even in the lower spectrum of wind speeds. Companies
pursuing this concept for their next generation Multi-MW offshore wind turbine include Areva, Vestas,
Gamesa, Samsung and Mingyang. By the end of 2012, only 1% of total offshore wind installation adopted
medium speed drive solution, but its market share is also expected to grow.
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – March 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 23
Figure 2-1. Market Share of Different Turbine Technologies
2.2.1 Historical Development by Plant Capacity
Over the past two decades, offshore wind farms have become larger in size and capacity. In the early
1990s, most plants were built for demonstration purposes. As developers become more confident in
offshore wind technologies and demand increases, it is likely that plant sizes will continue to grow. These
larger plants coincide with projects moving further from shore into deeper waters and using larger turbine
designs to take advantage of stronger offshore winds. Figure 2-2 illustrates the increasing trend in plant
sizes over time, with light brown bubbles showing the anticipated plant size for projects currently under
construction according to their planned completion dates.
Wind plant size and location will drive key strategic elements such as staffing, the design and ownership
of vessels, and shared facilities. Wind plant farther from shore will require technician crews to reside at
accommodation vessel or facilities at sea. Larger plant will justify running their own service and crew
transfer vessels, while smaller plant will opt to share vessels as well as O&M and spare parts storage
facilities. Each plant will have a breakeven calculation for buying versus leasing versus sharing each type
of equipment required.
Note: Plant capacities are shown for the year each project reached completion.
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – March 2013
Figure 2-2. Historical Development by Plant Capacity
2.2.2 Historical Development by Turbine Capacity
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 24
In terms of offshore wind turbine technology, the market has been dominated by multi-MW designs. The
average capacity-weighted nameplate capacity of offshore wind turbines installed between 2007 and 2011
is below 3.6 MW. In 2011, however, the average size of newly installed turbines increased to 3.95 MW as
projects have increasingly deployed 3.6 MW and 5 MW turbines. As shown in Figure 2-3, the average size
has just passed the milestone of 4.0 MW in 2012 and this trend toward larger turbines will likely continue.
Note: Average turbine size is based on an annual capacity-weighted figure.
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – March 2013
Figure 2-3. Average Turbine Size for Historic Global Offshore Wind Farms
2.3 Offshore Wind Forecast
2.3.1 Introduction to Offshore Wind Market Forecast and Prediction to 2022
This section presents a forecast for the global wind energy market over the next five years (2013-2017),
broken down by countries and regions, plus an additional prediction for the following five years (2018-
2022). Traditionally, the BTM five year prediction period does not include specific data for individual
countries because of the uncertainties associated with a forward projection over a long period, however,
BTM has developed a best estimate broken down by country and region for this study. Estimates of the
outcome beyond 2017 are based on an interpretation of the geopolitical picture in relation to climate
change and energy security issues, especially the repercussions from the Japanese Fukushima disaster. The
anticipated introduction of consistent policies on energy and the environment, both within the European
Union and globally, will be decisive for the future development of offshore wind power and other clean
energy sources. Furthermore, consideration of availability of critical items in the offshore wind supply
chain factor into the forecast and prediction analysis.
It is important to distinguish between the forecast period (2013 to 2017) and prediction period (2018 to
2022). Both provide an outlook for future offshore wind market development, but the near-term nature of
the forecast makes it more robust than the longer-term prediction beyond 2017. Most of the projects
included in the forecast period are already in progress and in many cases the wind turbines have been
ordered and the commission date set. In the prediction period, the size of project pipelines identified in key
markets is significant, but these projects are at an early stage of development, making them highly
sensitive to macro-economic changes, the extent to which politicians are willing to take action on avoiding
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 25
or at least slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, and the ability of next generation offshore wind
technology to compete on price with other options.
In addition, it needs to be noted that the forecast and projection included in this report do not include
activities like decommissioning and repowering. The world’s first commercial offshore wind project
greater than 100 MW was installed in 2002. Less than 100 MW of offshore wind turbines were installed
before that year. Assuming a 25-year life span for the offshore wind project, consideration of
decommissioning and repowering will become more significant for the years after 2027.
2.3.2 Methodology for Offshore Wind Market Forecast to 2017
The methodology applied to forecasting the size of the market in terms of megawatts installed over the
next five years is not the same as that used for the market prediction post 2017. In the five year forecast, all
projects in development are taken into consideration, but with a main focus on projects that have reached
consent application, achieved consent or are in construction, as highlighted below:
Project progress data from five leading European offshore wind markets indicates that the average time
taken for a project to progress from initial planning to the start of operation is six years. In the world’s
largest offshore wind market, the U.K., it takes two years to prepare a licensed project for consent
application; achieving consent takes a further year; and it takes another two years for a 150-200 MW wind
farm to be built and fully connected to the power grid, a process that takes four years for a 500 MW project
(assuming 3.0-3.6 MW turbine is selected). In China, experience gained from the first two commercial
offshore wind farms indicates that it takes between two and two-and-a-half years to bring an offshore
wind farm into full operation from the start of the consent process.
Crucial to the time it takes to build an offshore wind farm are the total number of turbines to be installed
and the size of the “weather window” during the construction period. A commercial offshore wind project
of 100 turbines can generally be installed in one season, given fair weather. Consequently, a 200-300 MW
project typically take two years to reach commissioning from start of construction (assuming 3.0-3.6 MW
turbine is selected). In the first year, cabling and foundations are normally put in place and in the
following year's construction season the wind turbines are all installed, provided they number fewer than
100.
For the first two to three years of the forecast period (2013-2017), the forecasted megawatt capacities for
each country in general reflect the volume of megawatt currently under construction. The rest of the
forecast period includes recently consented projects, or projects for which consent applications have been
submitted.
2.3.3 Methodology for Market Prediction to 2022
Compared with the five year forecast, the five year prediction of the size of the market in terms of
megawatt installed beyond 2017 introduces a greater element of uncertainty. The methodology applied to
forecasting the size of the market in terms of megawatt installed over the second set of five years is
different from that used for the 2013-2017 market forecast. Essentially, it is a combination of the bottom-up
analysis, as deployed in the forecast period, and a top-down approach.
Start of planning
Consent Under
Construction
Consent Application
Operation Pre-
consent
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 26
The bottom-up analysis includes projects as announced by developers/governments that are in the early
planning, pre-consent, consent application, and consent phases, as highlighted below:
Projects included in the prediction period (2018-2022) are those at the early stage of development, as
illustrated above. As examples, these include most of the projects from the U.K.'s Round 3 of offshore wind
farm licensing that are expected to materialise during the prediction period, projects in detailed planning,
projects proposed by South Korean and Japanese government authorities for realisation in the medium
term, and projects so far proposed by Chinese provincial governments.
The top-down approach is based on a high-level model accounting for certain general assumptions
outlined below. These parameters are more concretely defined in the 360° market analysis for wind power
development to 2022 in Section 2.2.4.
The general assumptions behind the predictions beyond 2017 are the following:
» The next generation of offshore turbine technology, including supporting structures, is mature,
commercially available and ready for deployment.
» The levelised cost of offshore wind energy proceeds on a downwards trajectory for wind farms
installed in 2013-2017.
» Renewables remain an important item on the political agenda in established markets and will
grow in importance as energy technologies in emerging markets.
» Infrastructure improves to support growth, including timely and sufficient reinforcement of the
electricity grid and expansion of transmission capacity in Europe to allow commissioning of
projects on schedule; indications of progress towards a fully integrated European electricity
transmission system; and sufficient investment in ports near designated offshore wind
development areas to facilitate wind farm construction and operation.
» Improvement in the provision of service and maintenance, including further adaptation to offshore
requirements.
» Existence and success of a sizable market for trade of CO2 emissions.
» Access to sufficient long-term financing to facilitate equity investment and the establishment of
investment vehicles to suit a range of investment profiles.
» A significant reduction (up to 30%) in the cost of offshore wind energy.
The degree of influence of each of the relevant parameters on the inputs from the bottom up analysis is
based upon a detailed market evaluation and a series of interviews with relevant stakeholders in the
respective offshore markets. For the U.K. and Germany, relying solely on the developer announcements
(i.e. bottom up analysis) for the prediction period would yield unrealistic annual installation rates; as such,
the top-down process has a significant influence on reducing the annual rate of installation to the levels
delivered in our final market forecasts.
The overall process used to develop the final prediction figures is outlined below:
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 27
The final prediction figures which emerge from this evaluation are outlined in Table 2-6.
2.3.4 360° Market Analysis for Offshore Wind Power Development to 2022
Table 2-5 below provides a complete 360° summary of the key parameters used to substantiate the medium
and long term market projections for offshore wind power growth. The model includes, but is not limited
to, consideration of the parameters described here:
» Historic activity: defines the relevant maturity and level of acceptance of offshore wind in the local
market.
» Official country targets: indicates the longer-term vision, level of political will, and/or intent to
promote a pre-defined milestone and role for offshore wind in the future energy mix.
» Market structure: presence of policies known to have a marked impact on industry development
and which facilitate technology advances, through R&D, necessary for continued sector growth.
» Local supply chain: not essential for a nascent market as sourcing from countries with an
established offshore supply chain is possible. Establishing a local supply chain, however, is
fundamental for a sustainable, long-term, economically viable offshore industry.
» Balance of plant: availability of essential components other than the wind turbines and their
supporting structures, such as export cables, that can represent an industry bottleneck.
» Availability of finance: Investors other than utilities are able and willing to put money into
offshore wind development are fundamental to the sector's success; realisation of the pipeline of
offshore wind projects cannot be sustained with utility financing as the sole source.
» Ports: access to suitable ports for logistics, the assembly and construction of offshore wind farms is
critical for realisation of offshore wind projects and the sector's long-term viability.
» Transmission network: timely access to a fit-for-purpose transmission network is crucial to
capitalising on the offshore wind potential. A clear framework for delivery, ownership and
operation of transmission assets is essential for achieving the required transmission capacity and
for ensuring the availability of financing for offshore wind development.
Bottom-up project-by-project analysis
Top-down model utilising 360° parameters
Market insight/ interviews
Final prediction
figures
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 28
Table 2-5. Offshore Wind Market Analysis
Note: Germany’s incoming coalition government is likely to lower its current offshore wind target by 2020 from 10
GW to 6.5 GW and to steeply cut its FiT for wind power according to the latest energy coalition talks.
Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant - September 2013
2.3.5 Global MW Demand 10-Year Forecast
Table 2-6. Global Offshore Wind MW Forecast 2013-2022
shows our 10 year forecast for global offshore wind installations. The near term (2013 through 2017)
forecast is derived from BTM’s most recent forecast included in World Market Update 2012 report, coupled
with the latest project development status observed after the release of the report by the end of March
2013. The near term forecast is based upon project-specific data and only includes projects that have a high
likelihood of being installed based upon equipment orders or progress toward reaching consent. The long
term (2018 to 2022) forecast has higher uncertainty and is derived from information such as: U.K. Round 3
offshore wind farm licensing, projects in detailed planning stages and projects proposed by governments
with realisation within the prediction time period.
Legend:
Low High
Cause for No major
Concern concern
Some cause
for concern
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 29
Table 2-6. Global Offshore Wind MW Forecast 2013-2022
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant, September 2013
Table 2-6 details a country-by-country projection of market growth for offshore wind development in 2013-
2022. The most significant figures and trends are:
Global
Offshore wind power represents a significant share of the global market for wind power and is expected to
account for 9.3% of global wind power installation by the end of the prediction period. The average annual
growth rate for new installations in the next ten years is expected to be 15.4% in the baseline scenario. For
the low and high scenarios the annual growth rates are expected to be 13.1% and 17.3%, respectively.
Europe
Annual installation of offshore wind capacity will reach about 5.6 GW by 2022, amounting to 24% of new
wind power installations in Europe by that year. By the end of 2022, Europe will account for 60.4% of total
global offshore wind installation and maintain its position as global market leader. The leading European
countries in terms of both new capacity each year and cumulative capacity by the end of 2022 are the U.K.
and Germany, in rank order. These two markets will account for 43.6% and 24.4%, respectively, of total
offshore wind installation in Europe by 2022.
Asia Pacific
Offshore wind development in Asia Pacific in the forecast period to 2017 is moderate, but rapid growth is
expected in the following five-year period. In China, installation of 20.7 GW is expected by 2022,
representing 24.6 % of total global offshore wind power generating capacity at that time and making it the
largest offshore wind market in the world after the U.K. After China, strong growth comes from South
[MW]
Cum.
End of
2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Totals 13'-
22'
Cumulative
Total end of
2022
U.K. 2,861 1,150 750 650 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,750 3,250 3,250 3,000 19,300 22,161
Denmark 833 400 0 200 100 300 284 348 285 0 0 1,917 2,750
Netherlands 247 0 78 278 300 200 0 200 368 260 0 1,684 1,931
Germany 278 750 800 1,000 1,050 1,500 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,400 1,300 12,100 12,378
Ireland 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 237 0 0 527 552
Belgium 380 111 216 165 0 400 433 145 119 0 0 1,589 1,969
Sweden 163 48 0 86 150 320 567 348 474 463 215 2,671 2,834
Norway 2 3 0 10 24 0 0 58 95 93 107 390 392
France 0 0 0 0 250 850 846 580 474 463 537 4,000 4,000
Finland 0 3 0 0 0 200 236 348 308 324 403 1,822 1,822
China 320 150 600 1,650 1,850 2,100 2,364 2,550 2,847 3,010 3,260 20,381 20,701
South Korea 0 30 144 200 300 500 567 812 625 685 733 4,596 4,596
Japan 0 22 7 42 150 225 200 215 225 250 315 1,651 1,651
Taiwan 0 0 7 14 50 100 95 105 100 150 200 821 821
Canada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 107 200 200
US 0 0 54 370 126 165 1,030 900 725 1,000 1,000 5,370 5,370
Other
(Portugal)2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
TOTAL
WORLD5,111 2,667 2,656 4,665 5,350 8,360 10,022 11,049 11,632 11,440 11,177 79,019 84,130
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 30
Korea and Japan. The two countries will represent 5.5% and 2.0% of global offshore wind capacity by the
end of 2022. By the end of 2022, Asia Pacific will account for 32% of total global offshore wind installation.
North America
On the American continent, offshore wind power development will mainly take place in the United States
and Canada. While the U.S. recently installed a small floating offshore wind turbine in the east coast, no
commercial offshore wind plant has yet been installed in either country and the extent of the political will
to pursue development of an offshore wind market is uncertain. For these reasons, more moderate market
growth is expected compared to growth rates in Europe and Asia. A total of 5.5 GW is expected to be
installed on the American continent by 2022.
Note: The sources used to calculate offshore wind power as a proportion of combined offshore/onshore
global wind capacity are available in BTM's World Market Update 2012 (March 2013).
Source: BTM Consult – A Part of Navigant, September 2013
Figure 2-4. Global Offshore Wind Forecast by Country 2013-2022
2.3.6 Forecast Sensitivities
The Global MW demand 10-year forecast presented in Section 2.3.5 is based on the assumption that the
offshore wind development will follow a scenario of “Business as Usual”. The general assumptions behind
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 31
the predictions (2018-2022) are based on a health scenario expected by offshore wind stakeholders. To
assess the risk to members of the Associations of unforeseen changes in annual demand, however, we
developed high and low demand scenarios by using the Business as Usual scenario as the baseline.
As with any forecast, our degree of confidence decreases over time. Thus, we developed a high forecast
that increases in deviation from the baseline over time at a rate of 2% per year and a low scenario with an
opposite growth rate (-2% per year). The low scenario, however, will be more realistic compared with the
high scenario, due to the following challenges are still remained for the global offshore wind industry.
» Price competition from natural gas following discoveries of alternative sources of gas.
» Complex investment climate with equipment manufacturers suffering a delayed hangover from
the global economic crisis.
» High life-cycle cost of energy from offshore wind compared to other mature generation assets.
» Policy uncertainty in key established offshore markets, especially the UK (Electricity Market
Reform introduced a new market incentive, Contracts for Difference) and Germany (Incoming
government’s energy policy discussion about cutting support for wind power and lowering the
current offshore wind target for 2020 and 2030.)
» Limited grid availability and the delay of delivery, especially Germany.
» Lack of standardisation and modularisation in offshore wind turbine designs and subsequently in
the supply chain, with resulting potential supply constraints, particularly in the balance of plant.
» Host of natural technical engineering challenges for developing and deploying offshore turbines in
deeper waters farther offshore.
» Climate change has dropped down the political agenda during the economic crisis that cause
further uncertainty of carbon trade market.
» Dramatically reducing the cost of offshore wind CAPEX, which is two to three times greater than
from land based wind power plant.
» Innovative approaches to expanding the "weather window", thus reducing waiting time in
construction, service and maintenance of offshore wind farms to lower cost and raise wind turbine
productivity.
Table 2-7. Global Offshore Wind Forecast Scenarios
Global Annual Installations [MW]
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
High 2,667 2,709 4,852 5,671 9,029 11,025 12,375 13,260 13,271 13,189
Baseline 2,667 2,656 4,665 5,350 8,360 10,022 11,049 11,632 11,440 11,177
Low 2,667 2,603 4,479 5,029 7,691 9,020 9,723 10,003 9,610 9,166
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 32
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 2-5. High and Low Global Offshore Wind Scenarios
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 33
3. Offshore Wind Vessels
This chapter includes three parts. Part one identifies and defines all the vessel types adopted in the
offshore wind project life cycle. Part two identifies the availability of offshore service vessel by type and
region/country. Part three profiles the leading vessel operators in each vessel segment.
3.1 Segments in Ship-based Services for the Offshore Wind Industry
3.1.1 Vessels Adopted in the Offshore Wind Project Life Cycle
The offshore wind project life cycle includes four phases: pre-construction, construction, project O&M and
decommissioning. As shown in Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant – August 2013
Figure 3-1 below, Phase 1 consists of two types of services: Survey and installation of met mast. Phase 2 is
the most complicated process compared with the other phases. Services in Phase 2 include turbine
foundation installation, turbine installation, offshore converter station (AC & DC) installation and cable
installation. Services in Phase 3 mainly focus on wind turbine operation and maintenance. The last phase is
decommissioning. Services in this phase include decommissioning of wind turbines, converter station and
met mast. Less than 100 MW of offshore wind turbines were installed before 2002. Assuming a 20-year life
span for the offshore wind project, the service in the decommissioning phase won’t become significant
before 2022.
Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant – August 2013
Figure 3-1. Segments in Ship-based Services for Offshore Wind
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 34
Based on the services involved in offshore wind installation and decommissioning, it can be seen from Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant – August 2013
Figure 3-1 that at least 17 different types of vessels are needed during the offshore wind life cycle. Table 3-
1 is a matrix that shows suitable vessels for certain services in the offshore wind industry.
Table 3-1. Offshore Wind Service vs. Vessel Types
Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant – August 2013
3.1.2 Definition of Vessel Types in the Offshore Wind Sector
3.1.2.1 Survey Vessel
Survey Vessels are used for a wide range of activities, including scientific and environmental research, for
offshore wind industries. Normally three types of surveys are required at the pre-construction phase by
the offshore wind developers. These are Environmental surveys, Geophysical surveys and Geotechnical
surveys. A representative Survey Vessel is shown in Figure 3-2. Representative vessels are similarly
shown in the other sections of this chapter.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 35
Source: CT Offshore A/S
Figure 3-2.CT Offshore MV Sander 2 Survey Vessel
Environmental survey (including benthic, pelagic, ornithological and sea mammal environmental surveys)
have to be performed for the Environmental Impact Assessment and can be completed by vessels
equipped with sensors or a remotely operated vehicle (ROV), also called ROV Support Vessel. For
example, anchor handling, tug and supply (AHTS) vessels can be used as ROV Support Vessels.
Geophysical surveys are seismic surveys of the seabed, which helps with the planning of installation
procedures, cable routes, jack-up operations etc. Geophysical work covering seabed bathymetry (depth
data), seabed features mapping, stratigraphy (geological layering) and analysis of hazardous areas can be
done by Geophysical Survey vessel. The small or relatively low-cost vessels can be used for this task at the
wind farm with shallow water.
Geotechnical surveys are undertaken at the pre-construction stage to allow detailed design and installation
procedures to be developed for foundations, array cables, export cable routes and jack-up operations.
Geotechnical work accounting for around 80% of the seabed surveying task requires larger, more stable
vessels with highly skilled operators on-board. Geotechnical investigations involving sample boreholes,
sample penetration tests, core samples and plough trials can be performed by dedicated Geotechnical
Survey Vessels. It should be noted that Multi-purpose Survey Vessels also have been adopted by leading
offshore survey service providers to perform the entire survey for offshore wind.
3.1.2.2 Jack-up Barge or Vessel
Jack-up Barges and Vessels had been the most common vessel type used for turbine installation. This type
of vessel is also normally used in the installation of foundations and transition pieces at offshore wind
projects. Jack-up Vessels used for offshore wind installation can be divided into three
categories/generations according to their different functions.
Source: A2SEA
Figure 3-3. Sea Installer Offshore Turbine Installation Vessel
The first category is Jack-up Barges, which is a type of self-elevating mobile platform that consists of a
buoyant hull fitted with a number of movable legs, capable of raising its hull over the surface of the sea.
Once on location the hull is raised to the required elevation above the sea surface on its legs supported by
the sea-bed. The first generation of Jack-up Vessels with heavy lift capacity is not self-propelled and needs
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 36
to be towed to the site similar to an offshore oil and gas platform. Additionally, Jack-up Barges don't have
large working decks, storage space or accommodation.
The Jack-up Barges included in the second category have a large working deck, storage space and
accommodation, but without propulsion. The third category is ship shaped self-propelled Jack-up Vessels,
which are purpose built wind turbine installation vessels with a dynamic positioning (DP) system capable
of installing monopiles, transition pieces, tripods, jackets and large turbines up to 5-6 MW. The third
category is the mainstream system currently built by the offshore wind industry.
Heavy maintenance and major repair and overhaul work can be carried out by the same vessel types used
for turbine installation. The offshore wind industry is, however, pursuing the purpose built offshore wind
O&M Jack-up Vessels or remodeled Jack-up Vessels and older generation of Jack-up Barges for turbine
O&M service, due to the high demand for turbine installation and higher cost of operations. In general,
Jack-up Barges or Vessels can be used for the entire offshore wind project value chain.
3.1.2.3 Tailor-made O&M Vessel
With offshore wind installation expanding in North Europe and many plants installed further offshore,
finding a smart O&M solution for offshore wind fleets has been listed on the agenda by both offshore
turbine OEMs and offshore wind farm operators. The offshore wind O&M services include routine
maintenance and regular checks and substantial repair work and turbine overhaul. The first part can be
likely done by Service Crew Boats and other small sized vessels, but the second part requires similar
vessels to those adopted for turbine erection. Despite the fact that existing Jack-up Vessels for offshore
wind sector are capable of performing the major O&M repair work, it is too expensive and sometimes the
O&M service sector has to compete with turbine installation and the offshore oil and gas (O&G) industry.
In this context, the idea of building Tailor-made O&M Vessels have been brought to the table by Danish
and German vessel operators.
Compared with the standard offshore turbine installation Jack-up Vessels, its size (full crane capacity of
about 500T and flexible accommodation concept) is smaller, and therefore, has lower capital and operating
costs. This vessel design does not require jack-up during loading in port, but still allows full use of the
crane, which eliminates the extra charges at some ports for the jack-up process. The purpose built service
Jack-up Vessels can stay offshore for longer periods and operate in worse weather conditions and therefore
expanding the "weather window".
Source: DBB Jack-Up
Figure 3-4. Wind Server O&M Vessel
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 37
3.1.2.4 Heavy Lift Vessel
Heavy lift vessels are designed to transport and lift large and heavy cargo that cannot be handled by
normally equipped vessels, such as the topside of an AC substation with a weight of great than 1,000
metric tonnes. Heavy lift vessels are not new to the wind industry because they have been widely used in
the offshore O&G industry. Heavy lift vessels deployed to support offshore wind industry in Europe are
mainly drawn from the offshore O&G industry and offshore construction sector, but the purpose built
offshore wind installation Heavy-lift Vessel has been available since 2011 when China Longyuan
Zhenghua Marine Engineering's first Heavy-lift Vessel was delivered.
The Heavy-lift Vessels are needed for the whole offshore wind value chain. To install or later remove the
very large loads of offshore wind AC/DC converter stations, Heavy-lift Vessels are required. In addition,
certain offshore wind projects used Heavy-lift Vessels for foundation and turbine installation work as well.
In Europe, the Heavy-lift Vessel was only used to install the pre-assembled REpower 5.0 MW turbine at
the Beatrice Wind Farm Demonstrator project in Scotland, but its deployment is more widespread in the
Chinese offshore wind market.
Source: DBB Salvage A/S
Figure 3-5. DBB Samson Heavy Lift Vessel
The Heavy-lift Vessels were classified into five different categories according to different design concepts
and foundations. The first category is the ship shaped self-propelled Heavy-lift Vessel with multi-crane on
board. This type of heavy lift vessels equipped with a DP system can be used for constructing the offshore
foundation. The second category is none self-propelled floating crane barges. The towed floating platform
with a dual heavy lift crane on board can be used for the installation of foundations, substations and pre-
assembled wind turbine. The third category is the self-propelled Monohull Crane Vessel. Equipped with a
heavy lift crane and DP system, this type of vessel can be used for the transportation and installation of
foundations and substations and most recently were also adopted for wind turbine installation in China.
The fourth category is the Semi-Submersible Crane Vessel (SSCV). The SSCV principle provides the largest
heavy lift capacity in the world and can be used for the installation of offshore wind converter foundations
and topsides with a weight of more than 9,000 metric tonnes. The fifth category is the heavy lift catamaran
that originally was used for bridge construction in Europe. In 2012 China delivered the first customized
heavy lift catamaran for wind turbine installation.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 38
3.1.2.5 Cable Laying Vessel
The primary function of the Cable Laying Vessel is to install the array cable (interconnections between the
turbines and the offshore substation) and install the export cables (linking the wind farm offshore
substation to the onshore grid). Cable laying equipment has been developed to serve the telecom and O&G
sectors since the mid-1960s and more recently to serve the renewable energy industry. The main features of
a cable laying platform include cable carrying capacity, availability of deck-space, and vessel
maneuverability. The central feature is single or multi-layer carousel which has the cable spooled onto it.
Upon installation, the cable is unwound, straightened and laid onto the seabed in a “J-lay curve” typically
from the vessel stern. Cable layers are also equipped with additional devices that assist with the trenching
and burial process; these include a cable plough and Remotely Operated Vehicles, or ROVs. The latest
Cable Laying Vessels in today’s market include those equipped with Dynamic Positioning (DP) systems
designed to hold the ship stable and in-position under challenging weather conditions.
Source: CT Offshore
Figure 3-6. CLV SIA Cable Laying Vessel
Cable Laying Vessels can be divided into Inter-array cable installation vessels and Export cable installation
vessels. Normally, the cable-laying barges are needed for shallow waters, in which case the ship shaped
large Cable Laying Vessels are no longer practicable. Often there is some overlap in the timing of the
installation of array and export cables and separate vessels are typically contracted for each activity,
although some vessels are capable of installing both cable types. Those vessels are also called “Multi-
purpose Cable Laying Vessel”.
3.1.2.6 Diving Support Vessel (DSV)
Diving support vessels/boats are used to provide commercial diving services for offshore wind farm
projects. The diving services normally include scour surveys, underwater inspections and maintenance, J &
I tube installations, cable pulls, rock armour placement, CCTV video, etc. DSVs can be equipped with
mobile decompression chambers, diving monitors, communication radios, diving supervisor workstations
and other tools for supporting the diving assignments under the water up to 100 meters. DSVs are needed
for the construction period of the offshore wind farm.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 39
Source: JD-Contractor A/S
Figure 3-7. M/S Honte Diving Support Vessel
3.1.2.7 Construction Support Vessel
Construction support vessels include Cargo barges (or Transport barges) and Platform supply vessels (or
offshore supply vessels), which are used as suppliers of transportation services during the offshore wind
project construction period.
Cargo Barges are used to transport the heavy cargo such as offshore turbine foundations (monopiles,
transition pieces, jackets, tripods, and tripiles), substation foundations and topsides from the offshore wind
logistics port to the offshore wind farm. The Cargo Barges with large open deck and higher availability can
also support the first generation of offshore wind Jack-up Barges relying on the separated Cargo Barges for
large working decks and storage space. Cargo Barges provide a cheap solution to transport wind turbine
related BOP (balance of plant) items from shore to offshore wind installation sites, but they are too slow
and have a limited weather window of operation. Cargo Barges can be not only used during the
construction period, but also for project decommissioning.
Source: Aarsleff Bilfinger Berger Joint Venture
Figure 3-8. Aarsleff Bilfinger Berger JV 2 Cargo Barges
Platform supply vessels (PSV) are used to transport cargo, supplies and crew from the offshore ports to the
offshore wind farms. PSVs are mostly equipped with a Dynamic Positioning (DP) system and range from
20 to 100 meters in length with a deck up to 1,000m² and have accommodation available for between 5 to
35 personnel. PSVs are capable of maintaining high speeds even in tough weather conditions compared
with Cargo Barges, but are more expensive to charter. In the offshore wind sector, PSVs are also used to
transport foundations and nacelles.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 40
Source: Maersk
Figure 3-9. Maersk Finder Platform Supply Vessel
3.1.2.8 Service Crew Boat/Vessel
Offshore wind Service Crew Boats/vessels, or Personnel transfer vessel are designed to transport personnel
comfortably and safely between the shore and offshore wind farms. The Service Crew Boats normally
adopt the design of a monohull, or catamaran, with a length between 15 to 25 meters. This type of vessel
includes storage areas, WC, shower, cabin for crew, air conditioning/heating, navigation equipment, a
small sized hydraulic crane (optional) and personal access equipment (optional) and is capable of
transporting 10-15 passengers at a time. The Service Crew Boat can be used to provide support during both
the construction phase and the O&M phase of an offshore wind project. Owing to the wide availability of
small to medium size contractors, service crew transfer boats can be contacted on short or long term leases.
Source: Dong Energy
Figure 3-10. DJURS Wind Crew Boat
3.1.2.9 Tugboat
The Tugboat is a standard component required at each stage of the offshore wind supply chain. Most tugs
have two-stroke engines, which makes them capable of towing weights of up to 5 to 10 times their own
weight. The exact towing capacity also depends on engine type, propeller size and shape of the Tugboat
apart from the engine size. Most of the Tugboats used for offshore wind are ocean-going tug types capable
of operating in the open sea for towing Cargo Barges, Jack-up Barges, cable laying barges, and even
floating turbine and floating converter stations.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 41
Source: JD-Contractor A/S
Figure 3-11. T/B Naja Tugboat
3.1.2.10 Safety Vessel/Standby ERRV
With more offshore turbines being installed in rough seas and several major offshore accidents having
recently occurred in the German North Sea, the HSSEQ (health, safety, security, environment and quality)
is under the spotlight in the offshore wind sector. This is also why standby Emergency Response Rescue
Vessels (ERRV) are now required by some offshore wind project developers to locate at offshore wind
farms where they are ready to provide emergency response duties such as firefighting and personnel
rescue. Standby ERRVs, with a normal length of 30 to 45m operated by a well-trained and experienced
crew are able to perform offshore rescue operations in adverse weather conditions. The Danish company
Esvagt, which mainly provides ERRVs for offshore O&G, is also a leader in the offshore wind business
sector at present.
Source: ESVAGT A/S
Figure 3-12. ESVAGT CORONA Emergency Response Rescue Vessel
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 42
3.1.2.11 Multi-Purpose Project Vessel (MPPV)
As the name implies, Multi-purpose Project Vessel (MPPV), or multifunctional/ multirole vessel, means it
can be used to provide different services during offshore wind project construction.
Source: ESVAGT A/S
Figure 3-13. ESVAGT OBSERVER Multi-purpose Project Vessel
Anchor Handling Tug Supply Vessel (AHTSV) is a typical Multi-purpose Project Vessel (MPPV) adopted
in the offshore wind sector. AHTSVs have a powerful engine and can operate in deep water and handle
rough offshore weather conditions. The vessels are built to tow the platforms, or barges to and from sea,
and then anchor the platforms in a desired location. In addition, AHTS vessels can be used as supply
vessels for project construction and O&M, ROV support vessel and standby ERRV. Apart from AHTSV,
Multicat have also been adopted by the offshore wind industry as MPPV to provide services such as
towage, anchor handling, survey and dive support, etc. It is important to note that other vessels capable of
providing more than 2 to 3 different services for offshore wind are also classified as MPPV.
Multi-purpose Project Vessels (MPPVs) are not involved in the inbound service; therefore, it should be
distinguished from the Multi-purpose Vessel (MPV) cargo vessels that play a major role in this area.
3.1.2.12 Accommodation Vessel
When working at the offshore wind project, the engineers, technicians and service crew often spend more
time travelling to and from the site than actually working on the installations. The concept of an
accommodation vessel, or a floating hotel, however, provides a solution to this challenge and enables the
technicians to access the offshore site in short weather windows. The accommodation vessels are specially
designed to provide suitable accommodation for people working on offshore installations and can be
moved around other vessels, so it makes the project construction work much more efficient. To provide a
comfortable environment for the workers out of shore, the accommodation vessels normally include
restaurant/canteen, lounge, fitness room and entertainments such as a cinema.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 43
Source: C-Bed Floating Hotel
Figure 3-14. Wind Solution Accommodation Vessel
Most of the accommodation vessels used by the offshore wind industry are converted from passenger
Ro/Ro vessel, or ferry boats, although the purpose built float hotel is also available for chartering. The
tailor-made accommodation vessels are smaller than the converted vessels, but they have a user-friendly
design for the offshore wind sector, such as personal access equipment, a DP System, and onboard crane.
