Report Extract

WEU Offshore Foundations Report 2013

The ultimate guide to assessing market opportunities, cost-reduction strategies and commercial viability in the changing foundations landscape

Report highlights include: Foundation Market Sizing, Share and Project Pipeline
n Comprehensive overview of the offshore foundations landscape size (MW) and share by turbine, substation, HVDC converter station and met mast foundations; geographical market; and project status; including identification of commercial opportunities up for grabs on projects

Foundation Installation Options, Concepts and Designs

n Techno-economic evaluation of the complete foundations portfolio including commercial deployment trajectories, vessel suitability and availability, installation logistics and supply-chain explained

Foundations Scorecard
n Assessing the technological suitability and commercial viability of the foundations portfolio for water depths of up to 30m and up to 60m using the 7 main weighting categories and an additional 30 sub-categories

Report extract

Industry Overview
The offshore wind energy industry stands at an important stage in its development. Sustained growth demonstrated in the year-on-year additional capacity coming on-line (the global installed capacity produced over 18 terawatt hours of electricity in 2012 compared to approximately 12 terawatt hours in 2011) is coupled with key changes in the offshore landscape as new markets are set to enter the industry, projects move to deeper waters farther offshore, and turbine unit capacities continue to increase. Set against this backdrop is the more enduring pursuit to secure cost reductions in offshore wind energy and in doing so secure the long-term success and viability of the industry. The offshore foundations landscape will not only be shaped by these key expansions and changes but the technological and commercial development of wind turbine foundations as well as other substructures will play a pivotal role in reducing both CAPEX and LCOE. Based on over 12,000 pieces of data, company case-studies and industry interviews, 1270+ survey responses, proprietary and secondary material, this report provides a comprehensive techno-economic assessment of the global foundations portfolio (pre-commercial and commercial options) and the key industry insights, market-by-market sizing, forecasts and terrain/technology configurations essential to constructing a business strategy best positioned to optimize commercial opportunities in this growing but increasingly competitive sector.

Leading companies who have contributed

Universal Foundation Principle Power Keystone Engineering Inc. Mainstream Renewable Power Technip

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 2

Report extract

Features and benefits

n Market Sizing: Complete and up-to-date offshore wind energy capacity data by geography (global, continental and country breakdown) and project status (operational, under construction, construction authorised, consent authorised, consent application submitted, concept/early planning, and development zone), also including share and size (MW) of dormant, failed and cancelled projects by country market. n Market Share: Percentage of global operational and under construction market share by offshore wind developer, operator and owner company n Foundation Market Sizing, Share and Project Pipeline: Comprehensive analysis of the offshore foundations landscape size (MW) and share by turbine, substation, HVDC converter station and met mast foundations; geographical market; and project status; including identification of commercial opportunities where projects have yet to have decided on foundation type. n Foundations Installation Options, Concepts and Designs: Techno-economic evaluation of the complete foundations portfolio (Floating, Suction Bucket, Monopiles, Gravity-Based, Jacket, Tripod, Tripile, High-Rise Pile Cap) including commercial deployment trajectory, vessel suitability and availability, installation logistics and supply-chain explained. n CAPEX, OPEX, LCOE and Balance of Plant Data: Up-to-date and complete cost data across the lifespan of an offshore wind farm including viable strategies for cost reductions. n Foundation Scorecards: Configuring which foundation type is best suited for which terrain based upon the following parameters; water depth, seabed hydrogeology, distance to shore, serialised manufacturing, cost, logistics, erection, O&M costs and track record.

