New GLOBAL EVALUATION OF FFSHORE WIND SHIPPING … · 2017. 7. 24. · GLOBAL EVALUATION OF...

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

http://www.navigant.com/

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


» 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


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.


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


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

http://www.a2sea.com/

http://www.bluestarline.com/

http://www.bws.dk/

http://www.clipper-group.com/

http://www.ctoffshore.dk/

http://www.dbbjackup.dk/

http://www.dongenergy.com/

http://www.dfdstransport.com/

http://www.esvagt.com/

http://www.windcarrier.com/

http://www.tugdk.com/

http://www.hbc-tec.dk/

http://www.jashipping.com/

http://www.jydskdyk.dk/

http://www.kem-offshore.dk/

http://www.nordane.dk/

http://www.n-o-s.se/

http://www.nt-offshore.dk/

http://www.oms-offshore.dk/

http://www.svendborgbugser.dk/


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.

http://www.swireblueocean.com/

http://www.wm-offshore.com/


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


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


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.


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


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%


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%



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


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.


Figure 2-2. Historical Development by Plant Capacity

2.2.2 Historical Development by Turbine Capacity


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.


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


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


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:


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


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


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


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


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



Figure 2-5. High and Low Global Offshore Wind Scenarios


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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)



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)



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)


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


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)


1st Generation 10 6 2 0 2

2nd Generation 24 20 3 1 0

3rd Generation 22 16 3 1 2


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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


Table 3-8. Availability of Heavy-lift Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation

Only)


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


Table 3-9. Availability of Cable Laying Vessels Operated by Selected European Countries (In-operation

Only)


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


Laying Vessel

Cable laying support

vessel

1 6 1 6 1 0 5

Total 2 11 4 14 10 2 17



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.


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.


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))


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.


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))



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).


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))


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.


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.



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)



Figure 4-8. Historical Development of Monopile Foundation Weight (1991-2012)


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) )



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.



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


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


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


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


» 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).



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.


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)


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.


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


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



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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


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.


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


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).


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


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/


Figure 6-1. Pros and Cons of Each Contract Type and the Percentage of Participants Using One versus

the Other


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


» 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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


» 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


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


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


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


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

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=e8a9a378-6d2c-43f2-86a7-bb739c22d7bd


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.


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.


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

http://www.c-bed.nl/


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.


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

http://www.c-bed.nl/

http://www.isp-usa.com/



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.



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


http://www.comfortatsea.com/

http://www.globalmarinesystems.com/


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.



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:


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.



Margrethe Fighter, source: www.peter-

madsen.dk

http://www.globalmarinesystems.com/

http://www.peter-madsen.dk/



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


Margrethe

Fighter 90 Siemens 2007/8 (8 months) Rhyl Flats

Merete Chris

288 Siemens 2012/13 Amrumbank West



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


http://www.sealionshipping.co.uk/


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.



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

http://www.sealionshipping.co.uk/


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.


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

http://www./


Although these barges can be used within the offshore wind industry the following vessels have a

demonstrable track record on offshore wind farm projects.



UR 101 194 Siemens 2007 Lynn & Inner Dowsing

270 Siemens 2012 Lincs


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

http://www.jjuc.no/

http://www.safetyboatservices.co.uk/


The table below provides an overview of the guard vessels operated by Safety Boat Services.


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.



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/

http://www.safetyboatservices.co.uk/

http://hmc.heerema.com/


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.


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.



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/

http://hmc.heerema.com/



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.


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.



Stanislav

Yudin

576 Siemens 2012 Gwynt y Môr

504 Siemens 2009-10 Greater Gabbard


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.


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.


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.



Sea Challenger 210 Siemens 2013 Westermost Rough

Sea Jack 576 Siemens 2013 Gwynt y Môr

317 Siemens 2011-12 Sheringham Shoal


150 REpower 2011 Ormonde

Sea Jack, source: www.a2sea.com




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:


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/




Of the Jack-up Vessels operated by Jack-Up Barge BV the following vessels have experience in the offshore

wind industry.



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/




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/


http://www.urag.de/


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.


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.



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

http://www.urag.de/

http://www.delta-marine.co.uk/



The table below provides a brief overview of the vessels in the multicat fleet.


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.



Voe Earl 184.5 REpower 2012

Thornton Bank Phase

II

504 Siemens - Greater Gabbard

630 Siemens Jun-Jul 2012 London Array Phase 1


Voe Jarl 504 Siemens - Greater Gabbard

194.4 Siemens - Lynn & Inner

Dowsing

180 Vestas - Robin Rigg

317 Siemens Sep-Oct 2010 Sheringham Shoal


Voe Venture 40 Bonus - Middelgrunden

90 Siemens - Burbo Bank


Dowsing

180 Vestas - Robbin Rigg

4 Vestas - Blyth

Voe Viking 504 Siemens - Greater Gabbard


Dowsing


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.


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/


http://www.kestrelmaritime.com/


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.



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.


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

http://www.combi-lift.eu/

http://www.vesseltracker.com/


Track Record:

Although described as a major windmill carrier, project references could only be found for two vessels:

BBC Germany and BBC Konan.



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

http://www.bbc-chartering.com/

http://www.turbinetransfers.co.uk/


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


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

http://www.turbinetransfers.co.uk/

http://www.mpi-offshore.com/





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.



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/

http://www.mpi-offshore.com/

http://www.n-o-s.eu/



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).


(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


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.


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

http://www.n-o-s.eu/

http://www.shipspotting.com/


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)


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.

http://www.fugro.com/


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.


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.


(MW)


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/

http://www.gardlinemarinesciences.com/


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.


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

http://www.gardlinemarinesciences.com/

http://www.maritimecraft.co.uk/


(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.


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

http://www.maritimecraft.co.uk/

http://www.seacontractors.com/


(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

http://www.seacontractors.com/


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


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


Table B-3. Total Cable Lay Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario

Table B-4. Diving Support Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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


Table B-5. Multi-Purpose Project Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario

Table B-6. Platform Supply Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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


Table B-7. Environmental Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario

Table B-8. Geophysical Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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


Table B-9. Geotechnical Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario

Table B-10. Multi-Purpose Survey Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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


Table B-11. Barge Demand – Middle Scenario

Table B-12. Tugboat Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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


Table B-13. Safety Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario

Table B-14. Service Crew Boat Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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


Table B-15. Tailormade O&M Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario

Table B-16. Accommodation Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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


Table B-17. SOV Type 2 Vessel Demand – Middle Scenario


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


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*


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?


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?_________________ _______________________________________________________________________________


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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):___________________________________________


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


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


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):_________________________________


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)


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.


» 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


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.


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


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.


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.,


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)


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


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


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



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


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


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”


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.


turbines

Greater

Gabbard

504 SSE Renewables

and RWE Power

2012 -

Sheringham

Shoal

315 Scira Offshore

Energy (Statoil and

Statkraft)


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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

Date post:	21-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

New GLOBAL EVALUATION OF FFSHORE WIND SHIPPING … · 2017. 7. 24. · GLOBAL EVALUATION OF...

Documents