3.1.2.13 Multi-Purpose Vessel (MPV)
Operational flexibility is the key when it comes to multi-purpose vessels (MPV). They have to be ready for
any task and any cargo transport requirements at all times across the sea. There are several types of vessels
falling into this category. To distinguish the MPPV from MPV, this study defines MPV as the vessels that
can carry Roll on/ Roll off (RO/RO), or Lift on / Lift off (LO/LO) cargo together with containers. The MPV
cargo vessels in the offshore wind sector are used to perform both the wind turbine related tasks and BOP
(Balance of Plant) related tasks. For the WTG related tasks, MPV cargo vessels are used to transport
nacelles, blades, hubs, and towers. For the BOP related tasks, MPVs are used for the transportation of
foundations (such as monopiles, transition pieces and jackets). In the offshore wind sector the inbound role
are mainly played by MPV cargo ships, but outbound role are primarily played by Jack-up Vessels and
construction support vessels.
Source: J.Poulsen Shipping A/S
Figure 3-15. PALESSA Multi-Purpose Cargo Vessel
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 44
3.2 The Availability of Different Vessels Providing Service to Offshore Wind as of
2013
3.2.1 Overview of Geographic Distribution of Offshore Wind Vessels
This section first presents the overview of geographic distribution of offshore wind service vessels and
then identifies the availability of different vessel types by region and country. According to our latest
offshore wind vessel database, the availability of vessels that can provide offshore wind services is 865, of
which nearly 70 vessels are currently under construction, or in the pipeline. Figure 3-16 shows that
globally 798 vessels are in operation at present. In terms of vessel flag, 575 units are from Europe, 122 units
from North Americas, 68 units from Asia Pacific. The geographic distribution is, however, different if the
calculation is based on the nationality of vessel operator. Due to the fact that many non-European built
vessels are actually owned and operated by European vessel operators, it makes sense to use this
methodology to reflect the real business situation. According to Figure 3-16, nearly 86% of identified
vessels currently in operation are operated by European companies, which make Europe the leader in this
business sector. Asia Pacific ranks as the No. 2, followed by North America and the rest of world (ROW).
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant - September 2013
Figure 3-16. Geographic Distribution of Vessels Capable of Providing Services to the Offshore Wind
Sector
Figure 3-17. Vessels in Operation With or Without Track Records in Offshore Wind shows that nearly 54%
of vessels currently in operation have direct experience in the offshore wind sector. For any vessel that has
involved in project work in the offshore wind sector (reference offshore wind project can be found), we
count it as having direct experience or track record for offshore wind. It is necessary to mention that non-
track-record vessels included in our database are capable of providing services for the offshore wind
sector. That is, if the offshore wind development takes off immediately, those vessels are the best
candidates to be considered as a back-up. However, competition is expected because those vessels are
normally providing services for other industries as well.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TotalWorld
Europe AsiaPacific
NorthAmerica
ROW
Number of vessels byflag (Left)
Number of vessel byoperator nationality(Right)
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 45
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 3-17. Vessels in Operation With or Without Track Records in Offshore Wind
3.2.2 Availability of different vessel types for offshore wind by region and country
Table 3-2. Availability of Different Vessel Type by Region as of 2013 (In-operation Only) is the distribution
of different vessel types currently in operation by region. As Figure 3-18 illustrates, Europe is playing a
leading role in each vessel category. Despite the fact that vessels have been identified in both Asia Pacific
and North America, most of them are mainly used for project construction. At present, no project crew
transfer boat/vessel has been recorded in regions out of Europe. This situation is expected to change with
more projects to be built in those two regions. It is interesting to note that fishing boats were used in China
for transferring crew to wind farms in the intertidal zone along the east coast.
Table 3-2. Availability of Different Vessel Type by Region as of 2013 (In-operation Only)
Vessel Type/ Region Total World Europe Asia Pacific North America Rest of world
Accommodation Vessel 17 11 2 3 1
Cable Laying Vessel 113 79 16 12 6
Construction Support 54 51 3 0 0
Diving Support Vessel 11 10 1 0 0
Heavy Lift Vessel 58 35 18 5 0
Jack-up Barge or Vessel 57 43 8 2 4
MPPV 107 98 7 1 1
MPV 50 49 1 0 0
Service Crew Boat/Vessel 187 187 0 0 0
Standby ERRV 40 37 0 1 2
Survey Vessel 43 35 1 3 4
Tugboat 61 54 6 0 1
Source: BTM Consult - A part of Navigant - September 2013
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TotalWorld
Europe AsiaPacific
NorthAmerica
ROW
Number of vessel byoperator nationalitywithout track record(Up)
Number of vessels byoperator nationalitywith track record(Down)
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 46
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 3-18. Availability of Different Vessel Types by Region (In-operation Only)
Table 3-3 lists all the vessels currently under construction or ready to be built by region. It shows that most
of the vessels currently under construction or in the manufacturing pipeline (94%) are located in Europe.
Three vessels are identified in the pipeline in Asia Pacific, but no vessel has been reported under
construction in North America for offshore wind as of September 2013. Figure 3-19 illustrates the top three
vessel types under construction or in the pipeline at present are Service Crew Boat, Jack-up Vessel and
Multi-purpose Project Vessel.
Table 3-3. Different vessels type by region as of 2013 (Under construction or planned)
Vessel Type/ Region Total World Europe Asia Pacific North America Rest of world
Cable Laying Vessel 3 3 0 0 0
Construction Support 5 4 1 0 0
Heavy Lift Vessel 7 7 0 0 0
Jack-up Barge or Vessel 16 13 2 0 1
MPPV 10 10 0 0 0
Service Crew Boat/Vessel 26 26 0 0 0
17
113
54
11
58 57
107
50
187
40 43
61
11
79
51
10
35 43
98
49
187
37 35
54
2 16
3 1
18 8 7 1 0 0 1
6 3 12
0 0 5 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 1
6 0 0 0
4 1 0 0 2 4
1 0
20406080
100120140160180200
Total World Total Europe Asia Pacific North America Rest of world
Ves
sel U
nit
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 47
Source: BTM Consult - A part of Navigant - September 2013Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 3-19. Vessels by Region (Under construction or planned only)
Since Jack-up Vessels, Heavy Lift Vessels and Cable Laying Vessels are critical for offshore wind
installations, we decided to take a close look at their availability by vessel category and by region.
Table 3-4 shows the global distribution of Jack-up Vessel by category. As of September 2013, more than
82% of the identified Jack-up Vessels belong to the second and third generation, mostly from Europe. With
offshore wind farms moving farther offshore and with next generation multi-MW turbines becoming the
mainstream offshore products, it is no doubt that the first generation of Jack-up Barges can only be
adopted for near shore projects. Instead, more tailor-made offshore turbine installation vessels (TIVs) will
be needed to sail at the rough sea. Currently, only 22 vessels are the 3rd generation ship shaped self-
propelled Jack-up Vessel, but this figure is going to grow because all the Jack-up Vessels currently under
construction or in the pipeline in Europe are either purpose built offshore wind turbine installation vessels
or tailor-made O&M Jack-up Vessels.
Table 3-4. Availability of Jack-up Vessels by Category and Region (In-operation Only)
Vessel Type/ Region Total World Europe Asia Pacific North America Rest of world
1st Generation 10 6 2 0 2
2nd Generation 24 20 3 1 0
3rd Generation 22 16 3 1 2
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
Table 3-5 shows distribution of different Heavy-lift Vessel type by region. It is the same situation as the
Jack-up Vessel that Europe remains the leader in this sector, followed by Asia Pacific where 13 out of
identified 18 Heavy-lift Vessels are from China and two from Japan. Non self-propelled floating crane
barges and self-propelled monohull crane vessels are the most popular Heavy-lift Vessels in operation. As
of September, only two units of heavy lift catamaran have been recorded for the offshore wind installation,
of which one is from Europe and another is from China. In terms of the purpose built offshore wind
Heavy-lift Vessels, three units have been observed in China, but such vessels don’t exist in Europe, which
means that offshore wind must compete with other industries like O&G to share the availability.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cable LayingVessel
ConstructionSupport
Heavy LiftVessel
Jack-up Bargeor Vessel
MPPV Service CrewBoat/Vessel
Total World
Europe
Asia Pacific
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 48
Therefore, it is going to be a challenge for European offshore wind industry particularly when the O&G
industry enters a period when a lot of decommissioning work has to be done for O&G platforms. Note that
offshore wind relies on Heavy-lift Vessels for installing AC/DC converter stations, which are normally
greater than 1,000 metric tonnes.
Table 3-5. Availability of Heavy-lift Vessels by Category and Region (In-operation Only)
Vessel Type/ Region Total World Europe Asia Pacific North America Rest of world
Self-propelled Heavy-lift
Vessel
6 6 0 0 0
None self-propelled
floating crane barges.
20 10 7 3 0
Self-propelled monohull
crane vessel
23 13 9 1 0
Semi-Submersible crane
vessel (SSCV)
7 5 1 1 0
Heavy lift catamaran 2 1 1 0 0
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
Table 3-6 lists the availability of Cable Laying Vessel both by category and by region. As of September
2013, there were 113 Cable Laying Vessels, of which 26 units are in fact the cable laying support vessel only
acting as a service support role. For the remaining 87 Cable Laying Vessels, a little more than half have
offshore wind cable laying experience. Among those vessels with direct offshore wind experience, more
than 75% are operated by European companies. At present, five Asian vessels have experience in the
offshore wind sector, of which two are from China, two are from South Korea and one is from Japan.
Table 3-6. Availability of Cable Laying Vessels by Category and Region (In-operation Only)
Vessel Type/ Region Total World Europe Asia Pacific North America Rest of world
Inter-array Cable Laying
Vessel
38 23 4 9 2
Export Cable Laying
Vessel
27 17 8 1 1
Multi-role Cable Laying
Vessel
22 14 3 2 3
Cable laying support
vessel
26 25 1 0 0
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
3.2.3 Availability of Key Offshore Wind Construction Vessels in Selected European Countries
Europe is the largest offshore wind market in terms of both cumulative installation and the size of offshore
wind project pipelines. Currently most of the offshore wind installation is in the North Sea. Countries
primarily involved in the offshore wind construction work include the U.K., Denmark, Germany, Belgium,
the Netherlands and Sweden. To help understand those European countries’ competitiveness in the
business sector of offshore wind installation, Table 3-7, Table 3-8, and Table 3-9 summarizes the
availability of those three critical vessels operated by seven European countries that border to the North
Sea and the Baltic Sea.
As shown in Table 3-7, the U.K., the Netherlands and Germany are the top 3 operators of Jack-up Vessels
in Europe, closely followed by Denmark. Denmark, however, is very competitive and becomes the leader
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 49
after the U.K. if only the 2nd and 3rd generation Jack-up Vessels are taken into account. Currently, there are
12 Jack-up Vessels under construction or announced to be built in Europe, of which four units are going to
be operated by Danish companies. If all the vessels could be delivered on time, Denmark will maintain its
position as the largest operator of purpose-built Jack-up Vessels after the U.K.
The situation for the supply of heavy lift vessels is completely different compared with that of jack-up
vessels. Table 3-8 shows the two market leaders, the U.K. and Denmark have lost their competitiveness to
the Netherlands. The country operates nearly 2/3 of Heavy-lift Vessels in Europe and has vessel available
in each Heavy-lift Vessel category. In general, the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and
Luxembourg) are very strong in this business sector.
In the European offshore wind cable laying business sector, the leaders are the U.K., the Netherlands,
Denmark and Norway according to total operated vessel units included in Table 3-9. Denmark and the
Netherlands are specialists in support vessels, each with 6 vessel types.
Table 3-7. Availability of Jack-up Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation
Only)
Vessel Type/ Region Belgium Denmark Germany Netherlands Norway Sweden U.K.
1st Generation 1 0 2 3 0 0 0
2nd Generation 4 2 3 6 0 1 4
3rd Generation 1 5 3 1 1 0 6
Total 6 7 8 10 1 1 10
Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant - September 2013
Table 3-8. Availability of Heavy-lift Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation
Only)
Vessel Type/ Region Belgium Denmark Germany Netherlands Norway Sweden U.K.
Self-propelled Heavy-
lift Vessel
0 0 0 5 0 0 0
None self-propelled
floating crane barges.
1 1 0 6 1 0 1
Self-propelled
monohull crane vessel
1 0 1 3 1 0 3
Semi-Submersible
crane vessel (SSCV)
0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Heavy lift catamaran 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total 2 1 1 18 2 0 4
Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant - September 2013
Table 3-9. Availability of Cable Laying Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation
Only)
Vessel Type/ Region Belgium Denmark Germany Netherlands Norway Sweden U.K.
Inter-array Cable
Laying Vessel
0 0 1 4 4 1 7
Export Cable Laying
Vessel
1 1 2 2 3 1 2
Multi-role Cable 0 4 0 2 2 0 3
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 50
Laying Vessel
Cable laying support
vessel
1 6 1 6 1 0 5
Total 2 11 4 14 10 2 17
Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant - September 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 51
4. Wind Industry Technology & Industry Trends
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of offshore wind technology trends based on the historical trends
recorded by BTM in the past two decades and the impact they may have on the vessels needed to further
develop the offshore wind sector.
We begin with an analysis of historical trends of the physical characteristics (e.g. length, height, weight) of
key components. We then discuss technology scenarios of how the characteristics may evolve in the
future.
4.1 Technology Focus & Market Trends – Historical Trends
To understand the trends of offshore wind technology development, this section provides an overview of
the historical development of critical components such as rotors (diameter, weight), towers (height and
weight); turbines (MW size) and foundations (type, weight), O&M developments and advances in
installation techniques. Graphics illustrations of historical trends start at 1991 when the first offshore wind
project was installed and end at the end of 2012.
4.1.1 Historical Trend - Rotor (diameter and weight)
The primary reason for turbine growth is an increase in the rotor diameter of the turbine as the rotor
diameter is directly related to the amount of energy produced by a wind turbine.
Figure 4-1 shows how rotor diameter has steadily increased from approximately 40 to 60m in the 1990s to
60 to 110m in the 2000s to 110 to 140m since 2010.
The Siemens SWT3.6-107/120 turbines, the turbines with the greatest deployed capacity, have had a rotor
diameter of 107 to 120m. Its recently installed SWT6.0-154 direct drive turbine has increased the rotor
diameter to 154m. The turbine with the second greatest installed capacity is the Vestas V90-3.0 MW with a
rotor diameter of 90m.
The larger turbines coming online, primarily in the 5-6 MW class, have larger rotor diameters. The
REpower 5M/6M turbine has a rotor diameter of 126m while the BARD 5.0 has a diameter of 122m.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 52
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-1. Historical Development of Rotor Diameter (1991-2012)
As rotor diameter increases in size, rotor weight (including hub) increases as well. Figure 4-2 shows how
rotor weight has steadily increased from approximately 5-40 metric tonnes in the 1990s to 40-160 metric
tonnes in the 2000s and 2010s.
The Siemens SWT3.6-120 turbine has a rotor weight of 101 metric tonnes while the Vestas V90-3.0 MW has
a rotor weight of 40 metric tonnes. Among the 5 MW turbines, the REpower 5M turbine has a rotor weight
of 120-125 metric tonnes while the BARD 5.0 has a rotor weight of 156 metric tonnes.
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-2. Historical Development of Rotor Weight (1991-2012)
35 40 39 43 37,3
76 72 82,4
104
90
107
126 116
122 120 126
154
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180D
iam
eter
(m
)
Year of Deployment
Rotor Diameter (m)
Rotor Diameter (m)
Lineær (Rotor
Diameter (m))
4,9
26
9,8
52 40
54
82
39,8
92,5
120 109
155,5
101
135
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1991 1997 2001 2003 2007 2009 2011
Wei
gh
t (t
)
Year of Deployment
Rotor Weight (incl Hub) (t)
Rotor Weight (incl
Hub) (t)
Lineær (Rotor Weight
(incl Hub) (t))
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 53
4.1.2 Historical Trend - Tower (height and weight)
Larger rotors and nacelles require taller and consequently heavier towers. Figure 4-3 shows how tower
height has steadily increased from approximately 40-55m in the 1990s to 60-65m in the 2000s to 80-90m in
the last few years. Figure 4-4 shows the evolution of tower weight. During the 1990s, tower weights
ranged between 25-75T. In the 2000s, weights increased to 100-160 metric tonnes. Over the last few years,
tower weights have increased to 210-450 metric tonnes.
The Siemens SWT3.6-107 and 120 turbines have average tower heights of 57m and 90m and weights of 180
metric tonnes and 260 metric tonnes, respectively. The Vestas V90-3.0 MW has a typical tower height of
53m and weight of 108 metric tonnes.
Among the 5 MW turbines, the REpower 5M turbine has a tower height of 85m and weight of 210 metric
tonnes while the BARD 5.0 turbine uses towers of 63m in height and 450 metric tonnes in weight.
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-3. Historical Development of Tower Height (1991-2012)
39 39 44,5
41,5
64,7 64 60
70,5
53
70
85 90
63
80
90 85
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1994 1996 2000 2002 2005 2008 2010 2011
Hei
gh
t (m
)
Year of Deployment
Tower Height (m)
Tower Height (m)
Lineær (Tower Height
(m))
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 54
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-4. Historical Development of Tower Weight (1991-2012)
4.1.3 Historical Trend - Turbines MW size
Offshore turbine technology has changed considerably since the first 450 kW Bonus machine was installed
in 1991. Over the past two decades, wind turbine manufacturers have progressed through four generations
of offshore designs. Figure 4-5 illustrates the evolution of offshore turbine technology. This fourth
generation of turbines is currently under various stages of development from a number of major European
suppliers. The latest to be installed in European waters is in the 6 MW size range. Turbine vendors who
have products in this size include REpower (6M), Siemens (SWT6.0-154) and Alstom (Haliade 150).
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-5. Historical Development of Wind Turbine Power Rate (1991-2012)
As shown in Figure 4-6, the 3.6 MW capacity turbine accounts for 38.27% of total installations, closely
followed by 3 MW models. Siemens is the main supplier of both 3.6 MW and 2.3 MW turbines while
Vestas dominates the 3 MW bracket. Wind turbines with rated capacities of 5 MW have been available for
20 28,5
98,4
159 130 135
160 160
108 134
180 210
104
450
162
260
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1991 2000 2001 2002 2005 2007 2009 2011
We
igh
t (t
)
Year of Deployment
Tower Weight (t)
Tower Weight (t)
Lineær (Tower Weight
(t))
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 55
commercial offshore installation from REpower since 2008. Turbine models greater than 5 MW made up
nearly 12% of the total market by the end of 2012. REpower has the longest 5 MW+ track record of all
turbine OEMs as of the end of 2012.
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-6. Historical Wind Turbine Installation by Power Rate as of 2012
4.1.4 Historical Trend - Foundations (type and weight)
Today offshore turbines are largely installed on monopile foundations. A monopile foundation consists of
a long cylindrical steel tube driven into the seabed, and a transition piece that connects the substructure
and the wind turbine tower. Through 2012, monopiles were about 73.5% of the cumulative offshore wind
installation. However, as turbines grow and deeper water depths are pursued, alternatives are likely to be
increasingly attractive. Moreover, certain seabed conditions may be more favorable to alternatives such as
gravity base structures (GBS) or suction caissons. By the end of 2012, gravity base structure accounted for
11.4% of total offshore wind installation, however, market share of GBS is expected to decline based on
currently planned and proposed projects.
Despite long-term trends that suggest a declining market share for monopiles, they are expected to
continue to be in use for many years after the XL (extra-long) monopiles have been recently introduced to
the offshore wind market. In addition, the monopile’s relative simplicity and low labour requirements
make it an attractive platform for future innovations that might extend its useful life.
Even when considering alternative materials and design architectures, it is likely that the combination of
diverse seabed conditions, deeper water, and larger turbines will push the industry away from monopile
foundations to alternatives. Alternatives to the monopile include jackets, tripiles, tripods, GBS, and suction
caissons. This trend of increasing diversity in foundation types is illustrated in Figure 4-7.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 56
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-7. Historical Installation of Foundation by Type as of End of 2012
Space frame designs, like jackets, tripods and tripiles are typically preferred for deepwater sites. Jackets
entail significantly more fabrication and assembly but are less material intensive than tripod and tripile
designs. GBS or suction caissons may be viable in the shallower more protected locations, particularly
those where seabed geology, rocks, or boulders make it challenging to drive pilings. GBS relies exclusively
on the mass of the structure and the force of gravity for stability. Suction caissons are similar to GBS in that
they do not require pilings. However, suction caissons rely on a large diameter cylindrical structure fixed
to the seabed by pumping out the water that would otherwise fill the structure to create a vacuum.
The combination of gravity base and piles (also called “high-rise pile cap”) and multi-pile solutions have
been adopted in China, but it is not going to become a mainstream concept in Europe because it is a tailor-
made design for the Chinese seabed.
The data for foundation weights is not as abundant as it is for other turbine and balance of plant
components. As seen in Figure 4-8, weights for monopile foundations, the most popular foundation type
to date, have ranged primarily between 300-400 metric tonnes over the last two decades. Gravity base
foundations have typically weighed between 1,500 and 4,000 metric tonnes, 8-10 times more than their
monopile counterparts. (See Figure 4-9)
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 57
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-8. Historical Development of Monopile Foundation Weight (1991-2012)
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-9. Historical Development of Gravity Base Foundation Weight (1991-2012)
The weight of jacket, tripile, and tripod-based foundations are slightly more than that of monopile
foundations. A sampling of foundations for 5-6 MW turbines shows weights between 500-700 metric
tonnes.
1800 1800
3900
3000
1900
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2000 2003 2007 2008 2010
Wei
gh
t (t
)
Year of Deployment
Gravity Base Foundation Weight (t)
Gravity Base
Foundation Weight
(t)
Lineær (Gravity Base
Foundation Weight
(t))
80
165
300 280 300
400
218
423
215
530
350
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1994
2000
2002
2003
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Wei
gh
t (t
)
Year of deployment
Monopile Foundation Weight (t)
Monopile
Foundation Weight
(t)
Lineær ( Monopile
Foundation Weight
(t) )
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 58
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-10. Historical Development of Jacket, Tripile & Tripod Foundation Weight (1991-2012)
4.1.5 Distance From Shore
European developers are increasingly building offshore wind plants further from the coast and in deeper
waters. BTM internal analysis of planned and under-construction projects shows that this trend will likely
continue.
Offshore wind projects are increasingly located further from shore to capture higher wind speeds and thus
higher capacity factors. Once a project is more than about 15 nautical miles from the nearest possible
servicing port, it begins to become prohibitive to transport technicians from land to the site and back in a
single shift while still allowing adequate time for work to be completed. Beyond 30 nautical miles from a
potential servicing port, the need for offshore hotels for technicians starts to become economically viable.
For these far offshore facilities, servicing could resemble an offshore drilling rig or even a ship with
hoteling facilities such as a modified cruise ship. In either of these cases, staff would be located at sea for a
period of weeks at a time and then rotate out with another set of workers who are then located at sea for a
similar period. Such a model dramatically increases the offshore wind technician costs by doubling the
required workforce and also requiring additional service workers to staff and maintain the hoteling
facilities themselves (e.g., cooks). Offshore hoteling models will likely necessitate very large project sizes to
ensure the ability to capture economies of scale. Nevertheless, they are expected to be particularly valuable
in locations with very limited access opportunities due to weather or very deep water.
Figure 4-11 shows a plot of the average water depth and distance from shore for the operating offshore
wind farms around the world.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 59
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Figure 4-11. Depth and Distance from Shore for Global Offshore Wind Farms
4.1.6 O&M Developments
This section provides an overview of recent trends within the wind industry related to operations and
maintenance (O&M) of offshore wind farms. Many of these trends are a direct result of technology changes
that are discussed in previous sections. In particular, increased turbine size, plant size, and distance from
shore all have direct consequences on O&M practices, which will in turn affect vessel requirements and
strategy.
These trends will add to the logistical difficulties of maintaining offshore turbines. The longer distances
from shore will increase the challenges in accessing turbines due to weather conditions and will increase
the focus on reliability. Larger turbines will result in increased capacity factors and a higher cost of
downtime, which will allow less time for maintenance. Plant lifetimes will increase due to more reliable
components, which will result in service schedules being driven by lifetime analyses.
Many O&M trends have a direct impact on vessel requirements. These trends are described below and
summarised in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Offshore Wind O&M Trends and Implications for Vessels
O&M Trend Implications for Vessels
Increased crew size resulting from larger
turbines and larger wind farms
Increased need for larger crew vessels with more
extended rules/procedures
Plants farther from shore require crews to
remain on site for 7-14 days
Increased need for accommodation vessels and “satellite
crew-vessels” for reaching the turbines in the wind farm
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 60
Larger plants farther from shore can
justify purpose built equipment
Increased demand for Tailor-made O&M vessels
Increased use of proactive maintenance
methods
Maintenance activities are only performed when there is
an impending need rather than based upon a specified
period of time
Increased multi-contracting of O&M
services
Vessels will be required by more different types of
companies
Project owners assume access risk Owners will have increased responsibility to provide
transportation to the offshore site
Increased use of helicopter services for
certain wind/visibility conditions
O&M vessels will have increased competition for time-
sensitive deliveries of small to medium sized parts
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Increased crew requirements. Wind plant size and location will drive key strategy elements such as
staffing, vessel ownership, and shared facilities. Larger plants will justify service and crew transfer vessels,
while smaller plants will opt for sharing of vessels.
The size of turbines will also have an impact on the choice of Service Crew Boat size. Today a service team
of two technicians need to be transferred to each turbine, but in the future with 6-8 MW turbines it is likely
that a team will be 3-4 technicians per turbine (to minimize off-time). If the vessel carries more than 12
crew members, then it becomes an “ordinary passenger vessel” which must adhere to a much more
extended set of safety rules and procedures. Therefore the OPEX is significantly higher than for smaller
vessels.
There is no simple rule for the optimal size of a crew vessel as it depends a lot on the conditions on the site
such as water depth, wave frequency etc. In some cases a large vessel is not the best. The current
development of crew-vessels may lead to a few standard types of vessels, which gives a big shipyard an
opportunity to build larger volumes of the same vessel type.
Accommodation Vessels. Plants farther from shore will require technician crews to reside at
accommodation facilities or large crew vessels for one to two week periods. Notably, vessels offer the
potential for greater lift and equipment storage capacity, as well as mobility, not afforded by fixed hoteling
platforms; however, efficiencies may be gained from either type of hoteling facility by allowing technicians
to service multiple projects within a general area while reducing transport time and cost.
Several smaller “satellite crew-vessels” will be needed for transporting the crews from the accommodation
facility or vessel to the turbines in the wind farm.
Based on the new vessel designs for the next generation of offshore wind service vessel, it is expected that
Accommodation Vessels will eventually be replaced by larger Service Operations Vessels (SOVs), which
are used to transport crew and equipment for a variety of purposes. Type 2 SOVs will be large enough to
handle crews larger than 60 people and are expected to replace Accommodation Vessels after 2017.
Larger plants farther from shore can justify purpose built equipment. Each plant will have a breakeven
calculation for buying vs. leasing vs. sharing each type of equipment or vessel required. As a rule of
thumb, the breakeven point for justifying the purchase of a dedicated purpose built lifting vessel is ~100
turbines, which also includes using the vessel during the construction period. All owners/operator of large
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 61
wind farms will demand purpose built vessels for O&M and in some cases tailor made for their own
specific climate and location.
Increased use of proactive maintenance methods. Within the wind industry in general and offshore wind
in particular, there has been movement towards utilising more proactive maintenance methods (e.g.,
condition monitoring, predictive maintenance, etc.) in an effort to preserve availability and reduce
operating costs. Predictive maintenance activities are only performed when there is an impending need
rather than based upon a specified period of time. The implication for vessels is a need for more
coordinated and flexible scheduling, which gives an advantage to owners of larger fleets.
Increased multi-contracting of O&M services. Over the past few years, there has been a clear shift in the
offerings that are provided by the turbine OEMs with regard to turbine O&M. Offshore wind O&M is now
generally treated in a multi-contract fashion. Turbine suppliers are now limiting their risk exposure by
focusing solely on operating and maintaining their turbines, and putting the onus on the owner to contract
for the other services. Vessels will therefore be required by more different types of companies, including
project owners and independent service providers (ISPs). Presently, none of the ISPs offer all of the
necessary O&M services in-house, and none of them offer maintenance services for the wind turbines
themselves. Often ISPs will manage workboats, cables and foundations individually.
Project owners assume access risk. The topic of access risk is very important to consider with regard to the
operation of an offshore wind facility. The inability to access the farm due to inclement weather conditions
can have a significant impact on plant availability. In many recent O&M service agreements, the
contractual risk associated with accessing the turbines has been assumed by the owner, not the OEM. This
is a key difference from the scope of many of the earlier OEM service agreements. The service contracts
will in some cases stipulate that it is the owner’s responsibility to provide transportation to the offshore
site.
4.1.7 Advances in Installation Techniques
As the offshore wind industry has progressed, advancements in installation techniques have been driven
by the need to reduce the time needed for installation, as well as the time for transferring foundations,
towers, turbines and blades to sites farther from shore. These advancements have been aided by the
increased use of Jack-up vessels, particularly Generation III vessels, which have all the features of
Generation II and also propulsion with DP2 / DP3 capability.
Using Jack-up vessels for the installation of turbines and foundations is the main stream installation
approach in Europe. Heavy Lift Vessel (HLVs) were used to install two completely assembled REpower 5
MW turbines at Beatrice 1 in Scotland, but that is the only the exception. HLVs are currently used in
Europe to install substations and foundations, but it is normal to use HLVs to install offshore wind
turbines in China where the tailor-made turbine installation HLVs are available.
Given the importance of the role that Jack-up Vessels play within the offshore wind industry, some turbine
suppliers and project owners are seeking to hedge against the potential future scarcity of vessels by
building their own vessels or entering into strategic relationships to secure access, including the following:
» DONG Energy and Siemens jointly own the offshore vessel operator A2Sea
» RWE has built two Jack-up Vessels to install its own offshore wind projects
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 62
» REpower has two Jack-up Vessels currently being built, the first should be available in 2013,
and the second in 2014
» Areva Wind has a long-term charter on the HGO Infrasea Solutions Innovation
By utilizing this type of approach, the suppliers and project owners: 1) make sure that Jack-up Vessel
availability is not a bottleneck for their growth in the offshore wind industry, 2) have added assurance they
can meet their obligations during construction and operation, and 3) can improve their responsiveness to
major O&M activities.
Apart from using the most advanced Jack-up Vessels to improve the efficiency of turbine installation at
sea, five different turbine installation concepts have been developed to reduce the time spent on turbine
installation. The installation techniques become critical, especially when the sizes of project and wind
turbine get bigger and the offshore wind farms are located further from shore. Figure 4-12 illustrates the
evolution of installation concepts in the past ten years. Installation Method 1 and 2 was popular when the
small size wind turbines were installed at small near-shore wind farms. Methods 4 and 5 have become the
most popular concepts at present, which were adopted for the world’s two largest offshore wind farms,
London Array Phase 1 (Kent, UK) and Gwynt y Mōr (North Wales). Method 3 was used for REpower’s 6M
at Thornton Bank (Belgium).
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 63
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 64
Figure 4-12. Offshore Wind Turbine Installation Concepts for Jack-Up Vessels
In addition, transportation demands will vary with the installation practices and strategies of the industry.
Transportation demands will also evolve as the life cycle of each project proceeds. During construction,
transport vessels, either in the form of dedicated transport vessels or the actual installation vessel itself, are
needed to collect the foundation and turbine equipment from a centralised distribution point that can meet
the required lift capacity and air draft requirements. Utilizing the installation vessel to transport
equipment from the staging port to the project site minimizes the number of required equipment transfers
but also consumes highly valuable installation time ferrying equipment between the staging area and the
project site. Dedicated transport vessels may allow for more efficient use of the installation vessel but also
create the risk for component damage during transfers unless the dedicated transport vessel is capable of
carrying out fixed (as opposed to floating) lifts at sea. The trade-off between these two approaches can be
expected to be a function of distance between the staging port and the project site. When in closer
proximity, the time lost ferrying equipment with the installation vessel is less substantial; sites located
farther from port may require dedicated transport vessels.
4.2 Summarized Technology & Market Trends – Scenarios
As described in section 4.1.3, offshore wind has gone through three generations, with the development of
the fourth generation still underway. Innovation is the key for offshore wind turbine technology. Over the
past two decades, wind turbine technology has experienced major advances, a steady increase of turbine
size together with the evolution of turbine drive train concepts. Figure 4-13 shows the road map of offshore
wind turbine technology development from 1991.
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant - September 2013
Figure 4-13. Road Map of Offshore Turbine Technology Development 1991-2015
Based on the historical development of trends and current cutting edge technologies observed in the
market, Navigant/BTM has developed five scenarios to characterize the technology trends in offshore wind
as shown in Table 4-2.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 65
Table 4-2. Offshore Wind Technology Development Scenarios
Metric
Recent Historical Today's Standard
Technology
Next-Generation Technology
Future Advanced
Technology
1st Generation Floating
Technology*
2nd Generation Floating
Technology
Nameplate Capacity (MW) 2-2.3 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 10 2 -4 5 -10
Hub Height (meters) 60-70 70 - 90 85-100 > 100 70 -90 >85
Rotor Diameter (meters) 65-82 90 - 130 120 - 160 160 - 200 90 - 130 –>120
Water Depth (meters) 5-15 10 - 37 15 - 45 20 - 65 > 50 > 50
Monopile Foundations yes yes no no n/a n/a
Jacket Foundations no yes yes yes n/a n/a
Tripod Foundations No yes yes yes n/a n/a
Gravity Base Foundations yes yes yes yes n/a n/a
Distance from Shore (km) 1-20 5-55 5-115 30-290 <10 >10
Proximity to Staging Area** < 100 miles > 100 miles > 100 miles < 100 miles > 100 miles
Proximity to Interconnection** < 50 miles > 50 miles > 50 miles < 50 miles > 50 miles
Proximity to Service Port** < 30 miles > 30 miles > 30 miles < 30 miles > 30 miles
Project Size (MW) 10-150 200 -400 500 - 1,000 > 1,000 <10 > 100
Max Nacelle Weight*** 60-85 90-150 metric
tons 230-360 metric
tons 300-550 metric
tons 215 metric tons
(5 MW) 550 metric tons
(10 MW)
Max Nacelle Footprint
*Proof of commercial viability (one step from prototype testing)
**Based loosely on staging area distances for planned German installations but recognizing that US installations are likely to be closer to shore
***The nacelle is typically the heaviest component, however heavier lifts may be required depending on the number of tower sections and the installation method (e.g., total turbine lift)
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
The five technology scenarios cover three scenarios for conventional foundation and two for floating
foundation:
Conventional foundation Floating foundation
» Today’s Standard Technology » 1st Generation Floating Technology
» Next Generation Technology » 2nd Generation Floating Technology
» Future Advanced Technology
According to the historical trend of offshore wind turbine technology and the evolution of turbine
installation technology, in the near-term, for offshore wind with the conventional foundation, there are two
primary scenarios of interest: Today’s Standard Technology and Next-Generation Technology.