Who should buy this report:

n n n n n n Foundation designers, installers and suppliers OEMs Utilities/IPPs Developers Logistics vessels, barges and haulage Insurers and financiers

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 3

Report extract

Contents

List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. Offshore wind energy market overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.1. Installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2. Capacity under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.3. Future projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.3.1. Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3.2. Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.4. Dormant and cancelled projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.5. Market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.5.1. Operating wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.5.2. Wind farms under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3. Foundations market overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.1. Turbine foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2. Substation foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 3.3. HVDC converter stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.4. Met-mast foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.5. Global and regional market outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.6. Drivers of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.6.1. Offshore wind farm landscape evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.6.2. Cost reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.6.3. Supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.7. Political and industrial climate for innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.8. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4. Foundations installation options, concepts and designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4.1. Technological overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.2. Industry overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.3. Oil and gas parallel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.4. Current foundation landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.4.1. Turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.4.2. Commercial substation foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.4.3. Commercial met-mast foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 4

Report extract

4.5. Surveying the pre-commercial landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.5.1. Floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.5.2. Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.6. Technical pros and cons of foundation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5. Vessels and barges configuring suitability and assessing availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.1. Commercial foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.1.1. Monopiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.1.2. Gravity base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.1.3. Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.1.4. Tripod/Tripile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2. Pre-commercial foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.2.1. Floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.2.2. Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6. Foundation scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 7. Case studies 112 7.1. Principle Power Floating foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7.2. Keystone Engineering Varied foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.3. Universal Foundations commitment to the suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 8. Industry learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 APPENDIX A Vessels in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 APPENDIX B - Vessels under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 APPENDIX C - Vessels in planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 APPENDIX D Scorecard methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 5

Report extract

List of Figures
Figure 1: Cumulative and Annual Offshore Wind Installed Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 1: Offshore wind LCOE breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 2: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind all respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 3: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 4: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 5: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind executives drawing most revenue from the UK . . 20 Figure 6: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind responses from executives drawing most revenue from Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 7: Offshore wind CAPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 8: Offshore wind project landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 9: Worldwide installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 10: European installed capacity by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 11: Worldwide capacity under construction by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 12: European capacity under construction by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 13: Continental breakdown of new market entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 14: Regional market outlook responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 15: Market penetration within the next five years responses from executives drawing most revenue from the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 16: Market penetration within the next five year responses from executives drawing most revenue from Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 17: Market share of current installed capacity by wind farm developer . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 18: Market share of current installed capacity by wind farm operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 19: Existing wind farm ownership by developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 20: Wind farm capacity under construction by developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 21: Wind farm capacity under construction by owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 22: Comprehensive offshore wind foundation type landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 23: Market share of operating turbine foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 24: Market share of turbine foundation under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 25: Project pipeline foundation type uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 26: Foundation technology landscape of consent authorised projects . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 28: Operational foundation types by water depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 46 Figure 27: Operational foundation types by capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 29: Offshore substation foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 30: Known offshore substation foundation landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 31: Offshore HVDC converter station DolWin Beta Gravity Base Foundation . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 32: Offshore HVDC converter station Borwin Beta Jacket Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 33: Foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 34: Operational foundation type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 35: Number of met masts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 36: Known met-mast foundation type breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 37: Average rating for anticipated five-year market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 6

Report extract

Figure 38: Average rating for anticipated ten-year market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 39: Under construction foundations by capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 40: Under construction foundation types by water depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 41: Importance of technology as a key to cost reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 42: Offshore wind project lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 43: Offshore wind industry ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 44: Offshore oil and gas project lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 45: CAPEX breakdown, balance of plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 46: CAPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 47: OPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 48: Backfilling with multi-purpose barge at Thornton Bank I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 50: Rambolls Anholt substation in Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 73 76