Under a low-growth scenario, Today’s Standard Technology will continue through 2017 (Table 4-3). We
would then see Next-Generation Technology take hold through 2030. Under a medium-to-high-growth
scenario, Next-Generation Technology would take hold earlier, in 2015, and continue through 2020. With
continued medium-to-high-growth, we would see a third scenario, Future Advanced Technology, take
hold in 2021 and last through 2030.
At a high-level, the evolution from Today’s Standard Technology to Next Generation Technology to Future
Advanced Technology entails the introduction of progressively larger turbines. Larger turbines will have
longer/heavier blades, larger/heavier nacelles, taller/heavier towers, and larger/heavier foundations.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 66
Average plant size will grow. Additionally, plants will be progressively further from shore and in deeper
waters.
Table 4-3. Offshore Wind Technology Scenarios vs Offshore Markt Growth Scenarios
Scenario Year Turbine Size
(MW) Project Size
(MW) Low growth Med/High Growth
Recent Historical N/A 2000-2004 2 - 2.3 10 - 150
Today’s Standard Technology 2015-2017 2005-2014 3 - 4 200 - 400
Next-Generation Technology 2018-2030 2015-2020 5 - 6 500 - 1,000
Future Advanced Technology N/A 2021-2030 7 - 10 >1,000
1st Generation Floating Technology N/A 2009-2017 2 – 4 <=10
2nd Generation Floating Technology N/A 2018-2030 5 – 10 >100
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant 2013 – September 2013
For the floating technology, these two scenarios are not exclusive of the three above but rather are
complementary as some floating foundations will co-exist with fixed foundations in the offshore market. It
is no doubt that small pilot projects will be built up continuously to test or prove technologies, but we are
cautious about the large scale deployment of floating offshore wind turbine under the low-growth
scenario. Under the medium-to-high scenario, however, the first generation floating technology is expected
to be deployed through 2017 and the second generation will be ready from 2018 onward to 2030.
The characteristics of the turbines anticipated for the 1st Generation Floating scenario are generally
consistent with those of Today’s Standard Technology. The turbines corresponding to the 2nd Generation
Floating scenario are similar to those expected under the Future Advanced Technology scenario.
4.3 Implications of Technology Demands
As shown in Table 4-3, under a medium-to-high-growth scenario, Next-Generation Technology and Future
Advanced Technology would take hold in 2015 and 2021, respectively. What does this mean for the
offshore wind installation services providers, especially, for turbine installation vessel operators? Are
current jack-up barges and vessels capable of installing next generation multi-MW offshore wind turbine?
Does the industry need more tailor-made vessels? This section will look at the implications of turbine
technology development, and summarize factors that have an impact on the availability of installation
vessels and factors that need to be taken into account for the design of new offshore wind service vessels.
With turbine technology moving from Today’s standard into Next-Generation, it is not just the increase of
nameplate capacity. In fact, several other factors such as nacelle weight, hub height, rotor diameter and
foundation weight have increased as well. The nacelle weight, for example, has increased from 90-150
metric tonnes for Today’s standard to 230-360 metric tonnes for Next-Generation. If the offshore wind
industry uses today’s mainstream turbine installation concepts (Method 4 and 5 in Figure 4-12), the total
weight of nacelle and hub will reach to 300-440 metric tonnes for the Next-Generation turbine technology.
In this scenario, Jack-up Vessels with crane lifting capacity of less than 300 metric tonnes will be
uncompetitive for the installation of Next-Generation offshore wind turbine. For the installation of
foundations, the implication is the same. The foundation weight will increase from 200-400 metric tonnes
for today’s mainstream foundation type, monopile, to 500-700 metric tonnes for jacket, tripile and tripod-
based foundations mainly adopted for the Next-Generation offshore turbine. The increase of foundation
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 67
weight also means some Jack-up and Heavy-lift Vessels will no longer be capable of installing turbine ≥ 5.0
MW.
Table 4-4 lists all the key factors having an impact on the availability of selection of installation vessels. To
make sure the newly built installation vessels, particularly Jack-up Vessels, can meet the technical
requirements for installing the Next-Generation and Future Advanced turbines, these key factors also have
to be taken into consideration by vessel designer.
Table 4-4 Implications of Technology Demands on Vessel Selection and Design
Features of offshore wind technology Parameters of selection Impact on vessel design
Weight of Nacelle Onboard crane capacity Boom length, radius, SWL,
Jacking deadweight
Weight of Blade Onboard crane capacity Boom length, radius, SWL
Weight of Tower Onboard crane capacity Boom length, radius, SWL,
Jacking deadweight
Weight of foundation Onboard crane capacity Boom length, radius, SWL,
Jacking deadweight
Hub Height Hook height above the deck Hook height, boom length
Rotor Diameter Hook height above the deck
Deck space
Hook height, boom length
Deck space
Size of Nacelle Deck space Deck space,
Jacking deadweight
Size of Foundation Deck space Deck space,
Jacking deadweight
Size of Tower ( Diameter at the bottle) Deck space Deck space,
Jacking deadweight
Size of Project Turbine installation method
Cargo capacity
Onboard accommodation
Deck space
Cargo capacity,
Jacking deadweight
Size of accommodation
Water depth of project Leg length Leg length
Distance of project from shore Turbine installation method
Cargo capacity
Onboard accommodation
Deck space
Cargo capacity
Jacking deadweight
Self-propelled system
Size of accommodation
Source: BTM Consult, A Part of Navigant – September 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 68
5. Vessel Demand vs. Supply
This section presents the methodology for developing the vessel demand and supply scenarios, followed
by a graphical representation of the supply and demand situation for each vessel type.
5.1 Methodology
Navigant produced a forecast of the demand for each vessel type and compared it to the current supply.
Figure 5-1 is a flow diagram of the methodology employed, showing the various elements that were used
as input to the calculations. Each of the steps of the calculation is discussed in the following sections.
Figure 5-1. Methodology for Vessel Supply vs. Demand Analysis
5.1.1 MW Forecast
Navigant’s offshore wind MW installation 2013-2022 forecast by country is provided in Section 2.3, along
with a description of the forecast methodology. The Middle Scenario of this forecast is used as a starting
point for the vessel demand calculation.
5.1.2 Technology Forecast
Navigant used an Offshore Wind Vessel Requirements model to determine vessels per MW conversion
factors for various standard vessel types. The model was developed by Douglas-Westwood as part of its
recent study for the U.S. Department of Energy2. Both Navigant and its subcontractor Knud E. Hansen
assisted Douglas-Westwood in this study. One of the key inputs to the model is the mix of the various
2 “Assessment of Vessel Requirements for the U.S. Offshore Wind Sector”, Douglas-Westwood, prepared for the U.S.
department of Energy, March 2013.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 69
offshore wind technologies employed. As discussed in Section 4.3, the following technology scenarios are
considered:
» Today’s Standard Technology
» Next-Generation Technology
» Future Advanced Technology
» 1st Generation Floating Technology
» 2nd Generation Floating Technology
For each country and year, Navigant evaluated the offshore wind development pipeline and other factors
to determine the percentage likelihood that each of the five technology scenarios will occur. As an
example, the offshore wind fleet in Germany is expected to evolve as follows:
» 2013: 70% Today’s Standard Technology, 30% Next-Generation Technology
» 2017: 10% Today’s Standard Technology, 90% Next-Generation Technology
» 2022: 70% Next-Generation Technology, 30% Future Advanced Technology
5.1.3 Conversion Factors for Standard Vessel Types
As discussed in Section 3, Navigant has identified 18 different types of vessels that are needed during the
offshore wind life cycle. Most of these vessel types correspond to the standard types used in the Offshore
Wind Vessel Requirements model. The Offshore Wind Vessel Requirements model covers the following 12
standard vessel types:
» Survey Vessels
o Environmental Survey Vessels
o Geophysical Survey Vessels
o Geotechnical Survey Vessels
» Construction Vessels
o Jack-up Vessels
o TIVs
o Cable-lay Vessels
o Heavy-lift Vessels
» Service Vessels
o Tugs
o Barges
o Supply Vessels
» O&M Vessels
o Personnel Transfer Vessels (Service Crew Boats)
o Heavy Maintenance Vessels (Tailor-made O&M Vessels)
For all vessel types except for O&M Vessels, the model calculates the number of vessels required for a
given number of new MW installed in a given year. For O&M Vessels, the model calculates the number of
vessels required for a given number of cumulative MW installed through that year. The output is a
conversion factor which has the units of vessels per new MW or vessels per cumulative MW. Since the
technology mix changes by country and year, there is a unique conversion factor for each country and
year.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 70
5.1.4 Conversion Factors for New Vessel Types
For vessel types that are not covered by the Offshore Wind Vessel Requirements model, Navigant used
alternative methodologies and assumptions to determine the conversion factors for additional vessel types,
as described in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Conversion Factors for New Vessel Types
Vessel Type Conversion Factor Methodology
Diving Support Vessel One vessel for each 2 new plants >300 MW1 through 2019,
then zero (replace by MPPV)
Multi-purpose Project Vessel (MPPV) A portion of the Service Crew Boat demand (10% in 2013,
growing to 28% in 2022)
Multi-purpose Survey Vessel 30%-80% of Survey Vessels will be multi-purpose
Safety Vessel/Standby ERRV One vessel for each 2 cumulative plants >300 MW1
Accommodation Vessel One vessel for each cumulative plant >300 MW and >20 km
from shore1 through 2017, then zero (replaced by large Service
Operating Vessels)
Service Operating Vessel, Type 2 One vessel for each cumulative plant >300 MW and >20 km
from shore1 after 2017 1 plus one vessel for each additional 400 MW after the first 300 MW.
5.1.5 Vessel Demand Forecast
Navigant has produced a Vessel Demand Model which uses as input the Offshore Wind Vessel
Requirements model outputs along with the conversions factors described in Table 5-1. The Navigant
model produces spreadsheets and graphs showing vessel demand for each country (by vessel type and
year) as well as for each vessel type (by country and year). Similar to the MW forecast, the High and Low
Scenarios are calculated as a function of the Middle Scenario. The results are shown graphically in Section
5.2 and in tabular form in Appendix A.
5.1.6 Vessel Supply
As discussed in Section 3.2, Navigant’s Offshore Wind Vessel Database contains information on
approximately 865 individual vessels. The database contains summary spreadsheets showing the number
of vessels of each type by country of its flag as well as the country of the vessel operator. Another
important field in the vessels database is whether the operator has offshore wind experience. Only 435
vessels meet this criterion.
Navigant determined the number of each vessel type that is currently in operation, as well as the number
of each vessel type that is currently under construction or in the pipeline. The sum of those two numbers is
the estimated vessel supply in 2015.
5.2 Supply vs. Demand Analysis
In this section, the 2013-2022 global demand for each vessel type is graphically compared to the 2013-2015
global supply. In most cases there is currently sufficient vessel supply but the forecasted demand is
expected to overtake current supply within a few years.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 71
5.2.1 Construction Vessels
5.2.1.1 Jack-up Barges or Vessels
In the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Jack-up Barges or Vessels will peak in 2019 at
approximately 46 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 51 vessels. On the supply
side, there are 60 Jack-up Vessels identified globally that is expected to grow to 70 vessels by 2015. Despite
the fact that in general the supply figures are much higher than the forecasted demand figures, it doesn’t
mean that oversupply is going to challenge the offshore wind sector during the forecasted period. Instead,
we expect a shortage of supply of the third generation Jack-up Vessels capable of installing the next
generation of offshore wind turbine during the middle of the forecast period.
According to BTM’s offshore wind project pipeline and turbine technology forecast scenarios, more than
85% of wind turbines expected to be installed in the world’s two largest offshore wind markets, the UK
and Germany, in 2017 will be the Next Generation turbine. The trend of installing larger offshore wind
turbines will bring the global market share of the Next Generation turbine to about 75% by 2020. Figure 5-2
shows that the global demand of Jack-up Vessels for Next Generation turbine technology will peak at 37
vessels in 2020 in the Middle Scenario. The peak will be around 42 vessels in the High Scenario.
Figure 5-2. Next Generation Jack-up Vessel Supply and Demand
The supply analysis, however, shows only 23 turbine installation vessels that can be used for the
installation of Next Generation turbines by September 2013, of which 16 units are third generation purpose
built turbine installation Jack-up Vessels with a maximum crane lifting capacity of ≥300 metric tonnes, and
7 units are second generation Jack-up Vessels with the experience of installing the Next Generation
offshore wind turbine. Albeit another 7 purpose built turbine installation Jack-up Vessels currently under
construction will be delivered to the offshore wind market by 2015 (4 will be delivered by end of 2013), the
total number of Jack-up Vessels suitable for Next Generation offshore turbine installation could just reach
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Ves
sels
Year of Operation
Total World Supply
Total Supply w/OSW experience
Supply of TIVs for Next Gen Turbine
Next Gen Demand - High Scenario
Next Gen Demand - Middle Scenario
Next Gen Demand - Low Scenario
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 72
30 by 2020 (assuming no new Jack-up Vessels will be built), which is actually 7 units lower than the
demand in the Middle Scenario. The gap will increase to 12 units in the High Scenario by 2020. Note that
the gap between demand and supply will be even bigger if other parameters such as maximum working
water depth, hook height and boom length are taken into consideration for Jack-up Vessel selection.
In addition, a lesson learnt by offshore wind Jack-up Vessel operators and offshore wind project
developers/operators is that a slight oversupply for offshore wind turbine installation vessels is necessary
and healthy. The reasoning is threefold: firstly, the weather window is limited so demand for vessels in
certain periods each year (high season) is very high. This will cause a lot of competition to charter Jack-up
Vessels; secondly, some vessels are not available for the open market since they are committed to offshore
wind operators who built and own those vessels; thirdly, due to the uncertainty of weather conditions or
other factors it is normal that the project construction period has to be extended or re-scheduled. In that
case, being a little flexible with the vessel contract is critical for the success of project installation.
In short, there is an oversupply of Jack-up Vessels for today’s standard offshore wind turbine (3-4 MW) at
present, but the supply chain situation for Jack-up Vessels capable of installing Next Generation turbines is
not optimistic from 2018 onward. A shortage of offshore wind Jack-up Vessels for the Next Generation and
Future Advanced Technology is going to appear unless more Tailor-made TIVs are delivered before 2018.
5.2.1.2 Heavy Lift Vessels
Figure 5-3 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Heavy Lift Vessels will peak in 2020 at
approximately 15 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 17 vessels in 2021. Both of
these figures are significantly less than the current global supply of 58 vessels, which is expected to grow
to 65 vessels by 2015. However, only 17 of these existing vessels are directly involved in offshore wind
installation, which is a level much closer to the expected peak demand. In addition, there are a limited
number of purpose-made HLVs that are dedicated for offshore wind (mainly in China). For the majority of
HLVs, offshore wind must compete with offshore O&G. HLVs will be in particularly high demand by the
European offshore O&G industry during the period 2015-2018, so a bottleneck may be reached by then.
Another bottleneck could be the availability of HLVs with lifting capacity greater than 9,000 metric tonnes.
The topside of DC converters with a capacity of 800 MW (made by ABB) reaches more than 9,300 MT, but
only two HLVs identified at present with a capacity of larger than 9,000 tonnes. In addition, 12 HLVs in
our database with a lift capacity lower than 600 MT, which cannot be used for the installation of large
foundations like tripiles, tripod and gravity base foundation.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 73
Figure 5-3. Heavy Lift Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.1.3 Cable Lay Vessels
Figure 5-4 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Cable Lay Vessels will peak in 2020-
2021 at approximately 19 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 22 vessels in 2021.
Both of these figures are significantly less than the current global supply of 87 vessels, which is expected to
grow to 90 vessels by 2015. However, only 42 of these existing vessels have been used specifically for
offshore wind cable installation, which is a level much closer to the expected peak demand, although still
considerably higher.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Ves
sels
Year of Operation
Total World Supply
Supply w/OSW experience
Demand - High Scenario
Demand - Middle Scenario
Demand - Low Scenario
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 74
Figure 5-4. Cable Lay Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.1.4 Diving Support Vessels
Figure 5-5 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Diving Support Vessels will continue
to grow until it reaches its peak of approximately 21 vessels in 2018. In the High Scenario, the demand will
peak at approximately 23 vessels. Both of these figures are considerably greater than the current global
supply of 11 vessels. Only 4 of these existing Diving Support vessels have been identified with offshore
wind experience, which is a figure that will be eclipsed by demand by 2017. The reason for the drop in
demand in 2020 is that according to the trend of vessel design the diving support function will be handled
by multi-purpose vessels after that point. In fact, more than five MPPVs currently in operation already
have the function of a DSV. Therefore there will be no reason for DSVs since the next generation of multi-
purpose vessels will be designed to also handle the diving support function.
Figure 5-5. Diving Support Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.1.5 Multi-Purpose Project Vessels
Figure 5-6 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Multi-Purpose Project Vessels
(MPPVs) will grow throughout the forecast period, reaching approximately 166 vessels in 2022. In the
High Scenario, the demand will be approximately 195 vessels in 2022. Both of these figures are
significantly greater than the current global supply of 107 vessels, which is expected to grow to 117 vessels
by 2015. At present, only 60 of these existing vessels have offshore wind experience, which is a level
considerably higher than the current demand. This, however, doesn’t mean that MPPVs are in oversupply
because a portion of these Multi-purpose Project Vessels can be used as Diving Support Vessels, Towing
Vessels, Crew Transfer Vessels and even Platform Supply Vessels, which are discussed in the following
section.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 75
Figure 5-6. MPPV Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.1.6 Platform Supply Vessels
Figure 5-7 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Platform Supply Vessels will peak in
2019 at approximately 203 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 227 vessels. Both
of these figures are significantly greater than the current global supply of 19 vessels, which is expected to
grow to 23 vessels by 2015. Only 6 of these existing vessels are operated by companies with offshore wind
experience. These supply figures are significantly less than the current demand, but a portion of the
demand can be met by using Multi-Purpose Project Vessels, which are currently in surplus.
Figure 5-7. Platform Supply Vessel Supply and Demand
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 76
5.2.1.7 Cargo Barges
Figure 5-8 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Cargo Barges will peak in 2019 at
approximately 46 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 51 vessels. Both of these
figures are significantly greater than the current global supply of 35 vessels, which is expected to grow to
36 vessels by 2015. Only 16 of these existing vessels are identified with offshore wind track record, which is
a level approximately equal to the current demand. We expect that there will be shortages of Cargo Barges
by 2017 if none are delivered to the offshore wind sector before that year.
Figure 5-8. Cargo Barge Supply and Demand
5.2.2 Survey Vessels
5.2.2.1 ROV Support Vessels
Figure 5-9 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for ROV Support Vessels will peak in
2018 at approximately 5 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 6 vessels. Both of
these figures are greater than the current global supply of 3 vessels. However, the ROV function can be
handled by some Multi-purpose Project Vessels, Geophysical, Geotechnical and Multi-purpose Survey
Vessels, which will help to relieve the projected shortage.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 77
Figure 5-9. ROV Support Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.2.2 Geophysical Survey Vessels
Figure 5-10 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Geophysical Survey Vessels will
peak in 2018 at approximately 5 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 6 vessels.
Both of these figures are less than the current global supply of 10 vessels, but it doesn’t represent the
oversupply situation will remain, because some geophysical survey vessels have been used as ROV
Support Vessels as well in the offshore wind sector.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 78
Figure 5-10. Geophysical Survey Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.2.3 Geotechnical Survey Vessels
Figure 5-11 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Geotechnical Survey Vessels will
peak in 2018 at approximately three vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately four
vessels. Both of these figures are higher than the current global supply of one single vessel. However,
Multi-purpose Survey Vessels have provided such services in the offshore wind sector, alleviating any
shortage concern.
Figure 5-11. Geotechnical Survey Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.2.4 Multi-Purpose Survey Vessels
Figure 5-12 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Multi-purpose Survey Vessels will
peak in 2021 at approximately 21 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 24 vessels.
Both of these figures are less than the current global supply of 27 vessels, but Figure 5-12 also shows that
only 14 of these existing vessels currently have a track record in the offshore wind sector, which is a level
much closer to the expected demand in 2017. Using Multi-purpose Survey Vessels to cover all offshore
wind survey services is a trend in the offshore wind sector; therefore we expect an increase in demand for
this type of vessel during the forecast period; at the same time we expect a drop in demand for survey
vessels that can provide only a single offshore wind function.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 79
Figure 5-12. Multi-Purpose Survey Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.3 Service Vessels
5.2.3.1 Tugboats
Figure 5-13 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Tugboats will peak in 2019 at
approximately 49 vessels. In the High Scenario, the peak will be approximately 55 vessels. Both of these
figures are slightly less than the current global supply of 61 vessels. However, only half of these existing
vessels have been directly involved in offshore wind project work, which is a level higher than the current
demand but close to the expected demand in 2015. Considering the total availability of tugboats at present,
we expect that tugboats will be approximately in balance through the forecast period.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 80
Figure 5-13. Tugboat Supply and Demand
5.2.3.2 Safety Vessels/Standby ERRVs
Figure 5-14 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Safety Vessels and Standby ERRVs
will continue to grow throughout the forecast period, reaching approximately 80 vessels in 2022. In the
High Scenario, the demand will be approximately 94 vessels in 2022. As stated in Table 5-1, this forecast is
based on the assumption that one standby ERRV will be needed for each 2 cumulative plants >300 MW . In
reality, however, there is no standard requirement for having such vessel during offshore wind project
construction, and it currently depends on whether offshore wind project developers require standby
ERRVs during project installation to bring down the risk.
Some 40 ERRVs with the capability of providing service to offshore wind are from the offshore O&G
industry, of which only 11 have experience in offshore wind. At present, there is no challenge for existing
ERRVs to serve offshore wind, but it is expected to become a challenge if ERRVs become a standard
requirement by the offshore wind industry. It is expected that MPPVs with the ERRV function could help
relieve the shortage.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 81
Figure 5-14. Safety Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.3.3 Accommodation Vessels
Figure 5-15 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Accommodation Vessels will
continue to grow through 2017 and then remain level at approximately 30 vessels. In the High Scenario,
the demand will level off at approximately 35 vessels. Both of these figures are significantly greater than
the current global supply of 17 vessels. Only 8 of these existing vessels have offshore wind experience,
which is a level slightly higher than the current demand.
The reason that the demand is expected to level is that beginning in 2018, the hoteling function will be
handled by larger Service Operating Vessels, which are discussed in the next section.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Ves
sels
Year of Operation
Total World Supply
Supply w/OSW experience
Demand - High Scenario
Demand - Middle Scenario
Demand - Low Scenario
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 82
Figure 5-15. Accommodation Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.4 O&M Vessels
5.2.4.1 Service Crew Boats
Figure 5-16 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Service Crew Boats will continue to
grow throughout the forecast period, reaching approximately 426 vessels in 2022. In the High Scenario, the
demand will be approximately 502 vessels in 2022. Both of these figures are significantly greater than the
current global supply of 187 vessels, which is expected to grow to 213 by 2015. Only 110 of these existing
vessels have provided services to the offshore wind sector, which is a level that will be eclipsed by demand
in 2016. We expect that there will be a shortage of Service Crew Boats by 2017 if no orders of new crew
boats are signed before 2016 (assuming an 8-10 month lead time for a proven design).
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 83
Figure 5-16. Service Crew Boat Supply and Demand
5.2.4.2 Tailor-made O&M Vessels
Figure 5-17 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Tailor-made O&M Vessels will
continue to grow throughout the forecast period, reaching approximately 71 vessels in 2022. In the High
Scenario, the demand will be approximately 84 vessels in 2022. Both of these figures are significantly
greater than the global supply of just 3 vessels that is expected by 2015. In short, the offshore wind
industry is going to face an extreme shortage of supply of Tailor-made O&M Vessels. Despite the fact that
some small size Jack-up Barges or Vessels (that cannot to be used for Next Generation turbine installation)
could be adopted for providing O&M services, investment is imperative in this segment in order to meet
forecasted demand.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 84
Figure 5-17. Tailor-made O&M Vessel Supply and Demand
5.2.4.3 Service Operations Vessels
Service Operations Vessels (SOVs) are used for crew transfer, spare parts storage and floating hotel during
the project operational phase. Type 1 SOVs (smaller SOVs) are appropriate for crew sizes of 60 people or
less and are included in the MPPV category. Type 2 SOVs (large SOVs) will be larger (110-130m long) in
order to handle crews larger than 60 people. After 2017, Type 2 SOVs will replace Accommodation Vessels
for new 300+ MW plants which are greater than 20km from shore.
Figure 5-18 shows that in the Middle Scenario, the global demand for Type 2 SOVs will continue to grow
from 2017 onwards, reaching approximately 82 vessels in 2022. In the High Scenario, the demand will be
approximately 97 vessels in 2022. There are currently no SOV Type 2 vessels in operation or under
construction, but the offshore wind industry will get there when the market for large (300+ MW plants)
takes off in 2017. Like Tailor-made O&M Vessels, this will be another area for investment.
Figure 5-18. Service Operations Vessel Type 2 Supply and Demand
5.2.5 Summary
Table 5-2 is a summary of the peak Middle Scenario demand and current and expected supply of each
vessel type. The rows are colour coded in order to identify the vessels which are expected to be in surplus
(pink), approximately in balance (yellow), or in shortage (green).
Table 5-2. Supply vs. Demand Summary
Vessel Type
Peak
Demand
Year
Peak
Demand
Current
Supply
Expected
2015
Supply
Supply
w/OSW
Experience
Next Gen Jack-up Barges or Vessels 2020 37 27 30 27
HLVs 2020 15 58 65 17
Cable Lay Vessels 2020 19 87 90 42
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 85
Diving Support Vessels 2018 21 11 11 4
MPPVs 2022 165 107 117 59
Platform Supply Vessels 2019 203 19 23 6
Cargo Barges 2019 46 35 36 16
ROV Support Vessels 2018 5 3 3 0
Geophysical Survey Vessels 2018 5 10 10 0
Geotechnical Survey Vessels 2018 3 1 1 0
Multi-Purpose Survey Vessels 2021 21 28 28 14
Tugboats 2019 49 61 61 30
Safety Vessels 2022 80 40 40 9
Accommodation Vessels 2017 30 17 17 8
SOV Type 2 Vessels 2022 82 0 0 0
Service Crew Boat s 2022 426 187 213 103
Tailor-made O&M Vessels 2022 71 0 3 0
Green shaded rows: peak demand exceeds supply
Yellow shaded rows: supply and demand approximately in balance
Pink shaded rows: supply exceeds peak demand
The strategic implications of this analysis are discussed in Chapter 8. In general, attractive segments for
members of the Associations are the vessel types where peak demand is expected to exceed current supply
(i.e., the green shaded rows in Table 5-2).
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 86
6. Vessel Contracts Analysis
6.1 Introduction
One of most pressing issues facing the offshore industry in recent times is the lack of standardisation,
particularly in the area of vessel contracting. This presents a major dilemma in an industry that is
transnational, with a supply chain and financing pool spread out across a number of countries and where
the realisation of national targets is dependent on a well-developed supply chain. Furthermore, as an
increasing number of projects are being realised farther out to sea and in deeper waters, thereby increasing
technical complexity, logistics costs (and risks) will continue to rise. While there is much experience and
know-how that could be drawn from the oil & gas sector, the scale on which oil & gas projects have been
realised is vastly different from offshore wind projects. It is for these reasons why it is essential to outline
the overall contractual nature of this business, how structures and conditions vary from country to
country, as well as potential measures that can be taken at this stage to establish some form of
standardisation in this nascent industry.
In addressing these questions this chapter focuses on a number of relationships with regards to offshore
contracting, some of which are assumed by many observers to be mutually exclusive. They include the
following:
» Whether EPC or multi-contracting is the way forward;
» Whether cost reduction or risk mitigation is of greater importance;
» How different stakeholders, including utilities and banks, view offshore vessel contracts and
their particular provisions; and
» What types of contracting standards (e.g. FIDIC, BIMCO) are being used, for what purposes, and
in which countries.
Although many projects to date have been financed by utilities via balance sheet, the sheer number of
projects that need to be built in European waters in the coming years will greatly exceed balance sheet
capacity. This is occurring at a time when the liquidity of most European utilities has been hit by lower
electricity prices and where a large capital program is required to replace conventional generation with
new build assets. According to a recent survey conducted by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, 61% of the
senior executives they surveyed “do not believe that utilities are sufficiently capitalised to self-finance the
equity component of future offshore wind projects.”3 To fill the investment gap, project financing is being
employed as an alternative. Between February 2012 and March 2013, over €2 billion in debt financing was
raised for five European offshore projects. There are currently up to 15-20 banks in the market that lend to
offshore projects on a continual basis as well as a number of multilateral institutions (EIB, GIB, and KfW)
that have earmarked a considerable amount towards financing offshore wind. As such, due consideration
must also be given to how the financial sector perceives the offshore vessel market which is why this
chapter places particular emphasis on “bankability”.
There are four parts contained within this chapter, including the introduction. Part II highlights the
methodology we employed in the overall study, how the research has been designed, how information
was collected, the business segments that were surveyed, and why certain questions were asked. Part III
highlights the various contractual structures that are employed in the industry, the advantages and
3 “European Offshore Wind 2013: realising the opportunity”, conducted by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Link:
http://www.freshfields.com/uploadedFiles/SiteWide/News_Room/Insight/Windfarms/European%20offshore%20wind%202013%20-
%20realising%20the%20opportunity.pdf
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 87
disadvantages of one structure versus another, the differences as well as pros/cons of EPC versus multi-
contracting, and the key risks and considerations that should be taken into account over the course of the
project lifecycle. The chapter concludes with Part IV, which highlights the conclusions reached and makes
potential recommendations for the future.
6.2 Methodology
The methodology employed within this chapter entails drawing on information from two types of sources:
1) Desk Research, and 2) Conducting surveys across a range of companies and professionals that are active
at various levels of the offshore industry. The desk research includes a series of public reports, studies,
presentations, and articles that are cited in footnotes throughout this chapter. The primary objective of the
survey component is to provide a comprehensive overview of the common viewpoints, opinions, and
dilemmas that are faced by professionals working in this sector on a daily basis. The survey was generally
designed with the aim of identifying the prevailing contractual structures and standards that are employed
in the industry as well as identifying evolving the gaps and general trends. The particular questions that
were raised included asking participants to rank contractually relevant criteria (e.g. price, interfaces,
liquidated damages, etc.), identifying the pros and cons of EPC and multi-contracting, identifying what
types of contract formats (e.g. FIDIC, BIMCO) were used and where, what types of insurance are relevant
in the context of offshore vessels, and to map out the general obligations of both contractor and employer.
In gathering such information, we solicited responses the following business segments: finance, legal,
power generation, vessel operators, and others (e.g. technical advisors, insurance providers, etc.). In total
we received responses from 13 parties and from 6 different countries. In terms of geography, the study
attempts to take a general European view where possible, but there is particular emphasis on U.K.,
Germany, Denmark, and Benelux. France has not been covered in the study the first major offshore
projects in that country will not be executed until 2017 at the earliest.4
6.3 Contract Structures
a) Commonly Used Contracting Formats
One of the key issues in regards to offshore contracting is the absence of a standard format. The realisation
of an offshore project ultimately requires using at least 2-3 different contract formats, and where
considerable time and effort is spent modifying the contract to make it fit for purpose. Within the survey, a
series of questions were raised asking whether FIDIC, LOGIC, NEC3, or BIMCO Supplytime contacts were
being employed. These are effectively a series of contracts that correspond to onshore construction, marine
construction, marine installation, and marine transport. In the context of offshore wind, there is no single
contract that is being used across the board and a combination of different contracts need to be employed
over the course of construction. Most of these contracts are used on the basis of a lump-sum basis, but
some (such as BIMCO) are used primarily on a time-charter basis. The survey furthermore asked where
these formats were being used as well as the pros/cons of each format. The table below illustrates the
results.
4 http://www.offshorewind.biz/2013/05/28/france-aims-for-large-scale-offshore-wind-power/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 88
Figure 6-1. Pros and Cons of Each Contract Type and the Percentage of Participants Using One versus
the Other
Virtually all respondents indicated that they used FIDIC and many of them made direct reference to the
Yellow Book. The FIDIC Yellow Book is used primarily for electrical and mechanical works and for
building and engineering works designed by the contractor. A good starting point on FIDIC is the book
“The FIDIC Forms of Contract” by Nael Bunni, which contains a comprehensive overview of FIDIC Red,
FIDIC Yellow, and FIDIC Silver and compares and contrasts each format on a clause-by-clause basis. The
principle differences between various forms of FIDIC are how risks and responsibilities are shared
between parties. As Yellow Book is commonly used in the industry, below are some of its key features:
» Engineer: the person appointed by the employer regarding the execution of the contract. The
employer therefore retains some design responsibility.
» Sub-contracts: the contractor shall be responsible for the acts or defaults of any sub-contractor,
his agents or employees, as if they were the acts or defaults of the contractor (this is how it is
supposed to work in theory, but as one will see in later parts of this chapter, limitations are placed on such
responsibility in practice). The contractor shall furthermore provide to the engineer/employer all
possible information regarding the sub-contractor and their respective scope of work.
» Obligation of Information: the employer provides site data to the contractor, but the contractor
has the obligation to interpret such data. This data includes site conditions, climactic conditions,
hydrological data, and sub-surface conditions.
» Unforeseen Physical Conditions: includes unforeseen sub-surface and hydrological conditions,
but excluding climactic conditions, that are encountered at the project site by the contractor. To
the extent where the conditions were unforeseeable and where the contractor is delayed and
notifies the engineer/employer on a timely basis, they may be entitled to an extension of time
and/or reimbursement of cost.
» Health and Safety (HSE): primarily the obligation of the contractor to ensure that they are
complying with the applicable regulations and taking care for the safety of persons on site.
Employer will usually have the right to audit the contractor on matters pertaining to HSE.
» Contract Price: shall be lump-sum and subject to adjustments designated within the contract.
» Limitation of Liability: each party shall hold the other harmless for consequential loss, but this
shall not apply in cases of fraud, deliberate default, or reckless misconduct.
FIDIC
Widelyusedacrossallmarkets,especially
FIDICYellow
Notamarinecontract,requires
considerablemodifica on
Usedmostlyforconstruc onvessels,heavy-li ,jack-up,
100%
NEC3
Simple,user-friendly
Notcommonlyused
N/A
11%
LOGIC
ApuremarinecontractthatcoverswhereFIDIClacks
Wasdevelopedoriginallyforoil&gas,whichisa
differentpla orm
Usedmostlyforjack-up,heavy-li vessels
intheUK
78%
BIMCO
Widely-accepted mecharter,favourableforvesseloperators
Notbalancedvis-à-visemployer,onlyused
fortransport
UsedmostlyforCTV,ROV,supportvessels,
andtransport
78%
BESPOKE
Manyrespondentsuseindividualorcustomformats
Lackofstandardisa oninindustryifeveryonehasowncontract
N/A
67%
PROS
CONS
%
VESSEL
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 89
» Right to Termination: reciprocal by nature. Employer has the right to terminate if contractor
fails to execute the works in accordance with their obligations and fails to comply with
instructions. Contractor has the right to termination if employer does not make timely payment
or if part of the contract is assigned by the employer to another party.
» Employer’s Risk: to the extent where the employer interferes in the execution of the works
beyond what has been contractually agreed upon or where unforeseeable events (e.g. force of
nature) prevent an experienced contractor from carrying out the works, and where such events
result in loss/damage/delay to the works which adversely affect the contractor, the employer
shall reimburse the contractor in accordance with cost plus reasonable profit.
» Dispute Resolution: shall be referred to a dispute adjudication board in the first instance. If
amicable resolution is not possible via dispute adjudication board, then dispute shall be
subjected to arbitration.
Although, FIDIC Yellow Book is commonly used, parts of the FIDIC Silver Book might be used more for
projects that are being realised on an EPC/turn-key basis or where project financing has been employed.
Even then, it is often the case that Silver Book is not used on its own and is rather used to feed into a
contract template that is based on the Yellow Book. The Silver Book largely resembles the Yellow Books,
however here are a few areas in which differences exist between equivalent clauses:
» Whereas FIDIC Yellow Book makes provision for an engineer, the FIDIC Silver Book refers to
this person as the “Employer’s Representative”. This is probably attributed to the fact that under
an EPC structure the employer plays more of a passive and observatory role than they would
under a multi-contracting approach. Under FIDIC Silver the contractor is in the driver’s seat.
» FIDIC Silver Book explicitly states that the contractor is responsible for verifying and
interpreting all site data and that the employer bears no responsible in regards to the accuracy,
sufficiency, or completeness of such data unless stated otherwise.
» In regards to the consequences of unforeseen physical conditions, FIDIC Silver Book states that
the contractor accepts total responsibility for having foreseen all difficulties and costs for
successfully completing the works and that the contract price cannot be adjusted accordingly.
» In regards to employer’s risk, where the employer is required to make compensation to the
contractor for unforeseeable events, such compensation is merely referred to as “cost”. It is not
known whether this cost excludes the “reasonable profit” that is specified in yellow book. It
could be the case that under EPC, where a detailed cost breakdown does not exist, that the
contractor has included profit but has not itemised it separately.
» Lastly, per FIDIC Silver Book the contractor accepts all responsibility and consequences
associated with design.
The FIDIC suite has the general benefit that it is used primarily for major works and has many versions
that can be used/adapted for different purposes. At the same time, FIDIC is primarily an onshore civil
engineering contract and is not particularly suited to offshore wind farm installation work. This is perhaps
why respondents also indicated that they relied heavily on LOGIC and BIMCO Supplytime contracts as
well. Both of these contracts are primarily marine contracts with a long track record of being employed in
the oil & gas business. Furthermore, FIDIC is generally based on English common law and considerable
modification is needed to make it compatible with projects based in other jurisdictions.
BIMCO contracts are typically used for transport-related works and on a time-charter basis. It is
commonplace to use BIMCO for the transport of components, for example the transport of
personnel/components from harbor to the project location. BIMCO is also used for the contracting of crew
transfer vessels (CTVs). BIMCO Supplytime 2005 has clearly defined provisions with respect to the charter
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 90
period, vessel condition, crew provision, bunker fuel requirements, and other aspects that are central to
vessel chartering and operation.5 LOGIC contracts are primarily used in the oil & gas sector and might be
preferred by professionals in the offshore wind industry who have an oil & gas background. It captures
some of the key installation-related provisions that are critical within any marine contract. LOGIC is more
comprehensive than BIMCO in that it can be used for marine construction and installation and is thus
more compatible to major works. It makes direct reference to the marine-related insurances that need to be
effected (e.g. Marine Hull and Machinery, P&I, etc.) whereas FIDIC does not. On the other hand, LOGIC
does bear a number of similarities to FIDIC in regards to mutual indemnification, consequential loss
exclusion, force majeure, and the right to termination.
Even-though they might be more compatible for marine works, there are nevertheless a number of reasons
why BIMCO and LOGIC do not take overall precedence over FIDIC. First, BIMCO Supplytime is a time-
charter contract that is primarily used for transport and is generally structured in favor of the vessel owner
and is thus not fully adaptable to major works where having a lump-sum is essential. Second, LOGIC was
originally created for the oil & gas business and has predominance in the U.K. market as a marine contract
focusing on the installation of balance of plant (foundations, substations, cables). It furthermore, has
limitations in that there are considerable differences between how oil & gas and offshore wind projects are
realised. For example, offshore wind involves repeated activities (e.g. hundreds of foundations being
transported and installed in different locations), whereas in the oil & gas space all works are centered on a
single platform. Third and finally, in countries like Germany, which never had an offshore oil & gas
business, there is more familiarity with FIDIC than LOGIC/BIMCO. Respondents were asked to identify
which types of contracts they used in various countries. Their geographical distribution and prevalence is
shown in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-2. Percentage of Survey Respondents Indicating Use of Particular Contract by Country
As such, the general formula seems to be that FIDIC Yellow Book is used as the base template and that
marine-related elements from LOGIC/BIMCO are then fed into this base contract. Where turn-key
solutions are employed, parts of FIDIC Silver will be incorporated into the FIDIC Yellow. The end result is
a usually a bespoke or customised contract which many utilities and major vessel operators have created
on an in-house/individual basis.
5 http://www.maritimeknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/image/Charterparties/Time-CP/SUPPLYTIME_2005.pdf
FIDIC
71%
86%
43%
NEC3
29%
14%
14%
LOGIC
71%
43%
43%
BIMCO
71%
71%
57%
UK
GER
DEN
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 91
b) Key Contractual Obligations
This section focuses on some of the key considerations that should be taken into account by employers and
contractors alike and highlights their contractual obligations during the construction stage (and to a lesser
event during the operating period). A good starting point is outlining and distinguishing the contractor’s
and employer’s obligations under the contract (primarily for major works). In situations where multi-
contracting is employed, which encompasses most of the offshore market at the moment, a typical split of
responsibilities is shown in Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-3. Typical Split of Responsibility Between Employer and Contractor Under Multi-Contracting.
c) Key Contractual Obligations: Timing & Availability
The first step is to establish a plausible milestone schedule, taking into account vessel capabilities, weather
provisions, and interfaces. It will ideally set out each milestone, the commencement and completion date,
the responsible party for that milestone, and the amount of time (number of days) needed for completion.
The milestone schedule will furthermore incorporate weather downtime and vessel availability. Weather
downtime is usually priced into the bid/price of a contractor on a lump-sum basis. More often than not,
this amount is capped and it is often the case that the employer has to make some weather downtime
allocation as well. The employer will normally try to pass weather risk on to the contractor, who in turn
may use larger, operationally flexible, and thereby more expensive installation vessels to meet this
requirement. Banks in particular will take considerable notice of whether sufficient weather risk has been
incorporated into the overall planning. In general, they require an installation schedule that is based on
P90 weather downtime (conservative scenario). They may furthermore require that the contract make
provision for an extension period of up to 3-6 months in the overall planning to cater for weather
downtime and/or vessel delays.
A number of respondents mentioned that they recognise the technological capabilities of new vessels and
their ability to operate in harsher weather, but vessel contracts nevertheless have to remain flexible if WTG
SummaryofTypicalObliga onsforMajorMarineContracts
Contractor’sReponsibili es Vesselprovision,managingsub-contractors,execu ngworksaccordingtomilestonescheduleandcontract,HSE,weatherrisk(shared)
Employer’sResponsibili es Permits,gridconnec on,coordina nginterfaces,audi ngcontractor,provisionofharbourfaciii es,payingon me,clearlydefine dscopeofworks
RisksretainedbyOwner Permits,gridconnec on,interfacerisk,changesinapplicablelaw,weatherrisk(shared),soilrisk.Riskofloss/damageusuallytransferredtoemployeruponcomple on.
InterfaceResponsibility ProjectManager,MarineWarrantySurveyor,InterfaceManager,MarineCoordinator,PackageManager
Penal esforLateComple on Liquidateddamagescappedat15-25%ofcontractprice
Whomdoesthecontractgenerallyfavourorprotect?
FIDICtypicallyfavourstheemployer.BIMCOcontractsfavourthecontractor.Employerhasburdenofproofregardingliquidateddamages.Consequen allossexclusionfavourscontractor.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 92
installation has to be postponed. This effectively touches on the issue of vessel availability. The vessel
operator should offer alternative time slots if the installation schedule has to be reorganised or they should
provide an alternative vessel outright. Furthermore, as many vessels are currently being built, it can be the
case that project owners and/or lenders will prefer that a vessel is built and operational prior to financial
close. A contract under such circumstances should establish that the manufacturing process for the vessel
is well under way, that the shipyard is a reputable builder, that the ship design is fixed and cannot be
changed, and last but not least, a clause establishing for the provision of a substitute vessel in the event of
delay.
It can also be the case that the vessel owner becomes insolvent and thus cannot execute its obligations
under the contract. This is applicable in instances where the vessel owner has debt obligations. A letter of
“quiet enjoyment” is then put into effect between the party financing the vessel (usually a bank) and the
employer and/or main contractor. The letter stipulates that the financing party, as a result of the vessel
owner’s default of its obligations per the loan agreement, will rely on fees payable by the employer and/or
the main contractor to repay the outstanding debt.
From a contractor’s perspective, on occasions where they have subcontracted their works it is essential that
they mitigate risks associated with the availability of a vessel, which could result in the main contractor
paying liquidated damages in case of delay during the construction and operating periods. For such a
risk,` they need to ensure that provisions within the main contract are matched with the availability
provisions stipulated per their subcontract.
d) Key Contractual Obligations: Planning, Coordination, & Management
The importance of interfaces cannot be understated as utilities, banks, law firms, and contractors alike
consistently identify it as being a key risk requiring an organisational structure dedicated to its continuous
management. Not only can there be dependency between contracts, but also some installation works
involve multiple transfers of ownership between different parties. For example, it is sometimes the case,
particularly with multi-contracting arrangements where there are a number of interfaces, in that
ownership and responsibility of a component (e.g. WTG, foundations) passes back and forth among the
contractors, or between the contractors and employer, over the course of loading at harbor, sea transport,
positioning, and installation. Hence, in light of these complicated circumstances many contracts will
contain a series of annexes in which the responsibilities of both parties are set out under an interface
matrix, or responsibility matrix. These tables supposedly provide a comprehensive breakdown of every
task that is to be carried out during the installation process, where each interface sits, and which party
bears responsibility in each instance. However, there are also limitations to the responsibility matrix. Some
survey respondents were keen to point out that they have had problems in the past reconciling these
matrices with other parts of the contract and that they can at times contradict the terms & conditions of the
contract itself. Hence, particular attention should be paid to over the course of contract negotiations in
ensuring that the contract and responsibility matrix are clear, fully aligned, and free of contradictions.
One way of managing interface risk is by keeping the number of construction contracts to a minimum and
also by bundling/packaging installation-related works within supply contracts. For example, vessel
supply and installation works can be subcontracted under the main construction contracts (e.g. WTGs,
Foundations, Cables, Substation), the main contractor would take responsibility for the performance of its
own logistics. In fact, some in the industry classify this structure as mini-EPC on the basis that the various
logistics works are packaged into the main construction contracts under a multi-contracting structure. This
will be discussed in greater length in latter parts of this chapter.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 93
A number of personnel are employed in managing interfaces. These individuals should typically be
experienced professionals who have an extensive track record in managing complex contracts during
execution and in regulating relationships between parties. The most important of these is the marine
warranty surveyor, appointed by the employer or lead contractor, who audits and approves various
offshore activities and furthermore acts as a link between both parties on the vessels. In particular, this is a
person who monitors the installation process, ensures that proper practices and methods are being
employed, and that safety and risk management systems are adequate. The marine warranty surveyor is
also there to protect the interests of the insurer, given that whoever underwrites the insurance cover has a
strong interest in managing the associated risk. In addition to the marine warranty surveyor, there may
also be other employees involved in managing interfaces, such as the interface and package managers,
contract managers, and the project manager, who all work in the project company.
e) Key Contractual Obligations: Liability Structure
Before discussing the prevailing liability structures that are associated with offshore wind, it is first
necessary to understand the risks involved in monetary terms. This can be understood by evaluating the
size of the projects, providing a theoretical estimate for the contract values and revenues involved, in order
to better understand how various risks are considered and mitigated by different parties. With regards to
the overall capital expenditures (CAPEX), it can be estimated that logistics-related costs amount to roughly
19% of total CAPEX (see Figure 6-4).
Source: Navigant
Figure 6-4. Offshore Wind Capital Costs Breakdown
According to BTM Consult, total CAPEX for offshore wind projects being realised in European waters
ranges anywhere from €3.3 – 4.4 million per MW.6 For the purpose of this exercise we use a theoretical
CAPEX per MW value of €3.5 – 4.0 million.7 Under these parameters, the cumulative value of logistics-
6 “Offshore Wind Report 2013” by BTM Consult 7 Rough estimate based on projects listed on 4C Offshore, Link: www.4coffshore.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 94
related works during construction for a 300 – 500 MW project could amount to €200 – 380 million. These
figures are important to understand because during the construction period, the vessel operator will have
to affect a number of insurances, provide a number bonds/securities backed up by a parent company or
guarantor, and commit to potential liabilities that are connected to the profile above. On top of this
amount, under exceptional circumstances vessel operators can be held liable for revenue loss and most
European projects generate at least €15 million per month when fully operational. Hence, the liability
structure is a critical part of the contract that measures the trade-off between price and risk.
In particular, cable laying has been identified by insurers as being the riskiest. Although cable laying may
not be the largest contract within the installation lot in terms of CAPEX, it is nevertheless a high-risk that
requires considerable risk mitigation and insurance provisions up front. It was reported that between 2003-
2011 there were 100 insured claims in offshore wind, out of which 40 were cable-related.8 In reality, it can
easily account for up to 80-90% of offshore claims. Cable laying is particularly risky because it requires the
laying and burying of cable often without a complete understanding of seabed conditions. It is for this
reason why contractors and employers tend to pass off seabed risk to each other. Such works typically
require experienced personnel because any damages (for example to an export cable) could result in
considerable revenue loss to the affected party. Furthermore, companies that are active in this area are
often financially vulnerable and lack the ability to carry out their obligations during execution. In fact, a
number of cable laying companies have gone insolvent in recent years. It is for this reason, why
procurement decisions associated with cable laying need to give due consideration to criteria involving
credit worthiness and parent company guarantees, although it seems that this part of the supply chain is
not particularly well developed and employers may have little choice but to rely on small/vulnerable
contractors.
A contract should contain a comprehensive liability structure that is fully aligned with the risk profile of
the works and the corresponding project. Some respondents indicated that the total limitation of liability
could amount to anywhere from 10-100% of the contract value for both EPC and multi-contracting,
dependent of course on the circumstances, which include the following:
» The respective bargaining positions of both parties;
» The size/financial stability of the contractor;
» The duration and value of the contract; and
» Board requirements (applicable in the case of utilities and major vessel providers).
Within the liability structure, liquidated damages serve to mitigate various risks between contractor and
employer. At the same time, the applicability of liquidated damages is heavily conditioned and cannot be
used on a categorical basis. “This is generally consistent with the legal principal that liquidated damages
must be commercially justified and not extravagant, or oppressive. The project company would risk a
challenge that the provision was penal if it sought to impose liquidated damages which were not
commercially justified.”9 In other words, project owners need to make plausible assumptions (a genuine
“pre-estimate”) regarding liquidated damages that could potentially be incurred as a result of delay and/or
breach. In order to ensure that liquidated damages are commercially justified, and in the context of offshore
wind, project owners need to identify the exact point in time in which they have grid access and
furthermore must be able to estimate the electricity production during the ramp-up stage, as many projects
8 “Cable Laying: Insurers Point of View & Perspectives.” By Ralf Skowronnek, Marsh Germany, 15 August 2012:
http://www.hk24.de/linkableblob/2023646/.4./data/Vortrag_von_Herrn_Skowronnek_MARSH-data.pdf 9 “Offshore Wind Construction Practice” by Watson, Farley, & Williams. Link:
http://www.wfw.com/Publications/Publication1274/$File/WFW-OffshoreWindConstruction.pdf
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 95
operate at partial capacity leading up to full commissioning. The burden of proof with regards to
liquidated damages therefore rests with the employer.
Although there is no golden rule with regards to liability caps, most respondents indicated that typical
caps for late completion amount to roughly 15-25% of the contract value and to the extent where such delay
was directly attributable to the contractor. The higher the liability cap for liquidated damages, the higher the
contract price, as the contractor will re-incorporate the risk back into the price. Furthermore, it can also be
the case that the employer provides the contractor with a grace period before liquidated damages come
into effect. However, lenders will likely frown upon this concession as it means greater risk allocation to
the project and hence less favorable financing conditions.
Liquidated damages must not only be aligned with the milestone schedule, but they must also be aligned
with the cash flow and payment forecast contained within the payment schedule. The payment schedule
will highlight how much has been paid upfront within the initial payment and should furthermore
identify which particular milestones trigger payment and in what percentages. The payment profile and
cash flow forecast must also be illustrated on a monthly basis. In securing these payments and obligations,
a series of securities such as advance payment bonds and performance bonds will be issued by a guarantor
(lender or a parent company with acceptable credit worthiness). Such securities can typically amount to 5-
15%10 of the contract price and will vary considerably from project-to-project and according to
circumstance. The value of the bonds will be reduced on a pro-rata basis over time and subject to the
fulfillment of milestones. In the event that a security cannot be implemented, for whichever reason, an
alternative approach could involve the incorporation of a retention mechanism under the contract,
whereby payment to the contractor is withheld until a particular milestone is fulfilled.
At the same time, as much as one may attempt to do so, it is not possible to secure all potential risks. The
“domino effect” that a delay in one contract could have on another is an example of consequential loss
(such as lost profit, loss of other business), which cannot be claimed outright by the plaintiff. It would need
to be demonstrated by the project owner that such loss was attributed directly to the actions of the
supplier/operator and that such losses were contemplated at the time in which the contract was made.
Furthermore a number of respondents indicated that the exclusion of consequential loss must be stipulated
within a contract and that such losses are generally excluded in supply & construction contracts in the U.K.
and Germany.
Within the overall liability structure, a number of respondents mentioned that knock-for-knock
provisions are essential and will remain important going forward. Knock-for-knock stipulates that each
party shall hold the other harmless, or claim its own insurance provider when an insurable event occurs,
regardless of who was responsible. As a result, the party that was not responsible for an accident/event could
deem the knock-for-knock provision as being unfair. However, the main benefit of knock-for-knock is that
it resolves the problem of insurance overlap / duplication of coverage between parties. It is furthermore
advantageous vis-à-vis the vessel operator because it excludes them from consequential losses. Otherwise,
vessel operators might be induced to scale back their activities in offshore wind if they are subjected to
open-ended liability. Both BIMCO Supplytime and Windtime are based on knock-for-knock principles.11
Knock-for-knock is widely used in the oil & gas sector, although some entities, such as utilities (many of
which come from an onshore civil construction background), are wary of knock-for-knock and tend to
prefer fault-based regimes instead.
10 “EPC Contracts in the Power Sector” by DLA Piper. Link: http://www.dlapiper.com/files/Publication/18413b26-49b8-490e-acc6-
3ff54faa55d7/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/1205e08d-e585-479d-ac17-42135efaf044/epc-contracts-in-the-power-sector.pdf 11 https://www.bimco.org/en/News/2012/10/30_Insurance_liabilities.aspx
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 96
f) Key Contractual Obligations: Insurance
The insurance market remains limited in the offshore wind industry. It is difficult to find insurers that are
willing to provide coverage and in the volumes needed. Nevertheless, “projects with appropriate risk
allocation between project and supplier will attain better insurability and financing.”12 There are only a
handful of insurance providers that are willing to underwrite an industry where the lessons learned vary
considerably from project-to-project. Major insurance providers involved in underwriting offshore include,
but are not limited, to the following providers: AON, Marsh, Allianz, Delta Lloyd, Codan, GCube, and
Zurich. A number of insurances need to be effected by the employer and/or contractor in order to gain
comprehensive coverage. Most respondents indicated that the following insurances were essential in the
context of vessel operations:
» Third Party Liability: amounts specified per incident and in the aggregate per annum;
» Hull & Machinery: collision liability for all vessels provided by the contractor and its
subcontractors;
» Protection & Indemnity (P&I): for pollution and wreck/debris removal; and
» Workmen’s Compensation: covering personal injury/death.
Effecting the above insurances should ideally provide comprehensive coverage in most circumstances. The
marine warranty surveyor, as mentioned earlier, has a role that is of particular importance to insurers as
that is the person who is auditing the installation process and ensuring that works are being executed in a
proper manner. Insurance claims that occur as “a direct consequence of disregarding the reasonable
recommendations of a warranty surveyor”13 will typically not be considered by the insurer.
At the same time, some respondents indicated there could be potential gaps and complexities in insurance
coverage. There is some ambiguity in the industry with regards to subrogation, which is defined as the
point in which an insurer pays the insured party for an event that was attributed to a third party. The
insured then assigns the insured’s underlying claim to the insurer, who then pursues the third party on the
subrogated claim. To put it plainly, there can be many different contractors doing different things and it is
not always clear who is liable for the claim. This is likely to become more complicated if equipment is
leased and/or subcontracted from other parties. It can be the case that the project owner arranges overall
project insurance, but is nevertheless reluctant to cover minor items such as contractor equipment. This
can be inefficient and such components should ideally be covered under one policy, to the extent possible.
Hence, this is why contractual provisions are necessary which stipulates that the right to subrogation is
waived. In particular, the insurance clause under LOGIC states that all underwriters shall waive any rights
of recourse, including subrogation rights against the employer and its affiliates.
It was mentioned earlier that it is standard to have consequential loss exclusions. Needless to say, this is
not reassuring vis-à-vis the project owner, and particularly in the eyes of those entities that are financing
the project, given that they could be subjected to revenue loss in the event of delay or damage. In the event
where damage or delay results in considerable revenue loss to the project, such risk can be mitigated by
the project owner effecting “delay in start-up” and “business interruption” insurances. “Advanced loss of
profit cover, also known as ‘delay in start-up’, will protect a project against the anticipated loss of revenue,
12 “Cable Risk Joint Industry Project.” By Marsh Germany, 19 February 2013. Link:
http://www.offshoretage.de/OT02_20_F2__Marsh_Cable%20.pdf 13 “Cable Risk Joint Industry Project.” By Marsh Germany, 19 February 2013. Link:
http://www.offshoretage.de/OT02_20_F2__Marsh_Cable%20.pdf
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 97
if a project commissioning is delayed, perhaps due to a major component, such as a substation transformer
suffering damage during installation works. The operational phase equivalent, business interruption cover,
is also widely purchased and will protect the owner of a business whose revenue stream would be
impaired or completely stopped due to damage to a facility or key component part.“14 The vessel owner
should be co-insured under owners advanced loss of profit and business interruption coverage in order to
avoid a recourse action from the insurance company.
g) Key Considerations at the Operational Stage
Finally, although most of this chapter has been dedicated to outlining and understanding vessel
contracting during construction, it is also necessary to understand some of the key considerations that
should be taken into account at the operational stage. A standard maintenance set up involves the project
owner signing a 5-10 year service agreement (on average) with the WTG manufacturer, who then
subcontracts vessel related works during this period. Such maintenance works can be carried out on a
regular “scheduled” basis per the service agreement in which the project owner pays the WTG
manufacturer a fixed annual fee on a per MWh or on a per WTG basis in return for a standard service plus
a warranted level of availability (usually 95% and higher). For such scheduled services, a crew transfer
vessel (CTV) or a remote operated vehicle (ROV) could be used dependent on the works in question. Some
form of surety, such as a warranty bond (as a percentage of contract price), is put into place to guarantee
the service provider’s capacity to carry out its obligations and to finance its liabilities during this period.
At the same time, a comprehensive service agreement will also make provisions for “unforeseeable”
circumstances where critical maintenance is also required. This includes occasions where, for example, a
storm, collision, or serial defect inhibits the operability of the project and where the service provider needs
to rectify the damages immediately. For damages pertaining to large components (e.g. exchange of a
gearbox), it might be necessary to use a Jack-up Vessel, the responsibility of which usually falls upon the
supplier to procure and/or subcontract. All of this effectively sums up the scope of vessel operations and
obligations during the operational stage. Alternatively, a project owner such as a utility may choose to
conduct its own service and maintenance, thus negating the need to outsource its service obligations to a
third party.
h) EPC versus Multi-Contracting
There are two principal contracting structures that have been employed during the construction stage in
the industry thus far: Engineering, Procurement, & Construction (EPC) and the other being multi-
contracting. Whether one is preferred over the other largely depends on the preferences of the project
owner and/or lenders. Under an EPC setup a single contractor takes responsibility for the design,
manufacture, construction, and installation of the project and bears a considerable degree liability
throughout the lifecycle. The EPC contractor will subcontract various components of the project to other
suppliers and will take overall responsibility for the realization of the project, including to an extent
delays/errors on the part of their subcontractors. Under an EPC contract the contract price and completion
date are fixed, thereby limiting the contractor’s ability to claim extra time and cost. On the other end of the
spectrum, under a multi-contracting structure a number of contractors are employed that take
responsibility for the manufacture and/or installation of an individual lot, thus creating a series of
interfaces between parties that need to be managed carefully.
14http://www.dnv.com/industry/energy/publications/updates/wind_energy/2011/Windenergy_3_2011/Aninsuranceperspectiveonoffs
horewindprojects.asp
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 98
The number of interfaces can range anywhere from 1 to 40 contracts, dependent on whether project
financing or balance sheet financing is employed. “The multi-contracting approach affords the project
owner more flexibility in choosing the contractors that will construct the project, as well as the opportunity
to replace them without starting from scratch. Multi-contracting gives owners more control, but the
tradeoff is that there is also more room for error and missing out on mitigating/covering risks.”15 The
overall structural differences between EPC and multi-contracting are illustrated in Figures 6-5 and 6-6.
Figure 6-5. Multi-Contracting Structure in which each Construction Package is Responsible for its Own
Logistics
Figure 6-6. EPC Structure Where Single Contractor Handles All Major Works. In this Case EPC Contract
is a Vessel Operator
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages and while this report does not advocate the use of
one versus the other, it nevertheless highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, how they
are perceived throughout the industry, and the conditions that warrant their use. The table below
illustrates some of the key differences between multi-contracting and EPC.
15 SPR Contracting Report, Navigant, pg. 2.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 99
Figure 6-7. Comparative Analysis of EPC Versus Multi-Contracting
Among those who were surveyed, there was an overwhelming consensus that multi-contracting is at
present the preferred option. They furthermore indicated that multi-contracting was acceptable to the
extent where the number of interfaces was minimised. They generally accepted this approach due to the
limitations of the EPC market, as only a handful of suppliers/operators are capable, or willing to undertake
the burden of an EPC contract. The burden and risks undertaken by an EPC contractor include the
following:
» Considerable liability for weather downtime, which gets even more complicated as projects are
realised farther out to sea (50km+), in deeper water (40m+), and in rougher sea conditions
(higher wave height).
» Accepting responsibility for the actions of subcontractors and being liable for delays/defects on
their part. A delay by even the smallest sub-contractor, or an insolvency, could delay the project.
» Taking responsibility for actions that are beyond its core competency.
These conditions require an experienced and credit worthy EPC contractor that is backed by a strong parent
company, in possession of a strong credit rating (usually A- / A3), thus having the cash flow and balance
sheet to underwrite a risk volume that could easily amount to the double and triple digit millions for just
one project in the event of delay (see liquidated damages). As such, some respondents indicated that
various suppliers/operators do not want to be involved in EPC contracts unless they have to.
On the other hand there is also evidence of the opposite, in that vessel operators (particularly the larger
ones) tend to be more open to EPC than other business segments. In fact, if one glances through their
websites they openly advertise their EPC credentials. It is increasingly becoming the case that vessel
operators are involving themselves in projects from an early stage. One of the potential benefits of vessel
operators becoming involved from the development stage is that it can help identify the optimal
combination of design, manufacture, and logistics, providing both parties with more time to optimise the
project design in accordance with vessel capabilities. It also enables both parties to “lock-in” a viable
project design from an early stage, rather than making a series of changes and modifications during
contract negotiations and financial close. As such the expectations and understanding of contractor and
EPC Mul -contrac ng
Price 10-25%higherthanMul -contrac ng 10-25%lowerthanEPC
CostTransparency No Yes
#ofContracts 1contractbetweenemployer&contractor 2-6ifbanksinvolved,otherwiseu li esandprojectdevelopershavemorethan10
InterfaceMgt. Handledbycontractor Handledbyemployer
WeatherRisk Assumedbythecontractor(mostly) Sharedbetweenpar es
Remarks • Goodfitforaprojectdeveloperthatdoesnothavetheresourcestomanagetheproject
• Goodfitforemployersthatwanttobuild1-2offsh or eprojectsatmost.
• Banksfavourthisapproach,butwillacceptthealterna veaswellsolongasinterfacesarelimited.
• T&C’sforoffshorewindnotasa rac veasoil&gas,morecarveouts.
• Goodfitforu li es,andotheren eswithlargeprojectpor olios,thatdonotwanttopay10-25%pricepremiumforeachprojecttheybuild.
• 2-6interfacesonaverageifprojectfinancingispursued.
• Requiresmorepersonnelandhashigheradministra vecosts,strongcostcontrollingisneeded.
• Interfacerisktakenbyemployer.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 100
employer are aligned from an early-stage. However this is unlikely to work with project owners that have
in-house capabilities (e.g. utilities, project developers). Despite some enthusiasm from select vessel
operators and banks, EPC remains a limited market due to its concentration of risk within one party
limited the number of experienced parties out there that are willing to undertake that risk.
From the viewpoint of the employer, the primary advantage of having an EPC structure is the absence of
interfaces, greater cost certainty, and a well defined project schedule. It is for these reasons why banks
prefer this type of structure. At the same time, in return for these benefits there is a trade-off whereby the
contractor is paid a price premium of roughly 10-25% compared to what it would have normally cost
under a multi-contracting structure. This price premium is effectively overhead that has been priced into a
contract’s bill of quantities and will usually include the following:
» Costs that are allocated towards additional human resources required for managing interfaces,
requiring a larger project organization and/or additional due diligence costs (technical, legal, and
financial)
» Weather downtime risk, to be assumed fully by the EPC contractor,
» Other contingencies that have been factored into the contractor’s scope.
Furthermore, under an EPC structure the employer will not have the cost transparency that they would
normally have had under a multi-contracting structure, because the contractor will incorporate a lump-
sum pricing structure that does not have a line-item cost breakdown. Although having an open book
might not be important to project companies that are developing a standalone “one-off” project, a utility or
project developer with a large project portfolio might desire an open book process to drive down costs
over the long-term. This is particularly relevant in instances where employers and contractors have repeat
business. Tennet is a good example of an entity that has large-scale obligations in the realm of offshore
wind. In its shift towards multi-contracting, Tennet announced earlier this year that a “multi-contracting
approach might offer better value for money” while indicating that “large EPC contractors with long-
standing marine experience could offer strong project management and lower-priced bids.”16 Such an
announcement is not surprising given the huge capital outlay required from Tennet as well as their long-
term obligations, in the German offshore market.
Although banks tend to have a theoretical preference for EPC, they nevertheless accept the fact that the
availability of such contracts remains limited in the market. In accepting multi-contracting, they are
adamant in keeping the number of interfaces to a minimum and will pay particular consideration to
whether or not the project entity is being run by an experienced and well-established project management
team with a proven track record of realizing projects on time and on budget. Under a multi-contracting
structure weather risk is to be shared between the contractor and employer (and in some cases, weather
risk is assumed fully by the employer). Although cheaper in theory, some survey respondents indicated
that there are a number of hidden costs associated with multi-contracting that should be taken into account
(e.g. downtime due to unforeseen seabed conditions, adverse weather risk, etc.). Finally, under an EPC
setup, since the contractor is responsible for the entire cycle, if major problems arise during construction
the employer has little authority to intervene.
The key question remains whether the 10-25% price difference is worth the extra cost if it means avoiding
potential risks that may result over the long-term. A multi-contracting structure could, as a pure example,
be €10-50 million cheaper than EPC at the outset, however the employer could spend just as much over the
16 “Multi-contracting might allow TSO to bypass high-cost bids” by Erin Gill, Windpower Offshore, 21 February 2013. Link:
http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1189694/tennet-revisits-offshore-grid-procurement-strategy
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 101
long-term in managing the added complexity and the associated risks. “The up-front price can be lower in
a multi-contracting scenario, but downsides are likely to include retention of adverse weather risk and
geotechnical risks. The owner is also often left to manage the interface between all the contractors, which
can be a project in itself.”17 This is an important factor given that utilities and project development
companies have very large organizations; the combination of high headcount and cost of labour per FTE
(full-time equivalent) could make project management and administrative costs a major value driver in its
own right.
i) Risk Mitigation vs. Cost Reduction
Although there is a clear consensus behind multi-contracting, respondents nevertheless indicated that risk
mitigation was more important than cost reduction. Of 11 parties that responded to this question, 54.5%
indicated that risk mitigation was more important than cost reduction and the remaining 45.5% indicated
that both were of equal importance (Figure 6-8). A number of respondents were keen to point out that cost
reduction and risk mitigation are linked. For example, project finance requires risk mitigation on the basis
that insufficient risk mitigation upfront will result in additional costs at a later stage. This is an interesting
response because risk mitigation, at least in theory, is supposedly associated more closely with an EPC
structure rather than multi-contracting.