Figure 49: Scour protection layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure 51: Global Tech 1 self-floating substation installed in 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Figure 52: Tripod structure for NAREC demonstration platform and met mast . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 53: E.ON and Nordic ABs self-installing jacket basis for movable met mast . . . . . . . . . . 79 Figure 54: Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Figure 55: Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 57: Jack-up barge by GeoSea installing monopile foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 88 Figure 56: Installation time distribution of bucket at Horns Rev II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Figure 58: Kraken by Seajacks, designed for the North Sea oil and gas industry and suitably equipped to support offshore wind installation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure 59: Scaldis Salvage & Marine Contractors heavy lift vessel Rambiz used to install jacket foundations for the Walney 1 Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Figure 60: Jacket foundations at Alpha Ventus placed on pre-installed piles by Heerema Marine ContractorsThialf . 89 Figure 61: Jack-up vessel INNOVATION at Global Tech I wind farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Figure 62: A2SEA SEA INSTALLER in Esbjerg, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Figure 63: Jumbo with transition piece installation at Anholt wind Ffarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Figure 64: Sea fastening of monopiles on transport barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Figure 65: Rambiz lifting the first concrete gravity base Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Figure 66: STRABAG carrier dedicated to complete system transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 67: STRABAG terminal for gravity base foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 68: Jacket structure tugged to Alpha Ventus site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Figure 69: Free-floating vessel by Teekay and A2SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Figure 71: Wind Lift 1 unloading transition piece on foundation piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Figure 72: Floating turbine Wind Float 1 being towed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Figure 73: Keystone Engineerings twisted jacket foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Figure 74: Keystone Engineerings Twisted Jacket Installation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 7

Report extract

List of Tables
Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Continental breakdown of installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Continental breakdown of capacity under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Continental breakdown of capacity with consent authorised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Continental breakdown of capacity with consent application submitted . . . . . . . . . . 29 IEA Global offshore wind market outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Awarded DOE funding for offshore wind farm development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Inactive offshore wind project capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, operating worldwide . . . . . . . . . . 53 Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, under construction worldwide . . . . . . . 53

Table 10: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, consent authorised worldwide . . . . . . . 54 Table 11: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, consent application submitted worldwide . . 54 Table 12: Potential cost saving opportunity offered by foundation innovations . . . . . . . . . . . Table 13: Monopile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 15: Gravity base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 69 71

Table 14: Offshore wind example projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table 16: Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Table 17: Tripod/Tripile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 18: Spar floating foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Table 19: Semi-submersible floating foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Table 20: Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 21: Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 22: Offshore wind turbine foundations pros and cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Table 23: Vessel charter day-rates for existing turbine and support structure installation . . . . . . . . 92 Table 24: Monopile and transition piece installation schedule using jack-up vessel . . . . . . . . . . 93 Table 25: Scorecard results at 30 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Table 26: Scorecard Results at 60m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 8

Report extract

Methodology

Wind Energy Updates Offshore Foundations Report 2013 responds to the most topical information needs of the wind energy industry, representing 4 months of research (primary and secondary) and culminating in over 100 pages of high-quality data and analysis, 75 figures and 26 tables.

Industry Research:
Identifying gaps in knowledge, defining focus and refining content
At the crux of WEUs research process are the 25+ in-depth industry interviews conducted with a crosssection of offshore wind energy executives to identify:

Key industry trends Challenges and opportunities currently facing the industry Significant information gaps The precise data and analysis required by companies to optimize success in the offshore wind energy sector

Example Information Requests How will existing foundation technologies perform as projects move farshore, to deeper waters and adopt larger turbine MW capacities? Which pre-commercial foundation opportunities are being developed, how commercially viable are they, what is the cost-reduction value of each option, and how willing are the utilities and developers to invest in such opportunities at the commercial level? How will the foundations landscape alter in accordance to the key shifts in offshore farm characteristics, as new offshore markets emerge and new technological options come to market?

In-depth interviews broken down by company type Developer 2 Cable Specialist 2 Supplier 2 Insurance 2 Ports & Harbours 2 Utility/IPP 4 Foundation Specialist 3 Legal 2 Service Provider 2 OEM (Turbine) 4 Installation Contractor 3

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 9

Report extract

Report Production:
Methodological Approaches
The methodological approaches adopted over the course of this report have been framed by the pursuit to meet the information needs outlined in the original 25+ in-depth industry interviews. of up to 30m and up to 60m using the following key weighting categories and an additional 30 sub-categories:

Quantitative Analysis
Industry Data: Over 12,000 pieces of data have been collated from a combination of proprietary and published sources, and verified and analysed by our expert authors to provide the most comprehensive, convenient and digestible facts and figures on market sizing and market share by country, foundation market sizing and share by technology and project status.

Siting Fabrication Maintenance Overall

Design Installation Decommissioning

Qualitative Analysis
Industry Case Studies and Interviews: Case-studies with the leading foundation design companies providing unique insights including commercial development trajectories, technoeconomic credentials, timelines for deployment, as well as interviews with developers to understand technology preferences, routes to uptake and associated risks.

WEUs Offshore Foundations Survey (February 2013): 1270 + responses from industry executives providing unparalleled insight into the foundation designs being backed for success in the near and long term, the offshore markets companies are currently drawing most revenue from and the markets they are looking to enter in the next five years, and an understanding of how important innovation in foundation technology is believed to be within the broader pursuit of reducing the cost of offshore wind energy. Information is also filtered by location and company type adding exceptional nuance to the analysis. Foundations Scorecard: To assess the suitability and commercial viability of the foundation technologies examined over the course of the report, a scorecard has been developed for water depths

Secondary Sources: Additional analysis includes secondary research conducted by our analysts. A comprehensive review of industry and academic journals, conference presentations, online publications, news articles, government policy documents, company press releases, and proprietary literature and materials providing a strong foundation from which to contextualise the report findings and highlight points of corroboration and departure. Where applicable, all secondary research sources are appropriately cited within the report.

Expert knowledge:
This report has been researched and written by a team of highly-qualified and impartial experts and reviewed by 3 highly-regarded industry specialists to ensure that only the highest quality and most relevant information is published.

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 10

Report extract

3. Foundations market overview

Chapter summary

Todays offshore wind industry is dominated by monopile foundations, constituting 66.5% of operating wind farms and 64.3% of wind farms under construction. Jackets and gravity base types of foundations follow with 5.0% operating, 5.7% under construction and 15.9% operating, 2.9% under construction. Tripods have a limited presence in the operating landscape, with 0.3% of the total, but reach 10.3% in projects under construction. Of the operating wind farms, 63% of foundations are submerged in waters of less than 30 m, and supporting turbines of 2 to 5 MW. The situation for offshore wind farms under construction differs in terms of water depth, where 38% of the projects are to be installed in waters of more than 30 m. Of the known foundations linked to offshore wind substations, jackets strongly dominate the market over monopiles with 51% to 30% market shares, respectively. For substations, the situation differs with mobile jack-ups dominating over jackets with 57% market penetration over 29% for their counterpart. Of the known met masts used or to be used in the offshore wind industry, 44% are erected using monopiles. Many alternative technologies are also deployed for demonstration purposes, due to the lower loads inherent to their operation.

Offshore foundations are not only necessary to erect wind turbines, but also for other platforms such as met-masts, substations and accommodations quarters for O&M crews. Since its inception, more than three decades ago, the industry has predominantly relied on monopiles for venturing offshore. Driven by the necessity to reduce CAPEX and LCOE, the industry has since then explored several foundation concepts which are now an integral part of the commercial landscape. That said, with the large cost contribution of foundations in offshore wind projects, it remains quintessential to seek alternatives solutions for sustaining market growth, farther out at sea and in deeper waters.

In the past, the industry perceived foundations as a mere balance of plant component, purchased off the shelf: a sound rational for locations where monopiles suffice, but not anymore in a conjuncture where profound examination is now required to choose from available foundation types. As delivery schedules of foundations become tighter and tighter, the industry is shifting towards a buyers market, meaning that utilities and developers are gaining leverage over OEMs. For the moment, firms producing subsea foundations for the offshore wind sector are limited in number and the market is dominated by large steel mills, oil and gas fabrication yards and construction companies, which
Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 11

Report extract

have required relatively little investment to join this industry. Recent experience has demonstrated that irrespective of the type of foundation required, factories appear capable of increasing production in a relatively short time (one to two years), but not without longerterm confidence (five to 10-year outlook) and significant investment. The monopile is relatively simple to manufacture and there is already a reasonable degree of automation in their manufacturing process. So far, production has largely been limited to two consortia: the joint venture of Sif Group (Netherlands) and Smulders Group (Belgium), and the partnership between Erndtebrcker Eisenwerk (EEW) (Germany) and Bladt Industries (Denmark). Earlier this year, Smulders faced bankruptcy, raising concerns in the industry. However, Smulders has expressed confidence in its ability to bounce back, and has put offshore foundations at the centre of its future business. The monopiles for the Greater Gabbard wind farm were produced by Chinese manufacturer Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry (ZPMC). A number of other players are also seeking to enter the market, including