Figure 6-8. How Respondents Perceived the Importance of Risk Mitigation versus Cost Reduction
Furthermore, none of the respondents indicated that cost reduction by itself was more important than risk
mitigation. This could perhaps be attributed to the fact that there is currently a “perception gap” between
what EPC is supposed to offer in terms of risk mitigation versus what it actually delivers in the context of
offshore wind. And as mentioned earlier, cost reduction could only mean reducing upfront, but not costs
that could be incurred over the long-term due to unmitigated risks. Some respondents indicated that EPC
is great in theory, but in reality the terms and conditions offered by EPC contractors for offshore projects
tend to fall short of what is normally be offered in the oil & gas sector. In other words, the value
proposition of EPC is put into question, as there are apparently various opt-outs, carve-outs, and
exceptions that render EPC less attractive. Respondents indicated that some particular areas where EPC
contractors tend to limit their obligations include the following:
17 “The Importance of Clear Allocation of Contractual Risks and Liabilities” by Mark de la Haye / Chris Kidd, Ince & Co. Link:
http://incelaw.com/documents/pdf/strands/energy-and-offshore/renewables_contractual_risks_jan_13
54.5%
0.0%
45.5%RiskMi gta on
CostReduc on
EqualImportance
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 102
» Weather risk
» Ground conditions
» Relief events (which entitle the contractor to additional time and money)
» Limitation on the contractor’s defects liability
» Limitations on contractor’s design responsibility
Some respondents pointed out that, as an example, heavy lift operators will usually not agree to
underwriting the liquidated damages of their sub-contractors (e.g. cranes, hydraulic tubes, etc.) To
conclude, in cases where EPC is used it is often the case that the value proposition of such approach is
cancelled out by an imbalance in risk allocation between parties.
j) Key Criteria in Regards to Vessel Contracting
Respondents were asked to rate a number of criteria that they felt was important vis-à-vis the project
owner. These criteria include price, liquidated damages, parent company guarantees, weather risk, and
interfaces. When the survey was initially designed, it was assumed that these were the most critical areas
of importance in negotiating a vessel contract. The respondents were asked to provide a ranking on a scale
of 1 to 6 (1 being the most important, 6 being the least important) and to make an assessment based on
current and future market conditions. The results are illustrated below.
Note: 1= most important, 6 = least important
Figure 6-9. Key Contractual Criteria and Their Relative Importance to Survey Participants
The respondents placed a high degree of importance in price, weather downtime, and liquidated damages.
Needless to say there is considerable industry pressure to bring costs down for offshore wind, which is a
stated goal of many governments. As the cost of offshore projects continues to increase, governments and
utilities will pass these costs to the consumer (a case which has already been seen in Germany with regards
to the grid liability issue). At the same time, liquidated damages and weather downtime reflect the
importance of risk mitigation in this industry. Weather downtime risk by itself is a liability that can run
well into the double digit millions given the limited weather window in the North Sea and given that
vessel costs run into the hundreds of thousands of euros per day. Some of the respondents indicated that
they place a high level of importance in the proper management of interfaces, but nevertheless gave a low
ranking because they believed that project owners did not place enough emphasis in this area, or that they
believed that project owners did not manage their interfaces properly.
Price
2.00
1.71
Logis cs-relatedcostsarethesecondlargestvaluedriverintermsofCAPEX,costreduc onremainskey
LiquidatedDamages
2.44
2.29
Importanttobanks,theywillsizetheirdebtandfinancing
termsinpartonthebasisofsufficientLDprovisions.
ParentCompanyGuarantees
3.44
3.43
Capitalintensiveandriskylogis csworksrequiresstrongbalance
sheetorguarantor.
WeatherDown me
2.44
2.29
Keycriteria,consistently
ratedasamajorriskthatbothpar espassontoeachother.
Interfaces
2.78
2.57
Veryimportant,butsome
respondentsindicatedthatprojectownersdonotgiveitthe
priorityitdeserves.
Current
Future
Remark
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 103
k) Contract Structure Evolution
At this stage it is difficult to predict how contracting structures will evolve in the future given highly fluid
nature of the offshore industry. In particular, changes in legislation are all-too-frequent and the next round
of projects will be more complex from a technical standpoint than previous projects. What can be said at
this point is that there are currently 15 “next generation” vessels being built. They are specifically designed
for offshore wind and have advanced capabilities including greater storage capacity, faster speed,
improved jacking speed, and the ability to operate in deeper water. How these vessels are contracted in
practice and how their services will be priced remains to be seen.
EPC contracts will likely continue to be offered infrequently and will be reserved for projects that are of
strategic value to vessel operators (e.g. projects based in the home market of the vessel operator). They will
likely be projects where the project owner and vessel operator had some form of collaboration at the
project development stage and where the design and installation concept have been aligned early on.
These can be projects where a vessel operator was involved early-on in the development process and
where the project company delegates a greater degree of project development responsibility to the
operator. These are companies that market “offshore solutions” as much as they do vessels. Beyond that,
EPC requires financially robust, experienced vessel operators that are backed up by strong parent
companies. Nevertheless, it does not mean that EPC should be completely overlooked as an option. The
increasing involvement of the financial sector in offshore wind means that there will be some demand for
EPC in the future, although providing that the EPC contractor is experienced and has an established track record.
Furthermore, EPC contractors need to be prepared to offer a scope where “value for money” exists, and
where they are capable of offering the comprehensive provisions that would normally be seen on oil & gas
projects. In other words, it is essential that the risk-reward profile for EPC be adjusted if it is to be used
more frequently. Over the long-term, the following questions need to be addressed:
» Whether or not there are enough qualified and robust contractors out there that are capable of
meeting the risks and rigors of EPC within the 30GW+ offshore pipeline in the North Sea;
» Whether the additional upfront costs associated with EPC are really worth it in an era where cost
reduction is essential; and
» Whether contractors can offer terms & conditions for EPC that are as comprehensive as what is
typically offered in the oil & gas sector.
At the same time, where EPC contracts could be lacking in commitment on one end of the table, there is
also evidence of the opposite in that vessel operators are willing to inject equity into projects during
development/construction while at the same time rendering services as an EPC contractor. There are a
number of occasions where this has happened. Most recently on the Gemini project (the Netherlands,
600MW), which is likely to be project financed, it was announced that Van Oord would play the dual role
of EPC contractor and shareholder. Van Oord purchased a 10% stake in the project, which is forecasted to
have a total construction cost of €2.8 billion (out of which equity capital amounts to €500 million).18 The
EPC contract, with a total value of approximately €1.3 billion, involves supplying and installing the
foundations, the entire electrical infrastructure, including the off- and onshore high voltage station, the
cables, and installing the Siemens wind turbines.”19
18 Van Oord Press Release (2 Aug. 2013). cdn.vanoord.com/sites/default/files/press_release_gemini_2august2013.pdf 19 Van Oord Press Release (2 Aug. 2013). cdn.vanoord.com/sites/default/files/press_release_gemini_2august2013.pdf
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 104
Multi-contracting is the contracting structure that has been most commonly used thus far and will
continue to be so in the long-term. At the same time, this chapter has also highlighted the fact that the
definition of “multi-contracting” cannot be simply limited to the existence of more than one contract. It
involves the bundling/packaging of works, which can effectively be classified as “mini-EPC” where the
logistics component has been sub-contracted and packaged under the main construction contracts (Figure
6-10). It can also be the case where we see full turn-key solutions where design, manufacture, and
installation of both WTGs and foundation (and possibly cable laying) are carried out by a contractor that
can carry those interface and attendant risks (Figure 6-11).
Figure 6-10. Multi-Contracting Structure in which Installation has been Bundled/Packaged under each
Construction Contract, thus Illustrating “Mini-EPC” Effect
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 105
Figure 6-11. Multi-Contracting Structure in which One Contractor Handles All WTG-Related Works
while an EPC Contractor Handles All Works Pertaining to the Balance of Plant
Under the approach illustrated above, the works for the BOP is handed off to an EPC contractor who then
manages the associated subcontracts. “Subcontracts for BOP work in the current market are the funders’
favourite route as they regard a good EPC contract as a risk transfer to the contractor with a spread of risk
to subcontractors who are often better placed to manage that risk.”20 These “streamlined packages” should
result in fewer interfaces that need to be actively managed by the owner. As such, this could be referred to
as the middle ground between the reduced management of an EPC contract, but with the cost and quality
advantages of the multi-contracting approach.
EPC and multi-contracting have been mentioned in this chapter as the two principal contracting structures
that have been employed to date. A third structure is now being considered as an alternative, known as
alliance contracting. This option was recommended by the U.K. Offshore Cost Reduction Task Force in
2012. “Its main advantage is that all members of the alliance share in the overall gain if the project is
completed within budget, which creates an incentive for them to complete their element of the work on
time and without wasted expenditure. The flip-side is that each alliance member must be prepared to share
in the pain if the project is delayed by the failure of another member, or by external forces beyond the
control of the other parties.”21 A number of respondents mentioned alliance contracting as a potential third
option.
In securing supplies and services, framework agreements are commonly used in the offshore industry,
although they can also be a mixed blessing. On one hand, a framework enables companies with a large
portfolio of offshore projects to achieve economies of scale cost-wise and by having preferential access to
20 http://w3.windfair.net/wind-energy/news/13766-wind-energy-update-shifts-in-contracts-for-offshore-wind-raises-further-questions 21 “The Importance of Clear Allocation of Contractual Risks and Liabilities” by Mark de la Haye / Chris Kidd, Ince & Co. Link:
http://incelaw.com/documents/pdf/strands/energy-and-offshore/renewables_contractual_risks_jan_13
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 106
supply and services. On the other hand, the unpredictable nature of the market, fluctuations in supply and
demand, and constantly changing priorities make it difficult to sustain framework agreements. For
example, project delays could result in vessel under-utilisation and the vessel operator is often deprived of
the opportunity to use their vessels on alternative projects.
Frameworks also place commitments on project owners to purchase a certain degree of supply and service
within a designated timeframe, failure to meet the designated volume could result in penalties. All of these
examples are occurring against the backdrop of considerable market uncertainty and changes in
legislation, which force employers and contractors alike to shift their priorities constantly (e.g. what made
sense in 2011 under today’s conditions). From the perspective of the vessel operator, even-though they
have secured a certain amount of volume, they are nevertheless doing so under a lower profit margin
(EBIT) than would normally be the case on a standalone project/employer. Where framework agreements
are not possible, joint-ventures as presented as an alternative, the purchase of A2Sea by Dong and
Siemens being a prime example. In sum, long-term commitments work well in theory, but changing
market conditions can create just as many headaches.
BIMCO Windtime has recently been released.22 “Windtime mainly addresses the requirements of the
small high-speed vessels or crew transfer vessels used to transfer technicians to and from shore and within
the wind farms.”23 Although there is no track record at this time to evidence its performance, it
nevertheless bears a number of similarities to its Supplytime predecessor, albeit with a number of
modifications:
» Like Supplytime, Windtime is a time-charter based agreement, whereby the project owner
contracts the vessel and the crew carries out orders at the behest of the charterer.
» Windtime defines the timing on the basis of a “working day” and on defined operating hours.
» Windtime places greater liability on the project owner. For example, in the event that the
owner delivers the vessel late to the charterer, the owner is liable to paying liquidated
damages.
» Liability structure based on ”knock-for-knock”, while at the same time excluding
consequential losses (although this is not an express right to be excluded from such losses
suffered by the other party’s contractors).24
» Liability cap amounting to 20% of the total sum of hire due within the charter period.25
Irrespective of any potential differences, BIMCO Windtime has been introduced in response to industry
concerns regarding the absence of a standardised contracting structure for offshore wind vessels. It is a
crucial first-step in the effort to standardise offshore wind contracts, however its track record has yet to be
established and furthermore it remains limited in use to transport and service related activities.
22 “BIMCO soon to release the Windtime” by the International Law Office,
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=e8a9a378-6d2c-43f2-86a7-bb739c22d7bd 23 http://www.offshorewind.biz/2013/08/13/german-renewables-shipbrokers-to-work-with-bimco-windtime/ 24 “BIMCO soon to release the Windtime” by the international law office, Link:
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=e8a9a378-6d2c-43f2-86a7-bb739c22d7bd 25 “BIMCO soon to release the Windtime” by the international law office, Link:
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=e8a9a378-6d2c-43f2-86a7-bb739c22d7bd
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 107
6.4 Conclusions
This chapter has addressed a number of complex issues that have been identified in the contracting of
offshore vessels and where the lessons learned are still evolving. The conclusions that have been reached
are the following:
» The industry uses a common formula based on FIDIC Yellow Book as the base contract and
where marine-related elements are incorporated from LOGIC and BIMCO. Hence, bespoke
and “customised” contracts commonly used. although there is the BIMCO Windtime contract,
it does not apply to all aspects of offshore wind, which is natural since it is a very diverse
segment.
» Multi-contracting is overwhelmingly the preferred option in the market, it is sustainable as
long as interfaces are kept to a minimum (2-6 contracts on average) and where the project
company is capable of managing the associated administrative costs.
» Full EPC (which is bankable) remains limited and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable
future. Even the largest and most experienced EPC contractors can at most do 1-2 projects
simultaneously on a full turn-key basis.
» To the extent where there is merger and consolidation within the offshore vessel industry, and
to the extent where there is greater collaboration between vessel providers and other parts of
the supply chain, the likelihood of EPC being used will increase.
» Even multi-contracting uses structures that package/bundle installation works, which can be
referred to as “mini-EPC”.
» Project financing by itself will not open up the EPC market; vessel operators need to be
prepared to offer terms and conditions similar to what they would normally offer for oil & gas.
In other words, if one pays a price premium then there should be fewer exceptions and carve-
outs.
» Strong preference for risk mitigation (54.5%) was exhibited in responses. Many respondents
also weighed risk mitigation and cost reduction equally (45.5%). However, no respondents
indicated that cost reduction was important on its own. The risk averse nature of the financial
and legal sectors could explain this.
» Respondents ranked the combination of price, liquidated damages, and weather downtime as
being of particular importance. Although, some indicated that interface should ideally be
ranked higher although in practice it was not.
» Liability structure based on knock-for-knock has been commonly used to date and will remain
so going forward. Consequential loss exclusion will remain effective.
» While the industry can remain optimistic about the capabilities of “next generation” vessels, it
remains to see how their services will be priced (and how they will be contracted).
The following recommendations can be made in the context of the information that has been gathered and
analysed:
» To the extent where stakeholders feel that it is necessary to harmonise contractual formats and
standards across different markets, a task force at an industry, national, or pan-European level
should be created. Such a task force should contain industry clusters (e.g. utilities, banks,
vessel operators, law firms) to identify areas in which standardisation can be introduced.
There is some historical precedence for this type of approach. For example, the LOGIC contract
was born out the Cost Reduction in New Era (CRINE) initiative during the 1990s, which was
tasked with driving down industry costs by 30% and helping to simplify industry procedures.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 108
Furthermore, recent efforts by BIMCO in regards to Wind Time reflect the need for
standardisation.
» If it is the case that a sizeable portion of offshore wind projects are to be financed by
multilateral institutions such as the European Investment Bank, Green Investment Bank, and
KfW, then perhaps they should play a role in advising on how best to standardise
contractually, where possible.
» If vessel operators are hoping to use EPC in greater frequency, then they should be prepared
to move away from the carve-outs and opt-outs that have been mentioned.
» It is not uncommon for vessel companies to become shareholders in projects where they offer
EPC. In doing so, they are standing by the quality of their product/services and furthermore,
sharing in the priorities of the shareholders and banks to realise the project on time and on
budget.
» If project companies/utilities, etc. are employing multi-contracting to avoid the 10-25% EPC
price premium, then they need to do so via effective cost controlling and project management.
» There is something of a Belgian “miracle” in this industry, in that most of the projects being
realised there have been done so on a timely and cost-effective basis and with relatively few
claims. The Belgian model is based on a mixture of experienced EPC contracting, multi-
contracting based on no more than 2-6 contracts (on average), and small project organisations.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 109
7. Appendix A. Profiles of Leading Operators by Vessel Type
This appendix contains profiles of two leading operators from each vessel segment. Each profile includes a
short introduction of the operator, the availability of their vessels, the track record of its vessels, and its
current market position in the offshore wind sector. Vessel operators are listed in order of English alphabet
of vessel type.
7.1 Profiles of leading Accommodation Vessel operators
C-bed Floating Hotels
About the Company:
Netherlands based C-bed Floating Hotels provides floating accommodation to offshore wind farm (OWF)
construction projects. The floating hotels act as bases for engineers and technicians and the vessel’s many
facilities include restaurants, lounges, conferences rooms, office space, cinemas, fitness rooms and gaming
zones. The “floatels” also help reduce sea traffic to and from the wind farm; and the reduction in travel
time increases productivity. The vessels have approximately 25 staff and upwards including, cabin staff,
chefs and stewardesses. Services such as cleaning, bed linen and laundry services are also provided on-
board.
Vessels:
The vessels used by C-bed are former passenger Ro/Ro
vessels. C-bed currently operates three single hulled
accommodation vessels: Wind Ambition, Wind Perfection and
Wind Solution; all of which operate under British flags.
Vessel Flag Year Built Year of Re-
Build
Accommodatio
n
Gross
Tonnage
Wind
Ambition
U.K. 1974 2010 150 13,336
Wind
Perfection
U.K. 1982 2012 500 21,161
Wind Solution U.K. 1969 2008 80 8,893
Track Record:
C-bed’s vessels have been used for a number of U.K. OWF projects including: Greater Gabbard (504 MW),
London Array (630 MW) and Sheringham Shoal (317 MW). Wind Perfection also worked on the Danish
OWF project Anholt (400 MW).
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Wind
Ambition
270 Siemens Mar-Sept 2012 Lincs
184 Siemens Aug ’10-Mar ‘11 Walney phase 1
Wind Ambition, source: http://www.c-bed.nl
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 110
317 Siemens May ’11-Jan ‘12 Sheringham Shoal
630 Siemens Feb ‘12-Jan ‘13 London Array phase 1
Wind
Perfection 400 Siemens Nov ’12-Aug ‘13
Anholt
Wind Solution
576 Siemens June ’13-June ‘14 Gwynt y Môr
194 Siemens Mar-Dec 2008 Lynn & Inner
Dowsing
209 Siemens Apr-Dec 2009 Horns Rev 2
504 Siemens May ’10-Mar ‘12 Greater Gabbard
270 Siemens Mar-Sept 2012 Lincs
Market Position:
C-bed are unique in that they work solely within the offshore wind market. Other companies operating
accommodation vessels for the offshore market are International Shipping Partners, P&O Ferries and SWE
Offshore Marine Services Group.
Location:
C-bed Floating Hotels: WTC Schiphol, Tower D 4th. Floor, Schiphol Boulevard 219, 1118 BH Schiphol - The
Netherlands Tel.: +31 20 654 4030 www.c-bed.nl
International Shipping Partners
About the Company:
USA based ISP are passenger shipping specialists. They have 10 years of experience of management
within the passenger ship industry. ISP currently operates 23 vessels of which the majority are cruise
vessels. In 2011 ISP signed an agreement with Danish firm Blue Water Shipping A/S to market ISP’s fleet
of vessels as “floatels” for the offshore market using the name “Comfort at Sea”.
Vessels:
Three of ISP’s vessels have been used as “floatels” in the
offshore wind industry. Sea Discoverer is available for
charter and ISP have responsibility for the vessel’s
technical, commercial and administrative management. Sea
Spirit and Ocean Atlantic are not available for charter and
ISP have responsibility for various elements of their
management involving technical, commercial and hotel
management and technical, commercial and administrative
respectively. Ocean Atlantic and Sea Spirit are both
currently chartered to Comfort at Sea. The table below provides a brief overview of the vessels’
specifications.
Vessel Flag Year Built Year of Re-
Build
Accommodatio
n
Gross
Tonnage
Ocean Atlantic Marshall
Islands
1986 2010 460 12,798
Sea Discoverer Bahamas 2001 N/A 294 5,954
Sea Spirit Bahamas 1987 N/A 120 4,200
Ocean Atlantic, source: http://www.isp-
usa.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 111
Track Record:
Of the 23 vessels operated by ISP, three have track record with offshore wind projects: Ocean Atlantic, Sea
Discoverer and Sea Spirit. The table below gives an overview of the vessels’ respective track record.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Ocean Atlantic 400 Areva TBC (9 months) Global Tech 1
Sea Discoverer 630 Siemens 2012 London Array
183.6 Siemens Unknown Walney II
200 Areva TBC (6 months) Borkum
Sea Spirit 183.6 Siemens May-Sept 2011 Walney II
Market Position:
Other companies operating accommodation vessels for the offshore market are C-bed Floating Hotels,
P&O Ferries and SWE Offshore Marine Services Group.
Location:
The company are headquarter in Miami USA and also operate an office in Denmark.
4770 Biscayne Blvd., Penthouse A, Miami, Florida 33137
USA Tel: +1.305.573.6355 www.isp-usa.com www.comfortatsea.com
7.2 Profiles of leading Cable Laying Vessel operators
Global Marine Systems
About the Company:
Global Marine Systems provides engineering and underwater services relating to cable installation,
maintenance and burial. They have been part of the Bridgehouse Capital Group since August 2004.
Global Marine operate a number of ships, ROVs and trenching equipment. Of their fleet of ships they
operate seven cable vessels and barges who undertake installation and support works.
Vessels:
Global Marine’s seven vessels undertake a variety of tasks including cable
burial and installation of inter-array and export cables.
Cable Enterprise was built specifically for the installation of power cables
for offshore wind farms.
The table below shows the key specifications for the cable vessels under the
operation of Global Marine Systems.
Cable Innovator, source:
www.globalmarinesystems.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 112
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Cable
Enterprise
Singapor
e
2001 60 -
Cable
Networker
Panama unknown - 2,063
Pacific
Guardian
Panama 2006 80 6,133
Sovereign Malta 1987 76 11,242
Wave Sentinel U.K. 1995 (converted in
1999)
64 12,330
Cable Retriever Singapor
e
1997 81 11,026
Cable
Innovator
U.K. 1995 80 14,277
Track Record:
Many of Global Marine’s vessels are based in the Far East and Asia. Cable Retriever is stationed in the Far
East, Cable Innovator is stationed in Asia and Networker in South East Asia. Sovereign is based in the
U.K. and demonstrates the most experience in the renewables market.
Of the seven vessels operated by Global Marine, the following have track record in offshore wind.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Cable
Enterprise
576 Siemens 2013
Gwynt y Môr
Cable
Networker 160 Vestas -
Horns Rev 1
Sovereign 30, 184.5, 110.7 REpower -
Thornton Bank Phase 1-
3
400 Areva 2013 Global Tech 1
165 Vestas - Belwind
209 Siemens 2009 Horns Rev 2
90 Vestas - Barrow
10 REpower - Beatrice Demo
120 Vestas 2007
Prinses
Amaliawindpark
108 Vestas - Egmond aan Zee
630 Siemens 2011 London Array Phase 1
Wave Sentinel 108 Vestas 2008 Egmond aan Zee
Cable
Innovator 184.5, 110.7 REpower 2011
Thornton Bank 2 & 3
Market Position:
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 113
Large vessel operators providing cable installation services to the offshore wind sector include Visser Smit
Marine Contracting and Solstad Offshore ASA.
Locations:
Global Marine Systems are a U.K. company with locations in England, Singapore, Indonesia, the
Philippines and China.
Global Marine Systems Limited, New Saxon House, 1 Winsford Way, Boreham Interchange, Chelmsford,
Essex CM2 5PD
England Tel: +44 (0)1245 702000 www.globalmarinesystems.com
Peter Madsen A/S
About the Company:
Peter Madsen has been operating since 1954 and is one of the leading Danish marine construction
companies. Over the last 5 years Peter Madsen have worked extensively in the offshore wind sector.
Vessels:
Peter Madsen operates six multi-purpose vessels that provide
cable lay support services to the offshore wind industry such as
dredging, scour protection, underwater foundation, pipe and
cable works and piling.
There are two types of vessels in the fleet; those with hydraulic
excavators and those with wire machines. Peter Madsen also
offers dive support, survey vessels, barges and tugs where
available.
The table below illustrates the fleet operated by Peter Madsen.
Vessel Flag Year Built Year
Renovated
Accommodatio
n
Gross
Tonnage
Aase Madsen Denmark 1977 1986 10 174.98
Grete Fighter Denmark 1980 2010 12 299.99
John Madsen Denmark 1972 2010 4 125.52
Margrethe
Fighter
Denmark 1988
- 5
199.74
Merete Chris Denmark 1966 1987 4 199.99
Peter Madsen Denmark 1968 1998/2001 4 159
Track Record:
Peter Madsen has been extensively involved in the offshore wind industry for a number of years. Their
most recent project is the Westermost Rough OWF in the U.K. where they are removing boulders from
turbine positions and cable routes prior to installation.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Margrethe Fighter, source: www.peter-
madsen.dk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 114
Aase Madsen
48.3 Siemens 2010 (4 months) EnBW Baltic 1
90 Siemens 2007/8 (8 months) Rhyl Flats
180 Vestas 2009 Robin Rigg
Grete Fighter 110.4 Siemens 2006 Lillgrund
John Madsen 288 Siemens 2012/13 Amrumbank West
48.3 Siemens 2010 (4 months) EnBW Baltic 1
Margrethe
Fighter 90 Siemens 2007/8 (8 months) Rhyl Flats
Merete Chris
288 Siemens 2012/13 Amrumbank West
48.3 Siemens 2010 (4 months) EnBW Baltic 1
209 Siemens 2008 Horns Rev 2
Peter Madsen 210 Siemens 2013 Westermost Rough
Market Position:
Other companies offering construction support to cable laying within the offshore wind industry include:
Van Oord NV, Visser Smit Marine Contracting, Solstad Offshore ASA and Global Marine Systems.
Location:
Peter Madsen A/S is based in Denmark.
Peter Madsen Rederi A/S, Søren Nymarks Vej 8, 8270 Højbjerg
Denmark Tel: +45 86 29 01 00 www.peter-madsen.dk
7.3 Profiles of leading construction support vessel operators
Sealion
About the Company:
Headquartered in the U.K., Sealion are an international ship management company. Sealion’s focus is on
the oil and gas industry but their services extend to the offshore wind sector and include services such as
installation and maintenance, accommodation support, cable lay and heavy lifting.
Vessels:
Sealion operate around 28 vessels, they supply platform supply
vessels /ROV support vessels (12), well testing vessels (1), dive
support vessels (5), construction support vessels (4) and anchor
handling tug supply vessels (6).
Their platform supply vessels are used for multiple roles in the
offshore wind industry including the transport of foundations
and equipment, commissioning works, foundation grouting and
site exploration and safety services.
An overview of their platform supply vessels can be found in
the table below.
Toisa Conqueror, source:
www.sealionshipping.co.uk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 115
Vessel Flag Year Built
Accommodatio
n Gross Tonnage
Toisa Conqueror Liberia 2001 40 2401
Toisa Coral U.K. 1999 40 2401
Toisa Crest U.K. 1999 40 2401
Toisa Independent U.K. 2003 24 3100
Toisa Intrepid Bahamas 1998 27 2990
Toisa Invincible Bahamas 1998 27 2990
Toisa R Class - Hull
367 Bahamas 2012-13 60 4100
Toisa R Class - Hull
369 Bahamas 2012-13 60 4100
Toisa Serenade Bahamas 2008 24 3665
Toisa Solitaire Bahamas 2009 24 3665
Toisa Sonata Bahamas 2009 24 3665
Toisa Valiant Bahamas 2005 60 3406
Toisa Vigilant Bahamas 2005 60 3404
Toisa Voyager Bahamas 2006 60 3406
Toisa Warrior Bahamas 2011 60 4801
Toisa Wave Bahamas 2011 60 4801
Track Record:
Of Sealion’s 12 platform supply vessels 4 have experience in the offshore wind sector, the table below sets
out each vessel’s project experience.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Toisa Sonata 317 Siemens 2010 Sheringham Shoal
Toisa Voyager 1,000-1,200 TBC Jun-Jul 2013 Dogger Bank Creyke
Beck B (Tranche A)
Toisa Valiant 60 Areva &
REpower May-Jun 2009 Alpha Ventus
Toisa Vigilant 219 Vestas 2013 Humber Gateway
Market Position:
Those companies operating platform supply vessels within the offshore industry include Maersk Supply
Services, Siem Offshore and Ugland Offshore, however, Sealion are able to demonstrate the most
experience within the offshore wind sector.
Location:
Sealion are based in the U.K. and have an office in Singapore operating under Toisa Pte Limited.
Sealion Shipping Limited, Gostrey House, Union Road, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 7PT
U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1252 737 773 www.sealionshipping.co.uk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 116
Ugland Construction A/S
About the Company:
Ugland Construction A/S are part of the J.J. Ugland Companies. Ugland Construction are responsible for
the commercial operation of a number of flat top barges and one heavy lift crane vessel called HLV Uglen.
Ugland Marine Services are responsible for the commercial operation of supramax bulk carriers; wholly
owned tankers; and the technical operation of the barges and HLV Uglen.
Vessels:
The J.J. Ugland Companies fleet totals 46 units (as of August
2013) and includes 2 new build vessels. Of these vessels 21 are
barges and operated by Ugland Construction. Barges range in
size from 10,000 to 16,000 dwt with high deck strengths. They
are used for transportation and installations for offshore
projects.
A brief overview of these vessels can be found in the table
below.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
UR 1 Norway 1994 - 9,750
UR 2 Norway 1995 - 9,750
UR 3 Norway 1995 - 9,750
UR 5 Norway 1996 - 9,750
UR 6 Norway 1997 - 9,750
UR 7 Norway 1999 - 9,750
UR 8 Norway 1999 - 9,750
UR 93 Norway 2001 - 9,040
UR 94 Norway 2001 - 9,040
UR 95 Norway 2001 - 9,025
UR 96 Norway 2008 - 9,025
UR 97 Norway 2008 - 9,025
UR 98 Norway 2011 - 9,025
UR 99 Norway 2011 - 9,025
UR 101 Norway 1993 48 10,094
UR 108 Norway 1985 - 9,694
UR 111 Norway 1976 - 11,285
UR 141 Norway 1993 - 14,011
UR 171 Norway 2011 - 16,800
UR 901 Norway 2013 - 9,019
UR 902 Norway 2013 - 9,019
Track Record:
UR-101, source: www.jjuc.no
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 117
Although these barges can be used within the offshore wind industry the following vessels have a
demonstrable track record on offshore wind farm projects.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
UR 101 194 Siemens 2007 Lynn & Inner Dowsing
270 Siemens 2012 Lincs
180 Vestas 2011 Robin Rigg
300 Vestas 2009 Thanet
317 Siemens 2010 Sheringham Shoal
UR 108 288 Siemens 2012 Meerwind
UR 94 62.1 Siemens - Teesside
UR 96 317 Siemens - Sheringham Shoal
UR 97 317 Siemens - Sheringham Shoal
UR 99 576 Siemens 2012 Gwynt y Môr
UR 6 160
209
Vestas,
Siemens
2008
2008
Homs Rev 1
Horns Rev 2
UR 7 576 Siemens - Gwynt y Môr
UR 3 576 Siemens - Gwynt y Môr
Market Position:
Other companies operating in the supply of construction support barges are Otto Wulf GmbH & Co. KG
and Stemat Marine Services. Both of which have offshore wind sector experience.
Location:
Based in Stavanger, Norway with a Canadian subsidiary dealing with tankers in St. John’s,
Newfoundland.
Haakon VII's gt. 8, 4005 Stavanger
Norway Tel: +47 51 56 43 00 www.jjuc.no
7.4 Profiles of leading safety support vessel operators
Safety Boat Services
About the Company:
Safety Boat Services are a U.K. based company supplying ships, class A guard vessels, safety boats,
multicats and work boats for security services on offshore construction projects including offshore wind.
Their vessels are available with crew or for bareboat charter.
Vessels:
Safety Boat Services operate 8 vessels of which 3 provide guard
vessel services. Guard vessels can also undertake additional roles
to guarding including surveying and security.
S.B. Seaguard, source:
www.safetyboatservices.co.uk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 118
The table below provides an overview of the guard vessels operated by Safety Boat Services.
Vessel Flag Year Built Year of Re-
Build
Accommodatio
n
Gross
Tonnage
S.B. Guardian U.K. - - - -
S.B. Seaguard U.K. 1973 1986, 1988 8 75
Vanguard Australia - - 4 -
Track Record:
The following vessels have provided guard services to offshore wind projects. S.B. Seaguard also provided
bird surveying services for the Walney Extension project. Both the SB Seaguard and the SB Guardian
provided guard services to the London Array OWF project. Further details of the projects can be found in
the table below.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
S.B. Guardian 630 Siemens 2011 London Array
S.B. Seaguard 630 Siemens 2011 London Array
183.6 Siemens 2011 Walney Extension
Market Position:
Other companies providing guard services in the offshore wind sector include: Choice Marine Services;
Danbrit Shipping Ltd; Fastnet Shipping; Northern Viking; and Offshore Marine Support Ltd.
Location:
Safety Boat Services, The Old Carrot Wash, New Farm, Warham Road, Wells-next-the-Sea NR23 1NE
U.K. Tel: 01328 888123 www.safetyboatservices.co.uk
7.5 Profiles of leading Heavy-lift Vessel operators
Heerema Marine Contractors
About the Company:
Heerema Marine Contractors is a marine contractor working across the offshore oil and gas industry.