Tata Steel and TAG Energy Solutions in the UK and Dillinger Htte in Germany. Even though the current depths for offshore wind farms have proven to be more cost effective for monopiles at greater water depths, for larger turbines and varying soil conditions, particularly in Germany and UK Round 3 projects, other types of foundations are also becoming competitive. However, standardisation is needed for jacket sections (serial approach with cast steel nodes instead of batch technique) and transition pieces (TP) to reach more cost-effective solutions. From their experience in the oil and gas industry, Bladt Industries and BIFAB (UK) have been important players in jacket foundation developments. BIFAB has been rapidly growing since entering the offshore wind market with the manufacturing of jacket structures for the Beatrix wind farm as well as Ormonde, Galloper and Alpha Ventus projects. Smulders has also produced a large number of jackets in Antwerp, notably for the Thornton Bank 2 and 3 wind parks. Bremerhaven-based WeserWind (Germany), owned by German steel processor

Figure 23: Comprehensive Offshore Wind Foundation Type Landscape

3000

2500

Number of foundations

2000

Other Tripile

2 1 6 7 206 291 92 1202

34 80 120 2 40 34 67 748

68 256 128 9 0 69 293 1820

1500

Tripod Floating

1000

HRPC Gravity Base

500

Jacket Monopile Operating Under construction Consent authorised

Source: [1] WEU, 2013

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 12

Report extract

Georgsmarienhtte, is also manufacturing jacket and tripod supporting structures. A consortium of WeserWind and EEW manufactured the tripods and associated piles for the Global Tech 1 offshore wind farm. In addition, other companies such as Harland & Wolff (UK), Shepherd (UK), Offshore Group Newcastle (UK) and Heerema (Netherlands) have announced their interest in this market. Bard Groups patented tripile foundation, manufactured in series by the firms subsidiary Cuxhaven Steel Construction GmbH in Cuxhaven, has only been deployed commercially at the Bard Offshore 1 wind farm. Moreover, Bard recently announced that despite its extensive efforts to attract new investments and projects, the Cuxhaven plant failed to secure sufficient contracts to sustain operation and will therefore be shutting down at the end of April 2013. Gravity base foundations have also been used, mostly for shallow water wind farms and particularly in the Baltic Sea. These are produced by large building and civil engineering firms and large infrastructure contractors, such as MT Hjgaard and Aarslef (Denmark) and Hochtief (Germany). Moreover, there are many solutions offered from leading market contractors such as Strabag (Germany), GBF Consortium, COWI and Hochtief/Costain/Arup. Concrete gravity base foundations are designed for larger turbines and deeper waters and are proposed for more exposed conditions such as the North Sea, having first been deployed at Thornton Bank 1 in 2009. For the operating, under construction and consent authorised project pipeline worldwide, a comprehensive breakdown of wind turbine foundation technology is shown in Figure 22, demonstrating the dominance of monopiles and the emergence of several alternatives.

Figure24: Belwind Monopiles

Source: [45], Contractor World)

depths and turbine sizes for the great majority of projects, together with the ease of financing intertwined with their track record, it is not surprising that 64.3% of the foundations under construction are also monopiles. In shallow waters and under special conditions (i.e. presence of sea ice in winter), especially in the Baltic Sea, concrete gravity bases have also been used successfully given the geotechnical advantage, accounting for 16.4% of the currently operational turbines. Even though most of these are for shallow water applications, the first stage of the Thornton Bank offshore wind farm used concrete gravity bases in much deeper waters off the Belgian coast, but at relatively high cost (associated with the peculiarity of the project), using 3,000 tonnes of concrete plus substrate ballast. Concrete material prices are generally much less volatile than steel and improved designs by experienced civil engineering firms are on the way which are taking a more holistic approach than before. Based on such potential, the gravity base may become a very competitive solution in the coming years. However, developers are still waiting for such improvements to
Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

3.1. Turbine foundations

To date, 66.5% of operating offshore wind turbines have been erected using monopiles, either driven into the sea bed or fitted into drilled sockets and grouted into place as required. Considering the limited range of water

| 13

Report extract

come through as commercial solutions, or large-scale demonstration projects to prove the technology and justify investments, and therefore, the share of gravity base structures will remain minimal in the next three to four years. For larger turbines and in deeper waters, the diameter and thickness of monopiles increases in such a manner that scaling becomes cost prohibitive. At around 30 to 35 m water depth, alternative designs typically become competitive, including tripods and tripiles but especially jackets. It is much easier to design a stiffer jacket structure for large turbines in order to meet natural frequency requirements, giving such structures an edge over monopiles. The still low market
Figure 25: Market Share of Operating Turbine Foundation

share of such structures has however risen, and the experience gained from 99 operational pieces will be further increased by 267 pieces under construction, corresponding to approximately 23% of the foundation structures under construction. High-Rise Pile Cap (HRPC) foundations while considered by some not to be truly offshore foundation types do have a relatively high share of the market, at 11.5% of the operational projects. HRPC is a derivative of an onshore foundation type and is limited to soft soils and shallow waters. This type of foundation has especially been preferred in the mud flats of China, while its future application is limited by the number of suitable offshore sites.

Jacket 5.1% Gravity Base 16.1%

HRPC 11.4% Floating 0.4% Tripod 0.3% Tripile 0.1% Other 0.1%

Monopile 66.5%

Source: [1] WEU, 2013

Figure 26: Market Share of Turbine Foundation Under Construction Jacket 5.8% Gravity Base 2.9% HRPC 3.4% Floating 0.2% Tripod 10.3%

Tripile 6.9% Monopile 64.3% Other 2.9% Unknown 3.4%

Source: [1] WEU, 2013

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 14

Report extract

Order your report in less than 60 seconds

Just fill in this form and access the knowledge you need to develop your knowledge of Offshore Wind Foundations

n Pages: 105 n Price: 1950 (standard price) n Price: 1320 (launch price)
Launch price expires 11th March 2013 it is then $1950

First name

Last name:

Four ways to order:

www.windenergyupdate.com/ offshore-foundations-report Scan and email this form back to: reports@windenergyupdate.com Or fax: +44 (0)870 238 7255 Steve Johnson, Account Manager, +44 (0)20 7375 4334

Company

Telephone:

Email:

Address:

Payment details:
Name (as it appears on card):

City

Zip/Postcode

Card Number:

Report Name

Type of card:

Expiry date:

Security Code:

Quantity

Order your copy today at: www.windenergyupdate.com/offshore-foundations-report

About Wind Energy Update (WEU)

Wind Energy Update is the reference point for over 35,000 senior executives working in wind power generation. Were the worldwide leaders in O&M knowledge, connections and B2B conference delivery. Our impartial perspective allows us to comment freely and express views on whats happening and why. Our international events explore industry opportunities, challenges and emerging best practices tailored for executives working in wind energy. Wind Energy Update is part of FC Business Intelligence Ltd. | 15

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

Report extract

Thought leadership
End of Warranty Wind Farm O&M Options Report 2012
Improve your levelized cost of energy, increase reliability and productivity with new retrofitting and repowering strategies. 253 pages 49 tables 67 graphs 22 figures $2895 USD

Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Report 2011

The true costs, downtimes and failure rates of modern and future wind farms 100 pages 66 figures 29 tables $1995 USD

Offshore Wind Turbine Supply Report 2011-2012

Identify key drivers in supply chain strategies of Wind Turbine OEMs. 100+ pages 68 figures $1695 USD

Offshore Wind Installation & Construction Report 2011

How to install and construct farshore, deepwater wind farms on time and cost efficiently. 100+ pages 4 case studies 67 figures 29 tables $2095 USD

Wind Energy Operations & Maintenance Report 2011

Maximize wind power production, minimize turbine downtime and plan for cost effective on and offshore wind O&M. 100+ pages 59 figures $2095 USD

Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013

| 16