Their experience in this sector has been applied to the offshore wind sector. Heerema’s vessels offer
transportation, installation and removal services for all types of offshore facilities.
Vessels:
Heerema own and operate 4 Heavy-lift Vessels with lift capacities
of up to 14,200 tonnes. DCV Aegir is the newest vessel to join the
fleet; it will be used for infrastructure and pipeline projects and
will have the ability to install fixed platforms in shallow water.
Heerema also operates anchor handling tugs, Cargo Barges and
cargo/launch barges. Heerema’s vessel Thialf is the largest crane
vessel in the world. Balder, Hermond and Thialf are semi-
Thialf, source: http://hmc.heerema.com/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 119
submersible Heavy-lift Vessels whereas AEGIR is self-propelled monohull crane vessel.
The table below lists Heerema’s Heavy-lift Vessels and provides a brief overview of their specifications.
Vessel Flag Year Built Year of Re-
Build
Accommodatio
n
Gross
Tonnage
AEGIR Panama 2012 - 305 50,228
Balder Antigua &
Barbuda
1978 2002 392 48,511
Hermod Panama 1978 - 336 73,877
Thialf Panama 1985 - 736 136,709
Track Record:
Heerema’s vessels are predominantly engaged in the offshore oil and gas industry but Thialf has been
engaged on the Alpha Ventus project where it installed the world’s highest-voltage offshore converter
station, DolWin 1.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Thialf 60 Areva & REpower 2009 Alpha Ventus
Market Position:
Other companies operating Heavy-lift Vessels in the offshore wind sector include: Seaway Heavy Lifting;
Jumbo; Kahn Scheepvaart BV; Scaldis Salvage and Marine Contractors NV; and Bonn & Mees.
Location:
Heerema are based in the Netherlands with offices in the U.K., Angola, Nigeria, Australia, Singapore, the
USA, Mexico and Brazil. They have shipyards in Angola, the Netherlands and the USA.
Heerema Marine Contractors Nederland SE, Vondellaan 55, 2332 AA Leiden
The Netherlands Tel.: 31 (0)71 579 9000 http://hmc.heerema.com
Seaway Heavy Lifting
About the Company:
Seaway Heavy Lifting work across the oil & gas, renewables and decommissioning sectors. They provide
transportation and installation services and operate a fleet of two vessels. Both vessels are highly
experienced in the offshore wind sector. The company also operates the following equipment: set of
hydraulic (under water) piling hammers; Levelling tools; Internal pile lifting tools; and Wirth Pile top drill
rig.
Seaway Heavy Lifting’s parent company Subsea 7’s renewable energy business was consolidated into
Seaway Heavy Lifting in January 2013. The move was to enable Seaway Heavy Lifting to broaden their
offer and target larger projects whilst simplifying Subsea 7’s renewable energy services offer.
Vessels:
Oleg Strashnov, source:
http://www.seawayheavylifting.com.cy/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 120
Seaway Heavy Lifting’s vessels Stanislav Yudin and Oleg Strashnov are fully owned and equipped with
hydraulic pile hammers, pile lifting tools and levelling devices.
Stanislav Yudin has a crane with a 2,500 tonne capacity, 500 tonne aux. hook and 30 tonne trolley hoist.
The Oleg Strashnov has a 5,000 tonne revolving crane, 800 and 200 tonne aux. hooks and a 30 tonne trolley
hoist.
Both vessels are self-propelled. Further details of these vessels can be found in the table below.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Stanislav
Yudin
Cyprus 1985 143 24,822
Oleg Strashnov Cyprus 2011 220
Track Record:
Seaway Heavy Lifting has been involved in a great number of offshore wind farm construction projects,
both vessels having been involved with wind turbine generator and substation installations. Details of
these projects can be found below.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Stanislav
Yudin
576 Siemens 2012 Gwynt y Môr
504 Siemens 2009-10 Greater Gabbard
300 Vestas 2010 Thanet
200 Areva 2013
2013
Borkum Phase 1
Borkum Phase 2
400 Siemens 2012 Anholt
1,200 TBC 2013
2013
East Anglia One
East Anglia Two
Oleg Strashnov 317 Siemens 2011 Sheringham Shoal
108 Siemens 2012 Riffgat
288 Siemens 2013 Meerwind Ost/Sud
200 Areva 2013 Borkum Phase 1
504 Siemens Aug. 2011 Greater Gabbard, East
1,200 TBC 2012
2012
East Anglia One
East Anglia Two
288 Siemens 2013 DanTysk
Market Position:
Other companies operating Heavy-lift Vessels in the offshore wind sector include: Heerema Marine
Contractors; Jumbo; Kahn Scheepvaart BV; Scaldis Salvage and Marine Contractors NV; and Bonn & Mees.
Location:
Seaway Heavy Lifting are based in Cyprus and have offices in Cyprus, The Netherlands, Germany, France
and Scotland.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 121
Seaway Heavy Lifting Contracting Ltd., Lophitis Business Centre II, 237, 28th October Street, 3035
Limassol Cyprus Tel: + 357 25 029 090 www.seawayheavylifting.com.cy
7.6 Profiles of leading Jack-up Vessel operators
A2SEA
About the Company:
A2SEA are world leaders in installation services for the offshore wind sector. They provide installation
services for foundations and turbines and provide transportation services through a fleet of 6 Jack-up
Vessels and 7 crew boats. They also provide operations and maintenance logistics.
Vessels:
A2SEA’s Jack-up Vessels have been listed in the
table below. A2SEA maintains, mans and operates
its fleet of vessels; all the vessels are involved in
offshore wind installations and operations.
All vessels are 4 legged and can accommodate between 16 and 35 crew. The newer vessels; Sea Challenger
and Sea Installer are equipped with a DP-2 class dynamic positioning system. All vessels with the
exception of the Sea Worker and Sea Jack are self-propelled.
Vessel Flag Year Built Year of Re-
Build
Accommodatio
n
Gross
Tonnage
Sea Challenger Denmark 2014 - 35 6,418
Sea Jack Denmark 2003 - 23 6,558
Sea Worker Denmark 2008 - 22 170
Sea Energy Denmark 1990 2002 16 3,332
Sea Installer Denmark 2012 - 35 15,996
Sea Power Denmark 1991 2002 16 718
Track Record:
The table below demonstrates A2SEA’s extensive involvement in the offshore wind industry; each vessel
having been involved in a significant number of projects. The Sea Worker and Sea Jack are currently
involved in the Gwynt Y Môr OWF transporting and installing 160 Siemens wind turbines. The Sea
Installer is currently working on the West of Duddon Sands OWF transporting and installing 33 monopiles
and transition pieces and 108 Siemens wind turbines.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Sea Challenger 210 Siemens 2013 Westermost Rough
Sea Jack 576 Siemens 2013 Gwynt y Môr
317 Siemens 2011-12 Sheringham Shoal
209 Siemens 2008 Horns Rev 2
150 REpower 2011 Ormonde
Sea Jack, source: www.a2sea.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 122
25.2 GE Energy 2003-2004 Arklow Bank
120 Vestas 2007-2008 Prinses Amaliawindpark
300 Vestas 2008-10 Thanet
90 Siemens 2006 Burbo Bank
60 Vestas 2003-04 Scroby Sands
630 Siemens Aug-Nov 2012 London Array
62.1 Siemens 2012 Teesside
150 REpower 2011 Ormonde
504 Siemens Jul ’10-Jan ‘11 Greater Gabbard
Sea Worker 576 Siemens 2013 Gwynt y Môr
630 Siemens 2011-2012 London Array
400 Siemens 2012-13 Anholt
183.6 REpower 2010 Walney 1
172.8 Siemens Aug ‘09-Jan ‘10 Gunfleet Sands
180 Vestas 2008-09 Robin Rigg
48.3 Siemens 2010 EnBW Baltic 1
Sea Energy 21 Vestas Oct. 2009 Sprogø
160
209
Vestas
Siemens 2010 Horns Rev 1-2
165.6 Bonus 2003 Nysted
480 TBC - Arkona
108 Vestas Jun-Aug 2006 Egmond aan Zee
180 Vestas 2008-09 Robin Rigg
120 Vestas 2007-08 Prinses Amalia
90 Vestas 2005 Kentish Flats
60 Vestas 2004 Scroby Sands
48.3 Siemens - EnBW Baltic 1
Sea Installer - - 2012
COSCO (Qidong)
Offshore base
400 Siemens 2013 Anholt
389 Siemens - West of Duddon Sands
Sea Power 400 Siemens 2012-13 Anholt
160
209
Vestas
Siemens - Horns Rev 1-2
207 Siemens 2010 Rødsand 2
48.3 Siemens 2010 EnBW Baltic 1
7.6 Nordex,
Bonus 2003 Fredrikshavn
25.2 GE Energy 2003 Arklow Bank
110.4 Siemens 2007 Lillgrunden
108 Vestas Apr-May 2006 Egmond aan Zee
Market Position:
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 123
Other large companies operating Jack-Up vessels to the offshore wind industry include Jack-Up Barge BV,
MPI Offshore, Seajacks and Geosea.
Location:
A2SEA are based in Denmark and have offices in Germany and the U.K.
A2SEA A/S, Kongens Kvarter 51, 7000 Fredericia
Denmark Tel. +45 7592 8211 www.a2sea.com
Jack-Up Barge BV
About the Company:
Netherlands based Jack-Up Barge BV is one of the leading providers of self-elevating platforms for the
offshore markets and heavy civil construction market. Their offshore expertise extends across the gas, oil
and renewables markets.
Jack-Up Barge BV is part of the Van Es Group, the group also consists of Dieseko (vibro's and power units);
PVE Cranes & Services (crawler cranes, piling end drilling rigs); and World Wide Equipment (construction
and marine equipment).
Vessels:
Jack-Up Barge BV offer a range of 4 leg Jack-up Vessels for the
offshore wind industry. Their self-elevating monohull range
include 5 vessels and their modular Jack-up Barges include 3
vessels. Jack-Up barge BV also offer transportation services.
The platforms can handle loads of up to 2000 tonnes and can
operate in water depths up to 50 metres.
Jack-Up Barge BV also operate crane barges, flat top barges,
Tugboats, anchors, winches, piling templates, hydraulic pile
driving hammers and vibrators and crawler cranes and pile
driving rigs.
The table below provides a brief overview of the Jack-up Vessels.
Vessel Flag Year
Built
Accommodatio
n
Gross Tonnage
JB-104 - 2003 - -
JB-108 - - - -
JB-116 Netherlands 2010 160 -
Sea Spider St Vincent & the Grenadines 1999 40 -
JB-114 Bahamas 2009 160 -
JB-115 Bahamas 2009 160 -
JB-117 Bahamas 2011 350 -
JB-112 - - - -
Track Record:
JB-109/110, source:
http://www.jackupbarge.com/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 124
Of the Jack-up Vessels operated by Jack-Up Barge BV the following vessels have experience in the offshore
wind industry.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
JB-104 317 Siemens Oct. 2010 Sheringham Shoal
JB-108 30 REpower - Thornton Bank Phase I
JB-114 165 Vestas 2010 Belwind Phase I
60 Areva &
REpower 2009 Alpha Ventus
576 Siemens 2013 Gwynt y Mor
270 Siemens 2012 Lincs
62.1 Siemens 2012 Teesside
498 Siemens 2011 Hornsea Project One -
Njord
JB-115 400 BARD 2011-13 BARD Offshore 1
60 Areva &
REpower 2009 Alpha Ventus
JB-117 400 BARD 2012-13 BARD Offshore 1
Market Position:
Other large companies operating Jack-Up vessels to the offshore wind industry include A2SEA, MPI
Offshore, Seajacks and Geosea.
Location:
Jack-Up Barge, Krausstraat 14-16, 3364 AD Sliedrecht
The Netherlands Tel: +31(0)184 42 00 91 www.jackupbarge.com
7.7 Profiles of leading multi-purpose project vessel operators
Esvagt
About the Company:
Esvagt was established in Denmark in 1981 and operates within the offshore industry. Its fleet includes
Emergency Response and Rescue Vessels (ERRV) and Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS) vessels, it
also offers safety training and oil spill contingency services.
Vessels:
Esvagt operate 8 multi-role anchor handling tug supply vessels.
The vessels are capable of providing the following services:
Anchor Handling and towing
Tanker/FPSO assistance
Supply vessel service
ROV/survey vessel operations
Esvagt Observer, source:
http://www.esvagt.dk/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 125
First line oil spill contingency response
Standby vessel services
The table below sets out an overview of the vessels’ specifications.
Vessel Flag Year Built No. Passengers Gross Tonnage
Esvagt Aurora Denmark 2012 320 4,462
Esvagt Bergen Denmark 2011 370 3,676
Esvagt Connector Denmark 2000 300 1,890
Esvagt DEE Denmark 2000 300 1,863
Esvagt DON Denmark 2000 300 1,863
Esvagt GAMMA Denmark 1985 140 1,361
Esvagt Observer Denmark 1999 300 1,863
Esvagt OMEGA Denmark 1975 140 1,380
Esvagt Server Denmark * * *
Esvagt Stavanger Denmark * * *
* data not available
Track Record:
All of the vessels are suitable for use in the offshore wind market, however, only one of those vessels has
offshore wind related experience.
Market Position:
Other vessel operators supply AHTS vessels to the offshore wind industry include DSB Offshore, Harms
Bergung, Maersk, Seacontractors BV and URAG.
Location:
ESVAGT A/S, Adgangsvejen 1, DK-6700 Esbjerg
Denmark Tel. +45 33 98 77 00 www.esvagt.dk
URAG
About the Company:
URAG has been involved in towage since 1890. Their services are provided to vessels in ports, terminals
and offshore. They operate a fleet of around 19 vessels. They operate in the offshore oil & gas, offshore
wind, salvage, emergency towage and port & terminal towage. Their services to the offshore wind market
include:
Towing assistance of offshore construction and crane vessels
in port and offshore
Barge transportation of windmill components
Guard vessels / Emergency Towage
Crew transfer
Support of cable laying units, dredgers and other special
vessels
Provision of tow masters und runner crews
Vessels:
Bremen Fighter, source: http://www.urag.de/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 126
URAG operate a fleet of 6 vessels of either AHTS or multi-role AHTs. They have bollard pull capacities
from 70 to 120 tonnes. The table below provides a brief overview of URAG’s AHTS fleet.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Bremen Fighter Antigua &
Barbuda 2005
- 1,262
Bremen Hunter Antigua &
Barbuda 1982
- 1,367
Elbe Germany 2006 - 2,462
Ems Germany 2006 - 3,995
Jade Germany 2000 - 25,400
Weser Germany 2000 - 40,605
Track Record:
The fleet are able to work across the offshore wind sector; the vessels the Bremen Fighter and the Bremen
Hunter have project experience of OWF projects.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Bremen Fighter
576 Siemens 2012/2013 Gwynt y Môr
1,200 TBC May 2013 East Anglia Offshore
Wind Zone
Bremen Hunter 288 Siemens 2013 DanTysk
Market Position:
Other vessel operators supply AHTS vessels to the offshore wind industry include DSB Offshore, Harms
Bergung, Maersk, Seacontractors BV and Esvagt.
Location:
Unterweser Reederei GmbH, Barkhausenstr. 6, 27568 Bremerhaven
Germany Tel.: +49 471 94 819 0 www.urag.de
Delta Marine
About the Company:
Delta Marine are a U.K. company and have been trading since 1985. They operate a fleet of tugs and
workboats that are used in dredging and marine civil engineering. They operate in the U.K., Scandinavia,
Baltics, Caspian and Mediterranean seas.
Delta Marine works across the offshore wind industry and specialise in wave & tidal energy installations.
Vessels:
Delta Marine operates 6 vessels, 5 of which are multicat vessels
capable of undertaking coastal construction, anchor handling
and towing contracts. All multicats are suitable for shallow
draughts.
Voe Venture, source: www.delta-
marine.co.uk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 127
The table below provides a brief overview of the vessels in the multicat fleet.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Voe Earl U.K. 2012 8 200
Voe Jarl U.K. 2007 6 255
Voe Venture U.K. 1994 6 121
Voe Viking U.K. 2005 6 161
Whalsa Lass U.K. 2011 6 255
Track Record:
Delta Marine’s entire fleet has been extensively involved in the offshore wind industry. A list of the track
record of each vessel can be found in the table below.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
Voe Earl 184.5 REpower 2012
Thornton Bank Phase
II
504 Siemens - Greater Gabbard
630 Siemens Jun-Jul 2012 London Array Phase 1
300 Vestas 2012 Thanet
Voe Jarl 504 Siemens - Greater Gabbard
194.4 Siemens - Lynn & Inner
Dowsing
180 Vestas - Robin Rigg
317 Siemens Sep-Oct 2010 Sheringham Shoal
300 Vestas 2009 Thanet
Voe Venture 40 Bonus - Middelgrunden
90 Siemens - Burbo Bank
194.4 Siemens - Lynn & Inner
Dowsing
180 Vestas - Robbin Rigg
4 Vestas - Blyth
Voe Viking 504 Siemens - Greater Gabbard
194.4 Siemens - Lynn & Inner
Dowsing
180 Vestas 2013 Robin Rigg
300 Vestas - Thanet
4 Vestas - Blyth
10 REpower - Beatrice
Demonstration
Whalsa Lass 504 Siemens Feb-Mar 2012 Great Gabbard
576 Siemens 2013 Gwynt y Mor
Market Position:
Other providers of project vessels operating multicat type vessels in the offshore wind sector include Acta
Marine, Briggs Marine & Environmental Services, Maritime Craft Services and Stemat Marine Services.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 128
Location:
Delta Marine Ltd, 2/2 Mounthooly Street, Lerwick, Shetland, ZE1 0BJ
United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1595 694799 www.delta-marine.co.uk
7.8 Profiles of leading multi-purpose vessel operators
K/S Combi Lift
About the Company:
Headquartered in Denmark, Combi Lift participate in worldwide ocean transportation and installation
activities for heavy lift, project and break bulk cargoes.
Vessels:
Combi Lift operate around 18 vessels. The vessels provide a
combination of roll on/roll off (Ro/Ro), lift-on/lift-off (Lo/Lo), and
float-on/float-off (flo/flo) services. The majority of the vessels
have their own cranes capable of lifting between 120 and 900
tonnes.
The table below provides a brief overview of Combi Lift’s vessels.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodatio
n
Gross Tonnage
Palessa Antigua & Barbuda 2001 - 6,274
Combi Dock I Antigua & Barbuda 2008 - 17,341
Combi Dock III Antigua & Barbuda 2009 - 17,341
Palmerton Antigua & Barbuda 2009 - 11,473
Palabora Antigua & Barbuda 2010 - 11,473
Palembang Antigua & Barbuda 2010 - 11,473
Palau Malta 2010 - 11,473
Palanpur Antigua & Barbuda 2010 - 11,473
Palmarola Antigua & Barbuda 2011 - 11,473
EIT Palmina Antigua & Barbuda 2009 - 12,679
EIT Paloma Antigua & Barbuda 2010 - 12,679
Panagia Antigua & Barbuda 2004 - 7,002
Pantanal Antigua & Barbuda 2004 - 7,002
Pangani Antigua & Barbuda 2004 - 7,002
Pancaldo Antigua & Barbuda 2000 - 6,272
Panthera Antigua & Barbuda 2001 - 6,274
Patria Antigua & Barbuda 1999 - 2,210
Parida Antigua & Barbuda 1999 - 5,801
EIT Palmina, source:
http://www.kestrelmaritime.com/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 129
Track Record:
Combi Lift operate within the offshore wind industry and an example of their project experience is the EIT
Palmina’s transported transition pieces and monopiles for the West of Duddon Sands wind farm project in
the Irish Sea. The project involved 22 consecutive voyages.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
EIT Palmina 389 Siemens
2013 West of Duddon
Sands
Market Position:
Other larger operators of multi-purpose vessels in the offshore wind sector are BBC Chartering, Hansa
Heavy Lift GmbH and SAL Heavy Lift.
Location:
Based in Denmark with offices in Denmark, Germany, the USA, Singapore, China and Australia.
K/S COMBI LIFT, Batterivej 7, 4220 Korsoer
Denmark Tel: +45 5816 2030 www.combi-lift.eu
BBC Chartering
About the Company:
BBC Chartering is an international business serving the oil & gas, renewable energy, heavy industry,
mining industry, vehicles and yachts, bulk cargo and metals sectors. They operate a large fleet of vessels
for a variety of cargo requirements.
Vessels:
BBC Chartering operate more than 150 vessels. The fleet has an
average age of 5 years and can provide a solution to a variety of
breakbulk, heavy lift, project cargo and bulk requirements. BBC
Chartering describe themselves “as the largest windmill carrier
in the world”. The fleet’s carrying capacity ranges from 3,500 to
37,300 tonnes with crane capacities up to 800 tonnes.
The table below provides a brief overview of a selection of multi-
purpose vessels operated by BBC Chartering.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
BBC Elbe Germany 2006 - 12,936
BBC Germany
Antigua &
Barbuda
2003 - 7,004
BBC Konan Liberia 2000 - 8,831
BBC Kusan Liberia 2000 - 8,831
BBC Amazon Antigua &
Barbuda
2007 - 12,936
BBC Germany, source:
http://www.vesseltracker.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 130
Track Record:
Although described as a major windmill carrier, project references could only be found for two vessels:
BBC Germany and BBC Konan.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
BBC Germany 288 Siemens 2012 Meerwind
BBC Konan 504 Siemens Aug ’09-Sep ‘10 Greater Gabbard
Market Position:
Other larger operators of multi-purpose vessels in the offshore wind sector are K/S Combi Lift, Hansa
Heavy Lift GmbH and SAL Heavy Lift.
Location:
BBC Chartering is based in Leer Germany but operate around 28 offices across the world.
BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co.KG, Hafenstr. 10b, 26789 Leer
Germany Tel: +49 491 9252090 www.bbc-chartering.com
7.9 Profiles of Leading Service Crew Boat Operators
Turbine Transfers
About the Company:
Turbine Transfers is a wholly owned subsidiary of Holyhead Towing Company Ltd. They operate a
modern fleet of high speed vessels for personnel transfer, transportation of equipment, transfers of fuel
and cargo, dive support, surveys and subsea equipment deployment.
Vessels:
Turbine Transfers operate 26 vessels used for transferring personnel
and equipment between offshore wind turbine sites and the shore.
The fleet of vessels, all built by South Boats, include 12, 15, 16, 18
and 20 metre types. There are currently 6 vessels under
construction which will bring the fleet to a total of 34.
The table below lists the vessels in Turbine Transfers current fleet
and provides a brief overview of their specifications.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation
Aberffraw Bay UK 2012 12
Abersoch Bay UK 2012 12
Cable Bay UK 2013 -
Caernarfon Bay UK 2012 12
Carmel Head UK 2008 14
Cemaes Bay UK 2009 12
RRV Audrey, source: www.turbinetransfers.co.uk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 131
Colwyn Bay UK 2010 14
Conwy Bay UK 2010 14
Cymyran Bay UK 2013 -
Foryd Bay UK 2012 12
Kinmel Bay UK 2011 14
Llandudno Bay UK 2011 14
Lynas Point UK 2010 15
Malltraeth Bay UK 2012 12
Penmon Point UK 2010 14
Penrhos Bay UK 2010 14
Penrhyn Bay UK 2010 14
Porth Cadlan UK 2011 15
Porth Dafarch UK 2011 15
Porth Diana UK 2011 15
Porth Dinllaen UK 2011 15
Porth Wen UK 2011 15
Rhoscolyn
Head
UK 2009 14
RRV Audrey UK 2009 12
South Stack UK 2008 15
Themadoc Bay UK - -
Towyn Bay UK 2010 14
Wylfa Head UK 2009 14
Track Record:
Clients of Turbine Transfers include Siemens, RWE NPower, Van Oord, Dong Energy, EnBW and Boskalis.
Turbine Transfers have worked on the following OWF projects. The table below shows the list of OWF
projects Turbine Transfers has serviced.
Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Track Record
25.2 GE Energy Arklow Bank
48.3 Siemens EnBW Baltic 1
400 BARD BARD Offshore
165 Vestas Belwind
504 Siemens Greater Gabbard
172.8 Siemens Gunfleet Sands
90 Vestas Kentish Flats
270 Siemens Lincs
630 Siemens London Array
194 Siemens Lynn & Inner Dowsing
60 Vestas North Hoyle
150 REpower Ormonde
90 Siemens Rhyl Flats
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 132
180 Vestas Robin Rigg
207 Siemens Rødsand
300 Vestas Thanet
183.6 Siemens Walney 1
Market Position:
Companies operating crew transfer vessels with significant offshore wind experience include Gardline
Environmental, MPI Offshore, Seacat Service and Workships Contractors B.V. & Doeksen.
Location:
Turbine Transfers Ltd, Newry Beach Yard, Holyhead, Anglesey, U.K., LL65 1YB
United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1407 760111 www.turbinetransfers.co.uk
MPI Offshore
About the Company:
MPI Offshore provides vessel solutions for wind installation operations and services and services the
offshore wind and oil & gas markets.
MPI Offshore started with the vessel MPI Resolution which began operating in 2004, since then the fleet
grew to include the Adventure and Discovery and the workboats followed.
The MPI Resolution and associated equipment became part of a company jointly owned by the Vroon
Group BV on the 31st of March 2006.
Vessels:
MPI Offshore operate three Jack-up Vessels (MPI Resolution, MPI
Adventure and MPI Discovery), eight workboats and a remotely
operated vehicle. There are also four new workboats under
construction.
The workboats range in size and are available at 15, 17, 19, 20 metres.
They undertake roles including passenger transfer, surveys, dive
support, construction and operation and maintenance roles.
The table below provides a brief overview of the workboat vessels.
Vessel Flag Year Built Passengers Gross Tonnage
MPI Cardenio UK 2012 12 -
MPI Crevantes UK 2012 12 3,675
MPI Don Quixote UK 2009 12 -
MPI Dorothea UK 2011 12 -
MPI Dulcinea UK 2011 12 -
MPI Rosinante UK 2009 12 -
MPI Rucio UK 2009 12 -
MPI Sancho Panza UK 2008 12 -
MPI Workboat 1 UK 2013 12 -
MPI Sancho Panza,
source: www.mpi-offshore.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 133
MPI Workboat 2 UK 2013 12 -
MPI Workboat 3 UK 2013 12 -
MPI Workboat 4 UK 2013 12 -
Track Record:
MPI Offshore workboats have been involved in a number of offshore wind projects. Their clients’ include
Siemens, Npower and EON. The table below outlines the projects undertaken by some of the fleet.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW) Turbines Period Track Record
MPI Don Quixote 194 Siemens -
Lynn & Inner
Dowsing
317 Siemens Apr-May 2012 Sheringham Shoal
180 Vestas - Robin Rigg
216 Vestas 2013 Northwind
MPI Dorothea 317 Siemens 2012 Sheringham Shoal
MPI Rosinante 216 Vestas 2013 Northwind
MPI Rucio 172.8 Siemens Mar-Dec 2010 Gunfleet Sands
MPI Sancho
Panza
90 Siemens - Rhyl Flats
90 Siemens - Burbo Bank
216 Vestas 2013 Northwind
Market Position:
Companies operating crew transfer vessels and workboats with significant offshore wind experience
include Gardline Environmental, Turbine Transfers, Seacat Service and Workships Contractors B.V. &
Doeksen.
Location:
MPI Offshore, First Floor, Resolution House, 18 Ellerbeck Court, Stokesley Business Park, Stokesley, TS9
5PT United Kingdom Tel: +44(0)1642 742200 http://www.mpi-offshore.com
Northern Offshore Services
About the Company:
Northern Offshore Services is a Swedish based crew transfer vessel owner and operator specialising in the
offshore wind industry and provides a variety of services including: crew and cargo transportation; survey
and ROV work; VIP, diver and stand-by vessels; specialised solutions including bunker operations; and
heavy cargo transportation.
Vessels:
Northern Offshore Services own and operate a fleet of 19 vessels for
the offshore wind industry. The vessels range in length from 11m
(M/V Server) to 27m (M/V Developer), they are capable of taking
between 6 and 12 passengers plus crew. Vessels are designed to be
available for service 365 days a year.
M/V Achiever, source: http://www.n-o-s.eu/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 134
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
M/V
Accomplisher
Denmark 2012 12 131.5
M/V Achiever Denmark 2011 12 101
M/V Advancer Denmark 2013 12 131.5
M/V Arriver Denmark 2012 12 131.5
M/V Assister Denmark 2012 12 119
M/V Attender Denmark 2012 12 131.5
M/V Carrier Denmark 2013 12 167
M/V Deliverer Denmark 2005 12 21.9
M/V Developer Denmark 2014 12 179
M/V Distributor Denmark 1994 12 31.3
M/V Performer Denmark 2010 12 32
M/V Preceder Denmark 1975 12 27
M/V Provider Denmark 2007 12 21.5
M/V Server Denmark 1999 6 12
M/V Supplier Denmark 2005 12 55.9
M/V Supporter Denmark 2009 12 31.8
M/V Tender Denmark 2008 12 21.3
M/V Transporter Denmark 2009 12 30.1
M/V Voyager Denmark 2008 12 30.1
Track Record:
All of the vessels are designed for the offshore wind industry, some offshore wind project examples have
been listed below (see attached track record).
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW)
Turbines Period Track Record
M/V
Accomplisher
400 Siemens Sep ’12-Mar ‘13 Anholt
207 Siemens - Rødsand 2
M/V Achiever 48.3 Siemens - EnBW Baltic 1
M/V Assister 400 Siemens - Anholt
M/V Attender 400 Siemens - Anholt
M/V Distributor 630 Siemens - London Array Phase 1
M/V Performer 400 Siemens Oct ’12-Jul ’13 Anholt
Market Competition:
Companies operating crew transfer vessels with significant offshore wind experience include Gardline
Environmental, Turbine Transfers, MPI Offshore, Seacat Service and Workships Contractors B.V. &
Doeksen.
Location:
Northern Offshore Services have offices in Gothenburg, Sweden and Esbjerg, Denmark.
Northern Offshore Services AB, Saltholmsgatan 44, SE-426 76 Västra Frölunda
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 135
Sweden Tel: +46 (0)31 97 37 00
Northern Offshore Service A/S, Nordre Dokkaj 7, DK-6700 Esbjerg
Denmark Tel: +45 78 78 80 00
www.n-o-s.eu
7.10 Profiles of leading survey vessel operators
Fugro
About the Company:
Fugro’s main service offers fall under geotechnical, surveys, subsea services and geoscience. They work
across the oil and gas, construction, mining and government sectors. Within the offshore wind sector they
offer the following services:
Construction Survey Support
Marine Survey Services
Offshore Positioning Services
Fugro Satellite Positioning
Subsea Services
Laboratory Testing Services
Offshore Geotechnical Investigations
Offshore Foundation Installation Services
Offshore Geophysical Surveys
Nearshore and Overwater Services
Meteorology & Oceanography
GeoConsulting Services
Marine Environmental Services
Vessels:
The vessels below are operated by Fugro, Fugro Brazil, Fugro
EMU, Fugro Survey Ltd and Fugro Geoservices. Fugro operate
16 offshore survey vessels and their subsidiaries across the world
operate many vessels so a selection of their vessels can be found
in the table below
The vessels in the table below have been classified as multi-
purpose survey vessels and 9 have been classified as geophysical
survey vessels. The multi-purpose survey vessels provide a
variety of tasks including ROV inspection, pipeline and cable
route surveys, high resolution seismic acquisition surveys, geotechnical and environmental surveys.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Fugro Enterprise USA 2007 14 874
Fugro Discovery Panama 1997 23 1,991
Fugro Equator Bahamas 2012 42 1,929
Fugro Enterprise, source: www.shipspotting.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 136
Fugro Galaxy Bahamas 2011 42 1,929
Fugro Gauss Gibraltar 1980 12 1,684
Fugro Gemini Panama 1987 38 865
Fugro Meridian Bahamas 1982 26 2,255
Fugro Navigator Panama 1988 33 738
Geo Endeavour Panama 1985 25 514
Geo Prospector Panama 1970 26 1,417
Southern Supporter Australia 1993 47 2,065
Fugro Odyssey Brazil 1963 14 403
EMU Surveyor U.K. - - -
RV Discovery U.K. 1997 12 113
Geodetic Surveyor USA 1985 16 329
Universal Surveyor USA 1980 12 329
Fugro Searcher Panama 2010 42 1,929
Meridian Gibraltar 2003 18 1,251
Track Record:
The table below demonstrates a sample of Fugro’s survey vessels’ experience within the offshore wind
market.
Vessel Total
Capacity
(MW)
Turbines Period Track Record
EMU Surveyor 630 Siemens Apr-Nov 2010 London Array
RV Discovery 630 Siemens Jun ’10-Mar ‘11 London Array
Market Position:
Other companies operating survey vessels in the offshore market include CT Offshore, Harkand and
Gardline Environmental.
Location:
Fugro are located across the world in around 60 countries and operate under various names. The company
was founded in the Netherlands and the head office is located at the address below.
Fugro, Veurse Achterweg 10, 2264 SG, Leidschendam
The Netherlands Tel: +31 (0)70 311 1422 http://www.fugro.com/
Gardline
About the Company:
The Gardline Group of companies contains more than 35 companies operating across many business areas.
Gardline Marine Sciences undertake offshore geotechnical, geophysical and environmental surveys.
Gardline’s coastal survey vessels are operated by Gardline Environmental.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 137
Within the offshore wind sector Gardline provide environmental services such as surveys; oceanographic
surveys, hydrographic and geophysical surveys, geotechnical site investigations and operate a fleet of crew
transfer vessels.
Vessels:
Gardline’s fleet of vessels undertake a range of services
including site survey work, bird and mammal surveys,
environmental surveys, geophysical and geotechnical surveys.
Gardline operate 3 coastal vessels that undertake survey work; 9
windfarm support vessels undertaking crew transfer services;
and 12 offshore vessels undertaking multi roles for offshore
windfarm projects.
The table below gives an overview of some of Gardline’s fleet of
vessels involved in survey work.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Confidante U.K. 1991 - 208
George D U.K. 1991 - 47.64
Meriel D U.K. 2008 - N/A
Vigilant Netherlands 1982 - 1,365
Sea Surveyor Bahamas 1979 30 1,275
Sea Profiler Panama 1955 - 1,082
Track Record:
Meriel D undertook site survey work, including the export cable route and array cables on the London
Array OWF in 2013. Vigilant and Sea Profiler undertook bird and mammal surveys on Dogger Bank
Tranche D and Dogger Bank Creyke Beck B (Tranche A). An overview of some of the projects Gardline
have been involved in for survey work are listed in the table below.
Vessel Total Capacity
(MW)
Turbines Period Track Record
Confidante 183.6 Siemens 2012 Walney Extension
Meriel D 630 Siemens 2013 London Array
Vigilant 1,000-1,200
TBC
2,400
TBC
Sep-Dec 2010
Sept-Oct 2012
April 2013
Dogger Bank, Tranche
A,
Tranche C
Tranche D
Sea Surveyor TBC TBC
April 2013 Dogger Bank, Tranche
C
Sea Profiler 1,000-1,200
2,400 TBC
Sep-Dec 2010 Dogger Bank, Tranche
A
Tranche D
Market Position:
Sea Surveyor, source: www.gardlinemarinesciences.com/
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 138
Other companies operating survey vessels in the offshore market include CT Offshore, Harkand and
Fugro.
Location:
Gardline are based in the U.K. with offices in the USA, Brazil, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, the UAE,
Egypt and Nigeria. All of Gardline’s European operations are located in the U.K.
Gardline Marine Sciences Ltd , Endeavour House, Admiralty Road, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, NR30 3NG
U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1493 845 600 www.gardlinemarinesciences.com
7.11 Profiles of leading Tugboat operators
Maritime Craft Services
About the Company:
U.K. company Maritime Craft Services have been in business for 30 years and operate an international fleet
of tugboats, shoal busters, multicats, crew transfer vessels and dive support vessels.
Vessels:
There are 21 vessels in the fleet which includes 5 new twin axe
fast crew supplier vessels from Damen. The fleet includes
tugboats (6) and shoalbusters (3) multicats and workboats (7)
plus the 5 new crew transfer vessels. All vessels operate under a
U.K. flag.
The tugboat and shoalbusters fulfil multiple roles on offshore
wind projects including towage of foundations and supporting
the larger vessels with anchor handling, crew changes, equipment supply, towage and buoy positioning.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Alix UK 2011 6 -
Lenie UK 2008 7 -
Anie UK 2006 6 -
Heather UK 2005 6 -
Iris UK 2006 6 -
Kim UK 2010 6 -
Marlene UK 2005 6 -
Nikki UK 2004 6 -
Zara UK 2011 6 -
Track Record:
The 5 new vessels that arrived in 2013 were ordered as a result of the increase in demand in the offshore
wind sector. Maritime Craft Services have been involved in a number of offshore wind projects and have
provided their tugboats and shoalbusters to Belwind, BARD Offshore and Sheringham Shoal projects.
Vessel Total Capacity Turbines Period Track Record
Alix, source: www.maritimecraft.co.uk
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 139
(MW)
Alix 165 Vestas Oct 2009 Belwind Phase I
400 BARD 2010-2012 BARD Offshore 1
Lenie 317 Siemens Oct-Nov 2010 Sheringham Shoal
Market Position:
Other companies operating tugboats within the offshore wind sector include Felixarc, Seacontractors BV
and Otto Wulf GmbH & Co. KG.
Location:
Maritime Craft Services (Clyde) Ltd, Largs Yacht Haven, Irvine Road, Largs, Ayrshire KA30 8EZ
United Kingdom Tel: +44(0)1475 675338 www.maritimecraft.co.uk
Seacontractors BV
About the Company:
Dutch company Seacontractors BV operate a fleet of vessels for the towage and heavy lift industries. They
are able to provide chartering services, personnel and the sale of marine equipment.
Within the chartering division Seacontractors offer the following services: towage, offshore brokerage,
heavy lift shipping, sale and purchase and ship management. Within the ship management sector
Seacontractors represent the following companies: Rederij Driemast B.V., V.O.F. Sleepboot ISA, Viegers &
Zn Tugboat-Services and Koerts International Towing Services.
Vessels:
The fleet contains 19 vessels and are made up of anchor handling
tugs, multicats and one survey and crew transfer vessel. The
vessels below are anchor handling tug, shallow draught
workboats.
The vessel Dancing Water is suitable for dredging support,
ploughing and seabed levelling, stable work platform, anchor
handling, surveys and passenger transport.
Vessel Flag Year Built Accommodation Gross Tonnage
Dancing Water Netherlands 1993 12 68
Dutch Pearl Netherlands 2010 - 254
Sea Alfa Netherlands 2008 7 5,041
Bever Netherlands 2010 - 607
Sea Bravo Netherlands 2008 7 327
Sea Echo Netherlands 2007 5 123
Track Record:
The tugboats have been involved in many offshore wind projects and the experience of each vessel has
been listed below.
Vessel Total Capacity Turbines Period Track Record
Bever, source: www.seacontractors.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 140
(MW)
Dancing Water 120 Vestas Mar-Oct 2011 Prinses
Amaliawindpark
108 Vestas Aug. 2011 Egmond aan Zee
Dutch Pearl 317 Siemens Apr-Nov 2010 Sheringham Shoal
Sea Alfa 630 Siemens Mar-Oct 2011 London Array Phase 1
Sea Bever 576 Siemens - Gwynt y Mor
630 Siemens Aug-Nov 2012 London Array Phase 1
Sea Bravo 317 Siemens - Sheringham Shoal
Sea Echo 630 Siemens Mar-Oct 2011 London Array Phase 1
Market Position:
Other companies operating tugboats within the offshore wind sector include Felixarc Marine, Maritime
Craft Services and Otto Wulf GmbH & Co. KG.
Location:
Seaconstractors BV are based in the Netherlands. Associated companies SFG Engineering (PTY) Ltd are
based in South Africa and Seacontractors Middle East are located in the UAE.
Seacontractors, Bellamypark 50-52, 4381 CK Vlissingen
The Netherlands Tel: +31 (0) 118 410 206 www.seacontractors.com
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 141
Appendix B. Vessel Demand by Country and Year
Table B-1. Jack-up Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-2. Heavy Lift Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 6.2 4.2 3.5 4.8 5.5 6.8 9.2 9.8 9.5 8.3
Denmark 2.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.4 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.7 1.2 0.0
Germany 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.1 5.4 5.3 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.2
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Belgium 1.0 1.6 1.3 0.0 2.0 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.1
Norway 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.2 3.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.1
Finland 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.6
China 1.2 3.5 8.7 9.4 10.3 10.9 10.9 11.5 11.8 12.1
South Korea 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.1
Japan 0.6 0.5 0.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
US 0.5 0.8 2.1 1.1 1.0 4.5 3.9 2.4 2.9 2.7
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 18.8 17.7 26.9 29.9 36.1 41.0 45.5 44.4 40.7 37.5
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.5 4.0 4.6 4.4 3.6
Denmark 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0
Germany 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3
China 0.2 0.6 3.3 3.8 4.4 4.9 5.1 5.6 5.9 6.3
South Korea 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.7
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 2.7 2.7 6.8 7.9 10.5 13.0 14.5 14.7 14.6 13.6
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 142
Table B-3. Total Cable Lay Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-4. Diving Support Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.9 3.1 5.9 7.1 6.8 5.4
Denmark 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Germany 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
China 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.9 6.0 7.0 7.2 8.4 8.8 9.7
South Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.5
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 0.0 0.0 6.2 7.4 11.1 14.4 16.8 18.6 18.6 17.7
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 7.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denmark 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Germany 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
China 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 1.0 1.0 3.5 3.0 11.5 21.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 143
Table B-5. Multi-Purpose Project Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-6. Platform Supply Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 1.3 2.5 3.9 5.9 8.6 12.2 17.5 23.8 30.7 37.8
Denmark 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.3 4.6
Netherlands 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.7 3.4 3.6
Germany 0.8 2.1 3.6 5.3 7.8 10.7 13.9 17.5 21.3 25.2
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.5 1.6
Belgium 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.6 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.7 4.0
Sweden 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.4 3.3 4.4 5.2
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 2.6 3.7 4.8 6.0 7.5
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.9 3.9
China 0.2 1.0 3.7 7.3 12.0 17.8 24.5 32.4 41.4 51.5
South Korea 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.5 4.6 5.9 7.4
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
US 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.2 3.0 4.9 6.3 8.2 10.3
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 3.0 7.1 14.6 24.9 38.6 58.1 81.5 107.6 135.9 165.5
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 31.9 20.8 16.4 23.1 26.6 33.6 46.1 49.2 47.8 41.7
Denmark 11.1 0.0 5.6 2.8 5.7 4.7 6.6 4.8 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 2.2 4.6 6.3 5.6 0.0 3.3 6.1 4.3 0.0
Germany 20.8 22.2 20.8 19.0 26.0 25.4 23.3 24.2 22.6 20.3
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 6.6 0.0 0.0
Belgium 3.1 6.0 4.6 0.0 8.3 9.5 2.4 2.0 0.0 0.0
Sweden 1.3 0.0 2.4 2.5 5.3 9.5 5.8 7.9 7.7 3.6
Norway 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.8
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 14.2 14.1 9.7 7.9 7.7 9.0
Finland 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 4.7 5.8 5.1 9.0 6.7
China 4.2 16.7 44.4 48.2 53.0 56.3 55.9 59.3 59.7 61.7
South Korea 0.8 4.0 4.2 4.6 7.3 8.0 11.4 7.8 8.6 9.2
Japan 0.6 0.2 0.8 12.5 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.3 2.5 3.2
Taiwan 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.4 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.1 3.1 3.3
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.1
US 0.0 1.5 8.6 3.5 2.8 21.5 18.3 10.1 13.2 12.5
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 74.1 73.8 112.9 128.7 160.9 189.7 203.0 196.9 188.9 174.0
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 144
Table B-7. Environmental Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-8. Geophysical Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7
Denmark 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Germany 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
China 0.1 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1
South Korea 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 2.6 2.4 3.6 3.9 4.5 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.7 3.1
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7
Denmark 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Germany 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
China 0.1 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1
South Korea 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 2.6 2.4 3.6 3.9 4.5 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.7 3.1
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 145
Table B-9. Geotechnical Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-10. Multi-Purpose Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5
Denmark 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Germany 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
China 0.1 0.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7
South Korea 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 2.1 1.9 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.0
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.8 2.3 3.1 4.5 5.1 5.2 4.7
Denmark 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.0
Germany 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.4
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.8
China 0.2 1.1 3.2 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.5 6.1 6.5 7.0
South Korea 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.0
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
US 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 2.0 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.4
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 4.3 4.7 8.2 10.2 13.7 17.4 19.9 20.4 20.5 19.8
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 146
Table B-11. Barge Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-12. Tugboat Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 6.2 4.2 3.5 4.8 5.5 6.8 9.2 9.8 8.2 6.7
Denmark 2.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.4 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.7 1.0 0.0
Germany 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.1 5.4 5.3 4.9 5.1 4.0 3.4
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Belgium 1.0 1.6 1.3 0.0 2.0 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.6 0.8
Norway 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.2 3.2 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.7
Finland 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.3
China 1.2 3.5 8.7 9.4 10.3 10.9 10.9 11.5 10.3 9.9
South Korea 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.7
Japan 0.6 0.5 0.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8
Taiwan 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4
US 0.5 0.8 2.1 1.1 1.0 4.5 3.9 2.4 2.5 2.2
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 18.8 17.7 26.9 29.9 36.1 41.0 45.5 44.4 35.1 30.4
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 6.1 4.1 3.7 5.1 6.1 7.7 11.2 12.4 11.3 9.0
Denmark 2.4 0.0 1.5 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.4 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.0
Germany 4.1 4.4 4.8 4.3 6.0 5.6 5.2 5.4 4.6 3.8
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.9 1.5 1.3 0.0 2.0 2.1 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.9 1.4 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.6 0.8
Norway 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.2 3.1 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7
Finland 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.3
China 1.1 3.4 10.7 11.4 12.8 13.3 13.4 14.5 14.2 14.1
South Korea 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.9 2.5 1.8 1.7 1.7
Japan 0.5 0.4 0.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
Taiwan 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
US 0.4 0.7 2.1 1.0 0.9 4.6 3.9 2.3 2.6 2.3
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 17.7 16.8 28.8 31.2 39.0 43.7 48.7 48.6 42.8 37.0
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 147
Table B-13. Safety Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-14. Service Crew Boat Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 5.0 12.5 19.0 25.5 30.5 35.5
Denmark 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
Germany 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 8.5 10.5 11.5
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Belgium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.5
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.5
China 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.0 6.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
South Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 1.0 2.0 5.5 8.0 18.0 34.5 45.5 57.5 67.0 79.5
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 11.5 18.6 23.8 31.0 39.0 48.8 62.0 75.4 87.5 97.2
Denmark 4.0 3.9 5.7 6.5 8.2 9.6 11.4 12.5 12.2 11.9
Netherlands 0.0 0.8 2.3 4.4 6.1 6.0 6.8 8.5 9.6 9.3
Germany 7.5 15.2 22.0 27.9 35.7 43.0 49.2 55.3 60.5 64.7
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.5 4.3 4.2
Belgium 1.1 3.2 4.7 4.6 7.2 10.1 10.6 10.9 10.6 10.3
Sweden 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 3.8 6.7 8.4 10.6 12.6 13.2
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.5 2.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 6.0 10.4 13.1 15.2 17.1 19.2
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.6 4.3 5.8 8.3 10.0
China 1.5 7.3 22.4 38.1 54.6 71.3 86.9 102.7 117.7 132.3
South Korea 0.3 1.7 3.1 4.6 6.9 9.2 12.6 14.6 16.8 19.0
Japan 0.2 0.3 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.6 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.4 5.2
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6
US 0.0 0.5 3.5 4.6 5.4 12.1 17.5 20.1 23.5 26.4
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 26.7 52.0 89.7 130.9 175.9 232.3 288.9 340.6 386.9 425.6
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 148
Table B-15. Tailormade O&M Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Table B-16. Accommodation Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 13.0 16.0 19.0
Denmark 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Germany 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 10.0 12.0
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
China 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 14.0 17.0 20.0
South Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 1.0 2.0 6.0 10.0 19.0 27.0 37.0 51.0 60.0 71.0
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Denmark 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Germany 1.0 2.0 3.0 7.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
China 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 2.0 3.0 6.0 14.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 149
Table B-17. SOV Type 2 Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario
Vessels Required 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
U.K. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 15.0 26.0 37.0 50.0
Denmark 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Germany 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.0 9.0 11.0 13.0
Ireland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Belgium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sweden 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
Norway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Finland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
China 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
South Korea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
US 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WORLD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 27.0 43.0 62.0 82.0
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 150
Appendix C. Summary of Contracts Review Questionnaire
Navigant conducted a survey regarding offshore wind vessel contracting practices. The following is a copy
of the survey followed by a summary of the responses.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Offshore Wind Vessel Contracting Survey
INSTRUCTIONS This survey, sponsored by the Danish Shipowners’ Association and the Shipowners’ Association of 2010 (collectively, the Associations), is aimed at providing insight into the general trends and practices that are employed with regards to the contractual structures for offshore wind vessels. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability, although we realise that not all of the questions below might be applicable to your case. Where possible, please expand on your answers by providing some justification behind your response. Finally, where some questions require a numerical response, you can use rough estimates and ranges. All responses will be held confidential within the Associations and Navigant; aggregated results (without company names) will be made available to survey participants. Please respond to the survey by August 6, 2013. Thank you for your cooperation. GENERAL INFORMATION Name:________________________________ Date:_______________________ Company:_____________________________ Phone:______________________ e-mail address:________________________________________________________________________ Type of Business (e.g. utility, bank, OEM, etc.): __________________________ Number of offshore wind projects in which your company has participated/facilitated to date: _________ Types of offshore wind vessels that your company has used (or assisted in contracting):
Yes/no/don’t know Wind turbine installation vessel Heavy lift vessel Cable laying vessel Transport vessel Survey vessel Crew boat Support tugboat Hotel vessel*
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 151
Other (specify type below) * including special purpose ships that have hoteling
Comments (including types of other vessels):___________________________________ What are your company’s focus markets (countries)? Please rank in order of priority:
1 ________________________ 4_____________________ 2________________________ 5_____________________ 3________________________
QUESTIONS
1. To what extent does your company employ Engineering, Procurement, Construction, & Installation (EPCI) versus multicontracting in your overall strategy?
a. What is the typical difference in cost between EPCI and Multicontracting (cost to the project owner, in percentage terms)?_________________
b. What is more important from your point of view: cost reduction or risk mitigation?______________________________________________________________
c. Where multicontracting is employed, how are contractual interfaces managed?______________________________________________________________
2. Within the overall structure of a vessel contract, please rank the following criteria in order of importance to wind project owners, both now and 5 years in the future. 1=most important (“deal breaker”), 6=least important.
Criteria Current Ranking Expected Future
Ranking Price Liquidated damages Parent company guarantees Weather downtime risk Interfaces Other (please specify)
Comments (including other criteria):___________________________________
3. What contracting structures does your company typically employ (e.g. FIDIC, NEC3, LOGIC, BIMCO, Supply Time, Wind Time)? Please list the pros and cons of these structures in the table below.
Contracting Structure Used by your company (yes/no/don’t know)
Pros Cons
FIDIC NEC3 LOGIC BIMCO Supply Time Wind Time Other (please specify)
Comments (including other contracting structures):_______________________________
4. What are the most common offshore wind vessel contracting structures for each country, and why?
Country FIDIC, NEC3, LOGIC, BIMCO, Supply
Time, Wind Time, or other Why are these structures popular in
each country?
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 152
U.K. Germany Denmark Other (please specify)
5. What are the responsibilities, roles, risks, interface and penalties for the contracting structure that your
company employs?
Contracting structure (FIDIC, NEC3, etc.)__________________________________ Country(ies) where you typically use this structure__________________________________
Question Response
What are responsibilities of the contractor(s)? What are responsibilities of the owner? What risks are retained by the owner? What owner position handles contractor interface?
What are typical penalties for late completion? Whom does the contract generally favour or protect (owner or contractor)?
6. What types of insurance need to be held by an offshore vessel provider during construction and
operational phases?__________________________________________________________
7. Are there any insurance shortfalls (e.g. liability for when workers step off vessels before beginning turbine work)? If so, how are they addressed?________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
8. What types of contractual provisions are typically required with regards to weather downtime? How is weather risk distributed between the parties (contractor and employer) under an EPCI versus multicontracting structure? What is the process for invoicing weather downtime once construction begins?_____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
9. To what extent are the contractual structures and standards between offshore wind and oil & gas the
same? To what extent are they different? What can we learn from oil & gas contracting? (primarily for vessel operators & utilities)_____________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
10. What are the benefits of having a charter party agreement? What are the downsides?________ _______________________________________________________________________________
11. Roughly what percentage of a vessel contract is paid upfront, how much is paid during the execution of the works, and how much is paid upon completion? Does this vary by vessel type?
_______________________________________________________________________________
12. What trends do you see emerging in the contracting structure of offshore wind vessels in the coming years? Do these trends vary between vessel types and regions?_____________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
13. What factors determine the costs for vessel mobilisation & demobilisation?_________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 153
14. To what extent do local content requirements drive investment decisions and procurement decisions? In other words, how necessary is it that a vessel operator be based locally and/or employ local labour? Does this vary by region?_________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
A total of 13 companies responded to the survey, either in writing or verbally. The following is a summary
of the responses:
This study identifies and analyses the prevailing contractual structures that are employed in regards to
offshore vessels. The issues that are addressed include the following (in descending order of importance):
» How different stakeholders, including utilities and banks, view offshore vessel contracts and
their particular provisions;
» Whether EPC or multi-contracting is the way forward;
» Whether cost reduction or risk mitigation is of greater importance; and
» What types of contracting standards (e.g. FIDIC, BIMCO) are being used, for what purposes,
and in which countries.
In gathering such information, we solicited responses the following business segments: finance, legal,
power generation, vessel operators, and others (e.g. technical advisors, etc.). In particular, 31% of
respondents came from the legal sector, 23% from finance, 23% from power generation, 15% were vessel
operators, and 8% were other. Responses were received in the form of completed surveys or through a
series of questions answered via email, from 13 parties across 6 different countries.
Virtually all respondents indicated that they used FIDIC and many of them made direct reference to the
Yellow Book. The FIDIC Yellow Book is used primarily for electrical and mechanical works and for
building and engineering works designed by the contractor. At the same time, FIDIC is primarily an
onshore civil engineering contract and is not particularly suited to offshore wind farm installation work.
Therefore, considerable time needs to be spent on making such contracts “fit-for-purpose” thereby
resulting in additional costs at the negotiation stage. This is perhaps why respondents also indicated that
they relied heavily on LOGIC and BIMCO Supplytime as well. Both of these contracts are primarily
marine contracts with a long track record of use in the oil & gas business. The general formula seems to be
that FIDIC Yellow Book is used as the base template and that marine-related elements from
LOGIC/BIMCO are then fed into this base contract. Where turn-key solutions are employed, parts of FIDIC
Silver will be incorporated into the FIDIC Yellow (although it will remain closer to Yellow than Silver). The
end result is a usually a bespoke or customised contract which many utilities and major vessel operators
have created on an in-house/individual basis.
What effectively determines whether or not one contract standard is used versus another, is dependent on
the country in question. LOGIC has prevalence in the U.K., because of that country’s long-term experience
with oil & gas. On the other hand countries such as Germany, that lack an oil & gas history, might be
inclined to use FIDIC and then proceed to modify that contract considerably to make it compatible for
marine works. Given Denmark’s strong background in international shipping, there is perhaps more
comfort with the transport-oriented BIMCO. At the same time, none of these contracts on their own meet
the full requirements of offshore-works.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 154
There are a number of key contractual considerations that should be taken into account when negotiating
vessel contracts. First it is essential to ensure that there is sufficient planning and that the timing between
various milestones will be sufficient to account for unforeseen risks. There should be adequate weather
downtime incorporated into the planning and on a P90 basis. The overall time planning should be
conservative and flexible by, for example, incorporating an extension period or time buffer to cater for
weather downtime and/or vessel delays. Vessel availability is also essential. If a vessel is unable to execute
the works, then vessel operators need to allocate alternative time slots and vessels. Since many vessels are
currently under construction, contracts need to make provisions to ensure that the construction of the
vessel is well under way and that a substitute vessel will be on hand in the event of delay. In instances
where vessels are being built and where the vessel operator becomes insolvent, it is essential that contracts
establish that the entity financing the construction of the vessel (e.g. banks) will have access to revenues
generated through vessel operation.
Furthermore, contracts need to give due consideration towards the management of interfaces. There are
dependencies between contractors and sub-contractors, where it is essential that all parties fully
comprehend their contractual obligations and the consequences for failing to do so on a timely manner.
Interface risk tends to be contractually managed through a responsibility matrix, but some respondents
have indicated that it has often been the case that the responsibility matrix has not been fully aligned with
the language of the contract, thus creating a series of contradictions. One way of managing interfaces is to
keep the number of contracts to a minimum (2-6 in total) and to ensure that installation works are bundled
under each main construction contract.
The overall liability structure is based on the “knock-for-knock” principle in that each party shall hold the
other harmless and attempt to handle potential claims via insurance. The benefit of this approach is that it
prevents the duplication of insurance coverage, thus ensuring that there is no overlap between parties. At
the same time, the overall limitation of liability under the contract could amount up to the full value of the
contract and will be dependent on the size/stability of the contractor, the duration and value of the
contract, board requirements, and the respective bargaining positions of both parties.
Insurance coverage should be comprehensive and involves effecting the following forms of coverage:
third party liability, hull and machinery, protection and indemnity, as well as workmen’s compensation.
Most claims (80-90%) are associated with cable laying and this is why both parties tend to pass off seabed
risk to the other side during negotiations. Where occurrences are not insurable, liabilities are enforced via
liquidated damages (LDs), to the extent that they were contemplated from an early stage and where such
damages do not act as a penalty. Such LDs need to be commercially viable and consequential losses should
furthermore be excluded. As such the burden of proof rests with the employer. The LD cap for delays
typically amounts to 15-25% of contract price. The higher the LD cap, the higher the contract price and
vice-versa. In some instances, a grace period can be put into effect and where some level of delay on the
part of the contractor is tolerated before LDs come into effect. At the same time, banks could be wary of
such provisions.
The study then draws a comparison between two principle contracting structures: Engineering,
Procurement, and Construction (EPC) and multi-contracting. The industry consensus has for the moment
rallied around multi-contracting as the preferred option, because there are few experienced (and
financially robust) contractors willing to carry out EPC on a bankable/viable basis. Although EPC is
theoretically preferable vis-à-vis banks, they nevertheless accept a multi-contracting approach insofar as
the number of contracts/interfaces remains limited. The price difference between an EPC versus multi-
contracting setup is roughly 10-25% and this price different reflects having a larger project management
team, greater risk allocation, as well as associated overhead. At the same time, multi-contracting places
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 155
interface risk squarely on the employer and considerable resources (costs) have to be dedicated towards
managing these interfaces, which can be a project in itself. One reason why EPC is not used more
commonly in the offshore industry is attributed to the fact that there are few experienced and financially
robust contractors willing/capable to undertake such an endeavor. It is also the case that contractors often
impose a series of limitations and carve-outs for offshore projects that they would not normally impose for
oil & gas projects, which erode the value proposition of EPC. For example, some respondents pointed out
that heavy lift operators will usually not agree to underwriting the liquidated damages of their sub-
contractors (e.g. cranes, hydraulic tubes, etc.). Under EPC, the project owners will be wary of the
contractor’s ability to claim additional time or to pass risks off to their subcontractors. Table 7-1 provides a
comparison of the features of EPC versus multi-contracting.
Table 7-1. Comparative Analysis of EPC versus Multi-contracting
Survey participants were then asked to rank the importance of cost reduction versus risk mitigation. 58%
of respondents indicated that risk mitigation was more important, whereas 42% said that both were
equally important. However, none of the respondents indicated that cost reduction by itself was more
important. This is a somewhat surprising result given the public pronouncements emphasizing the
importance of lowering the cost of offshore wind. At the same time, the result could be attributed to the
fact that the industry remains risk averse and that cost reduction upfront could potentially mean greater
risks and thereby additional costs over the long-term. Survey participants were furthermore asked to rank
the key contractual considerations that are important in their decision-making. Price, LDs, and weather
risk were ranked as the most important criteria. A “bankable” contract will, among other things, typically
involve a fixed lump-sum price, with sufficient LD provisions, and where weather risk is shared between
parties.
Over the long-term there are a number of factors that will determine whether the industry heads one way
versus the other. The first factor is whether or not projects are increasingly realised on a project finance
versus balance sheet basis. To the extent where there is greater dependency on the former, then EPC
should in theory be used with greater frequency. This also holds true if there is consolidation and merger
EPC Mul -contrac ng
Price 10-25%higherthanMul -contrac ng 10-25%lowerthanEPC
CostTransparency No Yes
No.ofContracts 1contractbetweenemployer&contractor 2-6ifbanksinvolved,otherwiseu li esandprojectdevelopershavemorethan10
InterfaceMgt. Handledbycontractor Handledbyemployer
WeatherRisk Assumedbythecontractor(mostly) Sharedbetweenpar es
Remarks • Goodfitforaprojectownerthatdoesnothavetheresourcestomanagetheproject
• Goodfitforemployersthatwanttobuild1-2offsh or eprojectsatmost.
• Banksfavourthisapproach,butwillacceptthealterna veaswellsolongasinterfacesarelimited.
• T&C’sforoffshorewindnotasa rac veasoil&gas,morecarveouts.
• Goodfitforu li es,andotheren eswithlargeprojectpor olios,thatdonotwanttopay10-25%pricepremiumforeachprojecttheybuild.
• 2-6interfacesonaverageifprojectfinancingispursued.
• Requiresmorepersonnelandhashigheradministra vecosts,strongcostcontrollingisneeded.
• Interfacerisktakenbyemployer.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 156
among vessel operators. Even then, if the EPC trend does not catch on then there will still be a strong
emphasis towards bundling/packaging installation-related works within construction contracts as can be
seen under the current multi-contracting approach. Other factors that are important are the number of
credit-worthy vessel operators that are in existence, as offshore wind requires a large balance sheet to
underwrite the risks involved. Furthermore, a large balance sheet is essential because it can also be the case
that the vessel operator injects equity into the project, thereby becoming a sponsor. EPC will likely be more
commonly used on projects that are of strategic importance to the contractor (e.g. projects that are based in
the home market of the contractor) or where the contractor was involved from an early-stage in the
development process (a number of vessel operators already engage in project development activities).
The following is a summary of responses to quantitative questions (1-4):
Question 1b: What is more important from your point of view: cost reduction or risk mitigation?
Question 2: Within the overall structure of a vessel contract, please rank the following criteria in order of
importance to wind project owners, both now and 5 years in the future. 1=most important (“deal breaker”),
6=least important.
RiskMi gta on58%
CostReduc on0%
EqualImportance
42%
Price
2.00
1.63
Logis cs-relatedcostsarethesecondlargestvaluedriverintermsofCAPEX,costreduc onremainskey
LiquidatedDamages
2.50
2.25
Importanttobanks,theywillsizetheirdebtandfinancing
termsinpartonthebasisofsufficientLDprovisions.
ParentCompanyGuarantees
3.20
3.38
Capitalintensiveandriskylogis csworksrequiresstrongbalance
sheetorguarantor.
WeatherDown me
2.60
2.63
Keycriteria,consistently
ratedasamajorriskthatbothpar espassontoeachother.
Interfaces
3.00
2.75
Veryimportant,butsome
respondentsindicatedthatprojectownersdonotgive
enoughprioritytowardsits
management.
Current
Future
Remark
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 157
Question 3: What contracting structures does your company typically employ (e.g. FIDIC, NEC3, LOGIC,
BIMCO, Supply Time, Wind Time)?
Question 4: What are the most common offshore wind vessel contracting structures for each country?
FIDIC
Widelyusedacrossallmarkets,especially
FIDICYellow
Notamarinecontract,requires
considerablemodifica on
Usedmostlyforconstruc onvessels,heavy-li ,jack-up,
100%
NEC3
Simple,user-friendly
Notcommonlyused
N/A
10%
LOGIC
ApuremarinecontractthatcoverswhereFIDIClacks
Wasdevelopedoriginallyforoil&gas,whichisa
differentpla orm
Usedmostlyforjack-up,heavy-li vessels
intheUK
70%
BIMCO
Widely-accepted mecharter,favourableforvesseloperators
Notbalancedvis-à-visemployer,onlyused
fortransport
UsedmostlyforCTV,ROV,supportvessels,
andtransport
80%
BESPOKE
Manyrespondentsuseindividualorcustomformats
Lackofstandardisa oninindustryifeveryonehasowncontract
N/A
70%
PROS
CONS
%
VESSEL
FIDIC
75%
88%
50%
NEC3
25%
13%
13%
LOGIC
63%
38%
38%
BIMCO
75%
75%
63%
UK
GER
DEN
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 158
Appendix D. Summary Results of the Associations Survey
An on-line survey was conducted of the members of the Associations. The following is a copy of the
survey followed by a summary of the responses.
1. How many ships are operated by your company?
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Wind turbine installation vessel
Heavy lift vessel
Cable laying vessel
Transport vessel
Survey vessel
Crew boat
Support tugboat
Hotel vessel*
Other (specify type below)
Total
* including special purpose ships that have hoteling
Comments (including types of other vessels):___________________________________________
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 159
2. Vessel data
Annual capacity of
wind turbines
(either in number of
turbines or MW)*
# of vessels
that are used
for both
offshore wind
and oil & gas
% of time in a typical year
Vessel
used in
Denmark
Vessel
used in
Europe
outside of
Denmark
Vessel
used
outside
of
Europe
Vessel
not
used
Wind turbine
installation vessel
Heavy lift vessel
Cable laying vessel
Transport vessel
Survey vessel
Crew boat
Support tugboat
Hotel vessels
Other (specify type
below)
Total
* taking into account weather and scheduling delays
Comments (including types of other vessels):___________________________________________
3. How many people does your company employ?
Most Frequent Location 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
At sea
On land
Total
4. Other company data
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Annual turnover (€)
# of wind turbines that your
company helped to erect
# of wind turbines that your
company helped to provide O&M
services for
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 160
5. Hiring
Yes, No, or Don’t Know
Is your company currently hiring offshore workers?
Does your company have difficulties finding qualified
personnel?
Approximately how many people will your company likely hire in the next 5 years?_________
6. Criteria that ship service procurers consider
Please rank the following criteria in order of importance to your customers, both now and 5 years in the
future (1=most important, 7=least important):
Criteria Current
Ranking
Future Ranking
Functionality of vessel (max working
depth, deck space, max deck load, etc.)
Price
Experience of operator (years or MW)
Timely availability of vessels
Size of fleet
Access to multiple vessel types through
single operator
Access to ports near planned wind farms
Comments (including other criteria not mentioned above):_________________________________
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 161
7. Danish competitiveness
Please evaluate Danish companies as a group by checking one box in each row:
Criteria
Danish
companies
worse than
competition
Danish
companies
equal to
competition
Danish
companies
better than
competition
Functionality of vessel (max working
depth, deck space, max deck load, etc.)
Price
Experience of operator (years or MW)
Timely availability of vessels
Size of fleet
Access to multiple vessel types through
single operator
Access to ports near planned wind farms
Comments (including other criteria not mentioned above):_________________________________
8. What are the greatest challenges in the offshore wind industry that Danish shipowners are facing?
9. What types of companies or specific companies do you consider to be leaders and why?
Vessel Type Companies or Company Types Why?
Wind turbine installation vessel
Heavy lift vessel
Cable laying vessel
Transport vessel
Survey vessel
Crew boat
Support tugboat
Hotel vessels
Other (specify type below)
Comments (including types of other vessels):___________________________________________
10. Do you believe Denmark is the leader in the offshore wind vessel sector? If not, who do you
believe is leading and why?
A total of seven companies responded to the survey. The following is a summary of the survey responses:
Key Survey Findings
» Vessel Procurement Criteria: Respondents indicated that the top three criteria vessel service
procurers currently consider are 1) functionality of vessel 2) timely availability of vessels and 3)
experience of operator.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 162
» Danish Competitive Positioning: Survey respondents overwhelmingly agreed that Danish vessel
companies were better positioned than their competitors with respect to experience (years or MW) – a
high-ranked criterion. For most other criteria, Danish companies were considered to be on par with
their competition – no better, no worse. The only area where at least half of respondents believed
Danish companies lagged their competitors was in terms of fleet size. This criterion, however, was
considered to be the least important of all.
» Danish Leadership: Respondents believe that Denmark was once the leader in the offshore wind
vessel sector but times are changing. Half of respondents mentioned the U.K. as an up-and-comer.
25% of respondents named, in addition to the U.K., the Netherlands and Belgium as countries that
are moving aggressively.
» Challenges: 1) increased competition from outside Denmark 2) Lack of supply of qualified personnel
3) Lack of a common cross-border approach to energy sector and maritime regulations.
» Personnel: Most Danish vessel companies are currently hiring offshore workers. However, a
majority of companies have had difficulties finding qualified personnel.
Vessel Procurement Criteria
Survey respondents indicated that the top three criteria vessel service procurers currently consider are 1)
functionality of vessel 2) timely availability of vessels and 3) experience of operator. For the highest and
lowest rankings, respondents were in firm agreement. For example, all respondents ranked “functionality
of vessel” as first or second. Similarly, all respondents but one ranked “size of fleet” and “access to
multiple vessel types through single operator” as fifth or sixth. In the middle, however, respondents
varied greatly in their ranking. For instance, two respondents rated “timely availability of vessels” as first
while another rated it fourth. Similarly, two respondents ranked “access to ports near planned wind
farms” second while three ranked it seventh.
Criteria Currently In 5 Years
Functionality of vessel 1 1
Timely availability of vessels T2 2
Experience of operator T2 3
Price 4 4
Access to ports near planned wind farms T5 T5
Access to multiple vessel types through single operator T5 T5
Size of fleet 7 7
Danish Competitive Positioning
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed (100%) that Danish vessel companies were better positioned than
their competitors with respect to experience (years or MW). However, in no other respect (e.g. price, vessel
functionality, etc.) did more than one respondent believe that Danish companies were better positioned
than their competition. The weakest aspect for Danish vessel companies appears to be fleet size. Less than
half (43%) of respondents believed that Danish companies were worse than their competition in this
regard. Three (43%) felt Danish companies were on par with their competition while only one respondent
(14%) believed Danish companies held a more favorable position in terms of fleet size.
In general, survey respondents indicated that Danish vessel companies were on par with their competition
in terms of other purchasing criteria. 80% or more of respondents believed that Danish companies were on
par with their competition in terms of 1) timely availability of vessels 2) access to multiple vessel types
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 163
through single operator, and 3) access to ports near planned wind farms. In terms of vessel functionality, a
slightly smaller majority (71%) of respondents felt that Danish companies were on par with their
competition. Similarly, two-thirds of respondents indicated that Danish companies were competitive in
terms of price.
Criteria Better than
competition
Equal to
competition
Worse than
competition
Experience of operator 100%
Access to multiple vessel types through single operator 86% 14%
Access to ports near planned wind farms 83% 17%
Timely availability of vessels 83% 17%
Functionality of vessel 14% 71% 14%
Price 67% 33%
Size of fleet 14% 43% 43%
Danish Leadership
Respondents believe that Denmark was once the leader in the offshore wind vessel sector but times are
changing. Half of respondents mentioned the U.K. as an up-and-comer. 25% of respondents named, in
addition to the U.K., the Netherlands and Belgium as countries that are moving aggressively.
Industry Challenges
In terms of offshore wind challenges facing Danish shipowners, respondents cited (in no order): 1)
increased competition from outside Denmark and the lack of Danish offshore wind projects compared to
the U.K., Germany, France, and Belgium 2) Lack of supply of qualified personnel who want to work in the
offshore wind sector 3) Lack of a common cross-border approach to energy sector and maritime
regulations (e.g. safety, education).
Personnel
Of the eight companies responding, six (75%) indicated that they are currently hiring offshore workers. In
terms of the number of workers they plan to hire in the next five years, the answers ranged from 10-100
with an average of about 40. A slight majority (63%) indicated that they have difficulties finding qualified
personnel.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 164
8. Appendix E. Offshore Wind Ports Review
This appendix provides an overview of the relevance/importance of ports in the offshore wind vessels
market; delivers high-level outcomes from ports databases; and provide profiles for three major
installation ports: Port of Esbjerg; Bremerhaven; and Belfast Harbor.
8.1 Overview of Ports for Offshore Wind
This section summarises the Ports Database that has been presented to the Associations in MS Excel
format. Using BTM’s internal offshore wind port data as a foundation, desktop research and interviews
were undertaken to build this database. This research has scanned all major ports in Europe, Asia and
North America that have been involved in the offshore wind business or have the potential to provide such
service. In our database we mainly focus on ports that can support the construction of offshore wind farms
and the manufacturing of major components.
In the Ports Database, the following features of ports and harbours are included:
» Country » Existing Crane Facilities Suitable for Offshore Wind
» Port name » Tidal constraints/ restrictions
» Port Owner » Manufacturers / developers (on site)
» Infrastructure links » Offshore Wind Project references
» Port Depth (metres) » Project Phase (i.e., Construction, O&M, Manufacturing etc.)
» Entrance Width (metres) » Announced Investments such as expansion plans
» Port features - Dimensions » Port’s Weblink
» Port features - Other
8.1.1 Global Distribution
The ports database holds information on 78 ports that have had involvement in the offshore wind
industry. As it shown in Figure 8-1, the majority of these ports (over 85%) are located in Europe, followed
by the U.S. and China.
1
12
4
15
1
6
3
25
5 6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Europe Asia North Amrica
Figure 8-1. Global Distribution of Offshore Wind Ports as of 2013
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 165
Source: BTM Consult, A part of Navigant – September 2013
8.1.2 Port types and general requirements
Whilst the focus of the database was on ports that provide installation/construction services to offshore
wind farms, other ports were found that provided services such as manufacturing, O&M and storage and
have been included in the analysis.
There are 78 ports involved in the offshore wind business, but this does not necessarily mean that each
port can provide the same services to the offshore wind sector. In fact, their roles or functions are quite
different mainly due to the different geographical locations, port features, infrastructure and established
facilities like cranes, warehouse, etc. According to the main functions and services that a port can provide
to offshore wind sector, offshore wind ports have been categorised into different types, see Table 8-1. It is
interesting to note that many ports especially in Europe are eager to be involved in the global offshore
wind business despite their roles not being clear in some cases. Those ports either in the process of having
specialist offshore wind docks/zones constructed or are linked to or closely associated with a future project
have been grouped as potential offshore wind port.
Table 8-1. Port types in the offshore wind sector
Port Type Functions
Construction The wind turbine can be pre-assembled on site. Capable of providing services
during the entire construction process of offshore wind farm. With enough
space and routs for the traffic of different offshore wind vessels.
Manufacturing Involved in the manufacturing of wind turbine, components and BOP items
such as foundations and substation platform.
Operation &
Maintenance
Capable of being a base for offshore project developers to provide operation
and maintenance services to the wind farms. Services include the deployment
of vessels, provision of spare parts for maintenance and etc.
Logistic Mainly involved in the offshore wind construction phase. It plays a role as a
strategic logistic port to facilitate the construction work.
Storage It can be used for storage of nacelles, major components and BOP items.
Source: BTM Consult – A part of Navigant – September 2013
8.2 Port by type with track record
The following section lists the ports according to their main role within the offshore wind industry and
their respective track records. It is necessary to mention that many ports play a multi-role in reality.
8.2.1 Construction Phase Ports
Ports involved in the construction stage of offshore wind farms are listed in table below along with their
relative offshore wind experience. Construction ports are mainly located in North Europe especially
Denmark, Germany and the U.K.
Since the beginning of offshore wind industry, Danish port Esbjerg has become the most important
offshore wind port to support offshore wind project construction. While large ports like Esbjerg and
Bremerhaven continue to play the key role in offshore wind sector, more construction ports have been
established around North Sea mainly due to the recent deployment of offshore wind turbine in the U.K.
and Germany. At present, more than ten offshore wind construction ports have been identified in the U.K.,
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 166
followed by Denmark and Germany. Out of Europe, two construction ports were recorded in China and
four in the U.S.
Table 8-2. Construction Phase Ports
Country Port Name Offshore Wind Project Experience
Europe
Belgium
Oostende Thornton Bank I,II, & III, Belwind Alstom
Haliade Demonstration
Denmark
Aarhus Havn Samsø
Esbjerg North Hoyle, Horns Rev I & II, London Array,
DanTysk, (Amrumbank West - when
commences)
Frederikshavn Havn Frederikshavn
Grenaa Anholt
Nyborg EnBW Baltic1, Rødsand ll, Lillgrund and Nysted
Havmøllepark.
Onsevig Havn Vindeby, Smålandsfarvandet
France
Dunkirk Thanet (unloading, storage, preassembly)
Le Havre Saint Brieuc, Fécamp
Saint Nazaire (Nantes) Saint-Nazaire, Courseulles-sur-Mer and Fécamp
Germany
Bremerhaven Nordsee Ost, Innogy Nordsee 1
Brunsbüttel Alpha Ventus, Thornton Bank
Cuxhaven BARD Offshore 1, Alpha Ventus, Meerwind Ost
(New T2 area)
Emden BARD Offshore 1 (manufacturing), ENOVA
Offshore Project Ems Emden (installation)
Rostock EnBW Baltic 1, Kriegers Flak, Breitling near-
shore plant
Sassnitz (Offshore Terminal) EnBW Baltic 2, Wikinger
Wilhelmshaven Alpha Ventus
Netherlands
Eemshaven Alpha Ventus, BARD 1, Borkum.
Ijmuiden (Ijmondhaven
Harbour)
Egmond aan Zee, the Princess Amalia (Q7)
Norway
Dusavik Hywind Statoil
Kollsnes SWAY 1:6
UK
Barrow Wallney 1 & 2 (monopiles and transition pieces),
Barrow, Robin Rigg & Ormonde (substations),
Ormonde (assembly/construction).
Belfast Harbour Barrow, Robin Rigg and Ormonde, West of
Duddon Sands
Cammell Laird Gwynt y Môr (load and fit out of foundations)
Great Yarmouth (EastPort U.K.) Scroby Sands, Thanet, Sheringham Shoal,
Greater Gabbard, and Lincs. In the future, likely
to serve East Anglia Offshore Wind Farm Site).
Hartlepool Teesside (installation and maintenance)
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 167
Harwich International Port Gunfleet Sands, Greater Gabbard,Thanet ,
London Array Ph I.
Hull Lincs
Lowestoft Greater Gabbard, Scroby Sands.
Mostyn North Hoyle (construction and O&M), Burbo
Bank, Robin Rigg, Rhyl Flat (construction and
O&M), Walney I & II. In future likely to be
involved in: Gwynt Y Mor, Burbo Bank Ext., and
Walney Ext.
Shoreham Port Rampion Offshore Wind Farm (Construction &
O&M)
Teesport Teesside
Wells Harbour London Array, Greater Gabbard, Thanet, Riffgat
(storage) Sheringham Shoal (construction base)
Workington Robin Rigg (construction and O&M)
Asia Pacific
China
Nantong
Longyuan Rudong 30MW intertidal trial
project, Longyuan Rudong 150MW Intertidal
demonstration project
Shanghai Changxing Island Donghai Bridge offshore wind phase 1 and
phase 2
North America
USA
Brewer DeepCwind Consortium - VolturnUS - Dyces
Head Test Site
New Bedford Cape Wind (2013-2016)
Corpus Christi Offshore Wind Power Systems of Texas Titan
Platform
Port of Camden (Beckett Street
Terminal) Fishermen's Atlantic City Windfarm Phase I
8.2.2 Manufacturing ports
Ports in this category have either turbine manufacturers on site to assemble the wind turbine or
components suppliers on site to produce turbine components or BOP items. There are seven examples of
ports that provide manufacturing facilities to the offshore wind sector in the database, and we have listed
them in the table below.
Table 8-3. Manufacturing Ports
Country Port Name Manufacturers/ Developers Offshore Wind Project Experience
Denmark
Aalborg Havn Siemens wind power
(blades), Bladt industries
(steel structures).
Rødsand 2, Anholt, Walney I & II,
London Array
Lindø
Bladt industries
( steel structures)
EnBW Baltic 2
Germany
Nordenham Rhenus Midgard (cable
logistics) and on-site
prototype construction
Anholt
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 168
Papenburg Robert Nyblad GmbH (bed
plate, transition piece)
Stade PN Rotorblades, Areva
Blades
Alpha Ventus
Lubmin
Bladt industries
(steel structures)
EnBW Baltic 2
Netherlands
Rotterdam JV Strukton-Hollandia
(Offshore Transformer
Substations)
Global Tech 1 (transformer
substation - mobilisation)
VDS Staal-en
Machinebouw
VDS Staal-en Machinebouw
BV (steel structures)
8.2.3 Operation & Maintenance Ports
Ports involved in operation and maintenance or O&M normally have a strategic location to certain offshore
wind farms. This kind of port does not need enormous space like the construction port, but it needs
enough space for the storage of spare parts and for O&M supply vessel or Service Crew Boat to provide
O&M routine or turbine overhaul services. Four examples of ports that have provided O&M services to
offshore wind projects are provided below.
Table 8-4. O&M Ports
Country Port Name Manufacturers/ Developers Offshore Wind Project Experience
Norway
Skudeneshavn Hywind Statoil
U.K.
Dundee Only caters to onshore wind
so far. Forth Ports est. JV in
June 2008 with SSE ("Forth
Energy") to develop
renewables (incl. wind) in
and around Scotland.
SSE's offshore projects
Grimsby Centrica, Siemens, RES,
EWE, E.ON, Vattenfall and
REpower, linked to Dong
Lynn & Inner Dowsing (O&M for a
number of round 1&2 wind farms
in the north sea), Lincs (O&M).
Linked to Westermost Rough.
Ramsgate London Array Group (Dong
Energy, E.ON, and Masdar).
London Array, Thanet (local
maintenance facility)
8.2.4 Storage and Logistics Ports
These ports provide storage services to the offshore wind industry. Large storage space and easy logistics
for turbine installation vessels and construction support vessels to access are the basic requirements for
being a storage ports. We present two examples of ports that have provided storage and logistics services
to offshore wind projects below.
Table 8-5. Storage and Logistics Ports
Country Port Name Manufacturers/ Developers Offshore Wind Project Experience
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 169
Netherlands
Vlissingen
(BOW
Terminal)
Statoil, Seaway Heavylift
(handling, transshipment
and storage of project cargo)
Sheringham Shoal, Lincs, London
Array, MORL, Teesside, South
Arne and Ekofisk
Verbrugge
Terminals
(Vlissingen
and
Terneuzen)
London Array, Greater Gabbard,
Sheringham Shoal, Thanet, Riffgat
(all storage)
8.2.5 Potential Offshore Wind Ports
The ports listed below have the potential to service the offshore wind industry. They are either in
construction or have been linked to future offshore wind projects. Normally those ports can provide very
affordable policies and tax rates to welcome the offshore wind business.
Table 8-6. Potential Offshore Wind Ports
Country Port Name Manufacturers/
Developers Offshore Wind Project Experience
China
Dafeng Goldwind Potential to Longyuan Dafeng Intertidal
Project
Shanghai Lingang Potential to Shanghai Lingang Offshore wind
project
Yancheng Sinovel Potential to Binhai Offshore wind project,
Sheyang offshore wind project.
Denmark
Rømø Havn WPD Offshore Butendiek (Service O&M when constructed)
Rønne Havn Potential to offshore projects in Baltic sea
Skagen Potential to provide logistics support
France
Bordeaux Port
Atlantique
Potential to provide logistics support
Germany
Brake J. Müller WIND
Services &
Logistics
(transshipment
and storage
concepts)
Potential to provide construction support
Helgoland WindMW and
REpower seeking
to use Helgoland
as an O&M
service port.
Potentially servicing: Meerwind, Amrumbank
West and Nordsee Ost (O&M)
Rendsburg-
Osterrönfeld
(New Kiel Canal
Port)
Wismar Potential to provide logistics support
Ireland
Dublin Port Potential capacity for installation
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 170
U.K.
Able Humber
(Marine Energy
Park)
Smartwind Potential to Hornsea Zone
Able Seaton Hornsea Zone - Potential to provide
manufacturing, storage and O&M services to
offshore wind projects
Blyth Potential capacity for installation
London
Thamesport
Potential for manufacturing, pre-cast
construction, storage and assembly for offshore
wind projects.
Methil Port Samsung Heavy
Industry
Newhaven none Proposed Rampion Offshore Wind Farm
(O&M)
Sunderland
Tilbury SSE Renewables
(onshore - Port of
Tilbury Wind
Farm)
Potential to provide logistics support
Tyne Undergoing development
USA
Wilmington
(Delaware)
Currently handle with onshore wind business,
there is potential to offer logistic support and
construction for offshore
8.3 Profiles of Major Installation Ports
8.3.1 Port of Esbjerg, Denmark
The Port of Esbjerg is considered to be the heart of the Danish offshore
energy sector since the production of oil in the 1970s. Esbjerg is home to
8,000 of Denmark’s 13,000 offshore sector jobs (2,000 of which are in
offshore wind) and some 270 businesses are located on the waterfront.
Over recent years the port has invested in providing facilities to cater to
the offshore wind industry; it is now estimated that 65% of all Danish
wind turbines are shipped from the port. Esbjerg has very large roll-
on/roll-off cargo facilities and handles in excess of 250,000 containers and trailers a year.
The extensive knowledge developed in the offshore oil and gas industry has been a strong foundation for
the offshore wind industry and significant knowledge share is achieved through the collaboration of these
industries.
Another key feature supporting Esbjerg’s importance in the offshore industry and establishing it as
Denmark’s offshore capital is that now all offshore related education is based in Esbjerg including four
institutions focused solely on the offshore sector plus several private and Government funded institutions.
Map of Port of Ebsjerg
Head Office:
Port of Esbjerg
Hulvejen 1
DK-6700 Esbjerg
Denmark
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 171
Port History
Established in 1868, the port was built to replace the former harbour in Altona, at that time Esbjerg was
home to just 30 people. By the late 1800s Esbjerg was one of Denmark’s fastest growing towns; by 1911 it
was the seventh largest in Denmark and has been fifth largest since 1965. The port along, with the railway,
were essential to this rapid development. Over the years the port has been the largest fishing port in the
country although now offshore activities account for the majority of its business.
Offshore Wind at Esbjerg
Esbjerg is ideally placed to support offshore wind projects. It is within close proximity to the North Sea
based offshore wind market, has an established supply chain and an experienced workforce. The port has
shipped 3GW of the total 4GW of installed offshore wind turbines in Europe.
The Port of Esbjerg has undertaken considerable investment to improve its offer to this market. Phase 1,
completed in June 2013 was the development of the Østhavn or “East Harbour”. It measures 650,000m2
which is roughly equivalent to 100 football pitches. The development was built over 2 years at a cost of
around DKK 500 million. Facilities at Østhavn include a testing facility, pre-assembly area and shipping
area all specifically for offshore wind turbines.
The Østhavn project represents phase 1 of Esbjerg’s expansion programme, Phase 2 (South Harbour), is a 1
million m2 expansion and is scheduled to be completed by 2015.
South Harbour will be capable of receiving ships up to 225m in length and 9.5m in draught.
Port – Key Features
Area 3,420,180 m2, 2,055,000 m2 (rented), 1,365,180 m2
(infrastructure)
Water depth Range from 3.9m (1st Basin) to 11.5m (Tværkaj)
Quays and wharves 21 quays totalling 10km
Quay lengths Range from 120m (Østre Forhavnskaj) to 1,050m (Dokhavnen)
Cranes Liebherr LHM 500 (140t)
Liebherr LHM 400 (104t)
Liebherr LHM 280 (84t)
Liebherr 1081VG
Esbjerg Stran
d
City A
irpo
rt
Ferry Termin
al
Development site
Esbjerg Harbours
Transport Hub
Rail N
etwo
rk
No
rdh
avn
Trafikhavn
Do
khavn
Sydh
avn“ So
uth
Harb
ou
r”
Østh
avn
Østhavn “East Harbour”
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 172
Gantry Crane
Tidal restrictions -
Development Space 3.6 million m2 industrial zone for “green” companies
Storage -
Offshore wind
applications
Transports &Logistics, Manufacturing, Construction, O&M,
Service, knowledge and innovation
Wind Industry Port Tenants
Company Role Activity in Port
Vestas Manufacturer Assembly and export facility
Siemens Wind Power Manufacturer Assembly and export facility
DONG Energy Developer Office for Oil & Gas and Renewables
Vattenfall Wind Power Developer Office for offshore wind project
construction and O&M
A2SEA Contractor Transport and Logistics
ESVAGT Vessel operator Delivering safety and spport at sea by
operating ERRV and AHTS vessels
and safety training
Blue Water Shipping Wind logistics Providing one-stop-shop solutions for
turbines and foundations transport
Offshoreenergy.dk Industry organisation Official national knowledge center and
innovation network for Danish
offshore O&G and offshore wind
industry
Port Track Record
Project Size
(MW)
Developer(s) Official Start Port of Esbjerg
Function
Horns Rev 1
& 2
160 +
209.3
DONG Energy and
Vanttenfall
2002 & 2009 Shipping components,
O&M base for DONG
Lynn & Inner
Dowsing
194 GLID Wind
(Centrica and EIG)
2008 Load out port: Siemens
turbines
Gunfleet
Sands
172 DONG and
Marubeni Corp.
2010 Load out port: Siemens
turbines
Greater
Gabbard
504 SSE Renewables
and RWE Power
2012 -
Sheringham
Shoal
315 Scira Offshore
Energy (Statoil and
Statkraft)
2012 Load out port: Siemens
turbines
London
Array
630 2012 Shipping nacelles and
towers (Siemens)
Lincs 270 Centrica Energy,
DONG Energy and
Siemens
2012 Construction base
Meerwind 288 2013 Load out port: Siemens
turbines
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 173
Project Size
(MW)
Developer(s) Official Start Port of Esbjerg
Function
DanTysk 288 Vattenfall &
Stadtwerke
Munchen
2014 Base port: (storage of
nacelles, pre-assembly
of Siemens turbines)
Riffgatt 108 EWE & Enova - Load out port: Siemens
turbines
Kårehamn 48 E.ON - Pre-assembly of
turbines (Vestas)
Siemens’ nacelles and towers for London Array The newly opened Østhavn
8.3.2 Port of Bremerhaven, Germany
Bremenports GmbH & Co. currently manage Bremen
and Bremerhaven ports on behalf of the Free Hanseatic
City of Bremen. The Port of Bremerhaven is one of the
largest in Europe. The port is located amidst a cluster
of over 300 manufacturers, suppliers and service
providers for wind industry making it an important
hub for the sector.
The Port of Bremerhaven is well equipped with infrastructure (direct access to A27 motorway and rail
network and the Weser estuary), storage facilities, repair yards, deepwater channels, reinforced quays,
heavy load terminals capable of withstanding 50 tonnes per square metre and cranes suitable for heavy
loads. It has an established supply chain including Areva Wind GmbH, REpower Systems, PowerBlades
GmbH, WeserWind GmbH and WindMW GmbH. Wind Energy Agency Bremerhaven also has its
headquarters in the port. The port also has excellent educational and training facilities located including
the University of Applied Sciences who have a maritime focus and Offshore Safety Training Centre.
Map of Port of Bremerhaven
Head Office:
Hansestadt Bremisches Hafenamt
District Bremerhaven, Der Hafenkapitaen
Steubenstrasse 7a
Bremerhaven 27568 Germany
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 174
Port History
The port of Bremerhaven is the seaport for the state of Bremen. In Saxon times (888 AD) a port was used to
service Bremen’s market, the port was also used by merchants travelling to the Netherlands, England and
Baltics. Bremen became a city in the fourteenth century and a de facto capital of the lower Weser region
during the fifteenth century. In the early 1400’s marine traffic began to be directed which marked the true
beginnings of the port. Harbours began to be constructed to manage the increasing quantities of traded
goods that travelled along the Weser. Sweden captured the area in 1653 and developed plans to fortify the
town, this fortification was to become the Port of Bremerhaven. Over the years new harbours were added
to accommodate steam ships; it became integral to trade and emigration and became a base for the Navy.
A 120 metre wide, 2,000 metre long harbour basin was opened in 1888, it had a depth of 5 metres to handle
sea vessels. Various other construction projects were completed over the following century and the Port
became part of the federal state of Bremen in 1947. In 1958 a second passenger facility was added and a
riverside quay and container terminal opened in 1971. The third container terminal began construction in
1994, a new industrial park opened 1998 and the fourth container terminal began construction in 2004.
Bremen’s ports handled 14 million tonnes of goods in the 1960’s and now handle up to 75 million.
Offshore Wind at Bremerhaven
1
2
3
4
Offsh
ore Term
inal B
remerh
aven
Airp
ort
Ferry Termin
al
Bremerhaven Wind Terminals
Transport HubLab
rado
rhafen
Werfth
afen
3. Werfthafen
2. Labradorhafen
1. Offshore Terminal Bremerhaven
AB
C-H
albin
sel
4. ABC-Halbinsel
5
Co
ntain
ertermin
al1
Rail N
etwo
rk
5. Containerterminal 1
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 175
Bremerhaven Port has been servicing the wind industry for over 10 years following an aggressive
Government led investment programme in offshore wind in 2000. Bremerhaven is now known as a “Wind
City”. The Port plays an instrumental role.
Luneort industrial park is a base to important manufacturers such as AREVA Wind, PowerBlades and
REpower Systems; it lies over 80 hectares and caters to both the offshore and onshore wind markets. The
Ports four key areas relating to the Offshore Wind sector are: Labradorhafen, the Offshore Terminal
Bremerhaven (OTB), Werthafen and ABC-Halbinsel. The Containerterminal 1 is being used as a
temporary solution as the base port for the Nordsee Ost Wind Farm until 2013.
Labradorhafen: This area is the heavy load area where manufacturers handle nacelles, rotor blades and
turbines. It is equipped with a 1,600m2 heavy load area that can bear up to 50 t/m2.
OTB: This area is currently under construction and due for completion in 2016. The construction project is
being managed by Bremenports and is costing EUR 180 million. When complete the OTB will be used to
handle, pre-assemble and store offshore wind turbines. It will also be used for the exporting of components
and as a logistics centre for transporting large industrial components.
Werfthafen: SchichauSeebeck’s old shipyard area has been re-developed to become the Seebeck offshore
industrial park. It holds offices, storage areas and berths.
ABC-Halbinsel: This port serves as a buffer zone; the area is used for storage, mooring and stacking. It can
be accessed via the Kaiserschleuse.
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 176
Key Features of Ports
Labradorhafen OTB Werfthafen ABC-Halbinsel
Area 1,600m2 250,000m2 - 100,000m2
Water depth 7.6 m 10.5 m 7.1 m 10.5 m
Berths 2 – 3 2 – 3 2 – 3 2 (8 nearby)
Quay length 1,132 m 500 m 380 m 900 m
Cranes - Crawler cranes,
working radius
up to 30 m
- Mobile cranes –
30-400t
Development
Space
- 200 hectares - -
Capacity - 160 units per
season (turbines
and
foundations)
- -
Wind Industry Port Tenants
Company Role Activity in Port
Areva Wind GmbH Manufacturer
(turbines)
Production facility
BLG Logistics Wind
Energy
Wind Logistics Coordinates and manages wind
energy facility supply chains
DOC German Offshore
Consult
Wind Logistics Operational and project management
expertise for offshore wind sector
EnergieKontor AG Developer Project developer
Energy & Meteo Systems
GmbH
Wind Logistics Energy meteorology
EOPS - Evers GmbH
Offshore Project
Wind Logistics Project management and logistics for
offshore wind
interface.group GmbH Wind Logistics Interface group – efficiency of wind
farms
PowerBlades Manufacturer (blades) Production facility
REpower Systems AG Manufacturer
(turbines)
Production facility
Rolf Luebbe Lifting and
Lashing Systems eK
Wind Logistics Crane supplier
SWB CREA GmbH Wind Logistics Plans, develops, builds and operates
offshore wind farms
Technologiekontor
Bremerhaven F&E
Gesellschaft für die
Nutzung regenerativer
Energien mbH
Wind Logistics Construction and engineering services
for offshore wind farms
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 177
THERMAL WIND &
Safety Supply GmbH
Wind Logistics Thermography services
WeserWind GmbH Manufacturer
(foundations)
Production facility
Wind Power GmbH Manufacturers
(converters)
Produces wind energy converters
WindMW GmbH Wind Logistics Planning, construction and operation
of Meerwind Süd and Meerwind Ost
Port Track Record
Project Size (MW) Developer(s) Start
Date
Port Function
Nordsee Ost 295.2 RWE Innogy 2014 Base port
Innogy Nordsee
1
332.1 RWE Innogy 2015 Base port
Foundations, rotor blades and tower segments for Nordsee Ost Offshore Wind Farm
Rotor blades for Innogy Nordsee 1 offshore wind farm at the Container Terminal Bremerhaven
8.3.3 Port of Belfast Harbour, U.K.
Belfast Harbour offers windfarm developers and wind component manufacturers a compelling location
including: development space with water front access;
access to academic and vocational training through world
class universities and further education colleges; a thriving Head Office:
Belfast Harbour Commissioners
Harbour Office, Corporation Square
Belfast, Northern Ireland
United Kingdom, BT1 3AL
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 178
commercial environment; excellent port infrastructure including Ireland’s longest deepwater quay; no tidal
restrictions; and 12 offshore wind project sites within 150 km. Belfast Harbour is already home to DONG
Energy and ScottishPower Renewables who lease a 50 acre offshore wind installation and pre-assembly
harbour. As a result the harbour is attracting further interest, employment opportunities and further
inward investment.
The Board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners is responsible for the operation, maintenance and
improvement of the Port of Belfast, as such the Port is known as a ‘Trust Port’.
Belfast Harbour Location
Port History
The Port in Belfast has been operational for over 400 years. Its origins began in 1613 when under the reign
of James I Belfast was incorporated by Royal Charter and a wharf was established. Within 50 years the
town’s 29 vessels used the port with a total tonnage of 1,110 tonnes and trade continued through the
centuries. The port was expanded with privately owned wharves, reclaimed land to accommodate new
quays and the formation of a new channel to eliminate bends and the natural shallow water restrictions.
Now the estate covers 2,000 acres, handles over 80% of Northern Ireland’s petrol and oil imports and 50%
of Northern Ireland’s ferry and container traffic. The port handled over 16.5 million tonnes of cargo on
2010.
The Offshore Wind Terminal Construction Project
Due to the port’s excellent position both commercially and geographically; in February 2011 DONG
Energy and ScottishPower Renewables signed a letter of intent with Belfast Harbour to establish an
Offshore Wind Terminal. The 50 acre Offshore Wind Terminal was constructed by Farrans (Construction).
The Terminal is the first purpose-built offshore wind installation and pre-assembly harbour in the U.K. or
Ireland. The development was funded solely by Belfast Harbour for £50 million.
The project, which took 15-months to complete, was delivered in Q4 2012 on time and on budget. The
project used one million tonnes of stones and 30,000 tonnes of concrete. The terminal was handed over to
DONG Energy and ScottishPower Renewables in February 2013.
D1 O
ffsho
re Win
d Term
inal
D1 Offshore Wind Terminal
City A
irpo
rt
Ferry Termin
al
Develo
pm
ent Site
Develo
pm
ent Site
Development site
D1 Offshore Wind Terminal
Transport HubR
ail Netw
ork
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 179
The 200,000 m2 facility is big enough to accommodate 30 football pitches. There is a 480m deep-water
quayside with berthing facilities to accommodate up to three vessels simultaneously; the lack of draught
and depth restrictions means the port will be accessible to a future generation of construction vessels. The
terminal will be subdivided into areas specific to components. The terminal will be accessible 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week offering right of passage for vessels.
It is expected that up to 300 jobs will be created for a variety of occupations including welders, electricians
and engineers.
Belfast Harbour – Key Features
Area 2,000 acres
Water depth up to 11m HD with a maintained channel depth of 9.1m
Quays and wharves 8km total
Quay lengths Quays and wharfs range in lengths from 78m to over 1km
Cranes 2 x permanent heavy lift cranes (800t capacity)
Tidal restrictions None
Development Space Site 1 - 46 acres, Site 2 - 51 acres, Offshore Wind Terminal – 50
acres
Storage 2,000,000ft² warehousing for businesses
100,000ft2 provided by Harland & Wolff
Offshore wind
applications
Logistics, Manufacturing, Construction and O&M
Port Tenants
Company Role Activity in Port
DONG Energy Developer Investor and Irish Sea base
ScottishPower
Renewables
Developer Investor (JV with DONG Energy)
Siemens Manufacturer Traffic Solutions
Harland & Wolff Manufacturer Construction, assembly & storage:
Robin Rigg – (Logistics & assembly:
monopiles, transition pieces, towers,
hubs, nacelles, blades, grout, infield
and export cables and miscellaneous
outfit)
BARD Offshore 1 – (Transformer
platform and jacket assembly and
erection)
Ormonde – (Logistics & assembly:
towers and turbines)
Global Evaluation Of Offshore Wind Shipping Opportunity Page 180
Port Track Record
Project Size
(MW
)
Developer(s) Official
Start
Belfast Harbour
Function
Barrow 90 DONG Energy and
Centrica
2006 Storage and pre-
assembly of Vestas
turbines
Robin Rigg 180 E.ON Climate &
Renewables U.K.
2010 Storage and pre-
assembly of Vestas
turbines
Ormonde 150 Vattenfall 2012 Storage and pre-
assembly of REpower
turbines
West of
Duddon
Sands
389 DONG Energy and
ScottishPower
Renewables
2014 Steel monopiles and
transition pieces (Bladt)
BARD
Offshore 1
400 BARD Engineering
GmbH
2014 Transformer platform
and jacket assembly and
erection (H&W were
commissioned by
Weserwind GmbH)
Harland & Wolff, Robin Rigg, Dry Dock 2 Harland & Wolff, Belfast Harbour facilities