Wind seemed like it could provide welcome relief to those squeezed by the oil and gas market collapse but the industry\u2019s crystal ball has been consistently cloudy of late.<\/p>\n
The problem is the pace of change is speeding up: it took till 2007 to get to 3.6MW turbines, but 6MW record-beaters in 2015 gave way to 8MW developments the next year, and now 10MW-plus turbines with towers over 2,000t seem to be on the way. Unfortunately, there\u2019s still no clear investment pipeline to indicate exactly what the demands will be and construction vessels \u201care often outdated by the time they are delivered\u201d according to one industry source.<\/p>\n
Further, contract prices have plummeted. Dong Energy\u2019s recent bid of \u20ac72.70 per MWh for the 700MW Borssele wind farms \u201chas been a big surprise for everyone\u201d says Pim Nelemans of Boskalis. \u201cAs an industry, we were aiming at something like this figure \u2013 by 2020. Nobody guessed it would happen now.\u201d<\/p>\n
Good news for the credibility of wind power \u2013 but it means the supply chain is also going to be looking at slashing the total cost of energy further and much faster than originally expected. As charterers attempt to tighten up operations to save money there may be a renewed impetus toward role differentiation, moving the industry even further away from what some have called \u2018multiuseless vessels\u2019.<\/p>\n
However, according to Alun Roberts of BVG Associates, the practicalities push back in the other direction \u201cas there\u2019s not enough work to support a vessel with a narrow specialism that only, for example, installs foundations \u2013 we\u2019ve already seen there\u2019s not the business case for it\u201d. So, this means spread betting on solutions that will dovetail with the requirements of other sectors.<\/p>\n
Jack-ups, of course, have some advantages. Feet down, there\u2019s nothing like them for providing a stable platform: this element is as useful for turbine installation and maintenance as it is for well intervention or enhanced recovery work. And, as Damen\u2019s Staffan Utzon points out \u201cif the vessel is higher off the water, you don\u2019t need such a large onboard crane to reach the top of a wind tower\u201d. Surprisingly, in order to develop a really tailored solution the company has stepped away from its usual naval architect role, leaving that to longstanding jack-up designer GustoMSC which has developed a very slick jacking device: frequency-converter speed controls stop uncomfortable lurches when the power is engaged.<\/p>\n
PARING DOWN ESTIMATES<\/strong><\/p>\n So, where can Damen add value? According to Utzon, the designers \u201cstop at the outline, they don\u2019t know what equipment will be put in during construction: the plans are therefore shaped around very broad margins\u201d.<\/p>\n But by focusing on the build and having specific details for each element to be installed, Damen can pare these estimates down and get more onboard for less. So, while the guaranteed elevated load of the 76m long NG2500X is 1,300t, \u201cby looking at the complete structure we\u2019ve reduced the lightship weight\u201d says Utzon \u201cgiving it more capacity\u201d. A quarter more in fact: the resulting DG Jack 6136P can lift as much as 1,600t.<\/p>\n There are, it seems, other varieties of jack-up to be explored. Although he won\u2019t say too much at present, Edwin van Leeuwen of Ulstein Design and Solutions explains that despite the steep increase in component sizes \u201cthere\u2019s a certain limit to what can be achieved by simply scaling up a conventional design\u201d he says, hinting heavily at the \u2018unconventional\u2019 and explains the company is developing a very new idea with SeaOwls BV. But there\u2019s another issue that mitigates against innovation: \u201cAt present vessels are on a day rate – so you finish the job two months early and there goes your income. It means we will soon have to adapt the contracts to support better efficiency,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Despite this, it may be tempting to assume that a jack-up could be utilised for everything as they have \u201creal flexibility\u201d says Alun Roberts – but this is where the water gets muddied.<\/p>\n \u201cThe key words now are \u2018cost reduction\u2019, we have to be smarter and cheaper than we have been,\u201d says Pim Nelemans. Floating assets that can move between locations, using dynamic positioning to hold station, have a distinct advantage when it comes to deeper water or the repetitive work associated with large wind projects. Firstly there\u2019s no restriction on depth and secondly no waiting for the legs to extend or retract \u2013 a slow business complicated by the need to make sure exactly what the feet will be treading on.<\/p>\n However, Nelemans explains that given the overcapacity of construction vessels in the market, owners still need to offer something extra \u2013 and in the case of Boskalis\u2019 F3000 conversion, this \u2018extra\u2019 is deck space.<\/p>\n DOUBLING WORKLOAD<\/strong><\/p>\n The vessel is 216m long and 43m wide and will allow for a free deck space of 173m by 43m. Despite expanding the accommodation to three times the size \u2013 from 50 to 150 \u2013 there\u2019s still a big clear working area of around 6,500m2 with a 3000t Huisman crane located centrally amidships \u201cso the reach can cover the whole deck\u201d he adds. \u201cThe big advantage is while most other lift vessels are limited to take two or three jackets or monopiles, we can double this.\u201d Combine that with a transit speed of between 11 and 12 knots and an operator will be seeing significantly more time on site and less on pickup runs.<\/p>\n Originally a 2011 Dockwise vessel it was chosen partly because it already had a modern diesel-electric layout, it being much harder work to reconfigure a shaft drive to DP. \u201cHowever we had to put in some additional power and thrusters to support the dynamic positioning\u201d he explains: this can be used on its own or work alongside a new eight-point mooring system to stop the ship weathervaning. Overall, is should be able to work up to 2.5m significant wave heights \u201cdepending on wind and so on\u201d.<\/p>\n These changes demand a fair amount of room so several the original semisubmersible ballasting tanks are giving way to the requirements of a hefty pair of 7.5MW Rolls-Royce engines – giving a total installed power of around 25MW – as well as the space associated with four large 3.5MW Rolls-Royce thrusters. And because the F3000 will have a fair amount of load to carry, the other ballasting tanks must be modified for the new, faster trim requirements.<\/p>\n Wind isn\u2019t the only driving force behind the F3000: there\u2019s the decommissioning market too.<\/p>\n Here the large deck space yields another advantage: \u201cWe could handle some of the smaller topsides, but the main point is that we are not restricted by barges taking the old rig sections away as we can load them onto our own deck. That\u2019s the freedom,\u201d says Nelemans.<\/p>\n Unfortunately as Julian Manning of Baker Hughes explains at OEEC2016, as far as the decom market is concerned although the demands will start to rise next year, it won\u2019t be steady. He says forecasts show activities clustered into \u201cdistinct peaks… with a three-year gap between each one\u201d: this presents a big problem as a supply chain simply can\u2019t sustain a business with three year lulls.<\/p>\n So it\u2019s a happy coincidence that most decom work is not to a fixed-to-the-wall plan and maybe there\u2019s room to slot it in around the repetitive, time-sensitive wind installation requirements \u2013 or at least this is what Nelemans hopes \u201cbecause if we can determine the schedule, then the costs come down\u201d. A potential win-win for everyone.<\/p>\n BIGGEST IN CLASS<\/strong><\/p>\n Going for \u2018big is best\u2019 and dwarfing all others is Heerema\u2019s huge semi-sub crane vessel Sleipnir; with a 220m length and at 102m beam it is almost half as wide as it is long. Remarkably, it is also being designed with no less than a dozen 8MW engines giving it a grand total of 96MW of installed power \u2013 this is for the benefit of the two bow-mounted 10,000t cranes as much as its dynamic positioning (Class III) system.<\/p>\n This means it has both the O&G decom and installation markets in its sights: it can both pick up and drop in entire jackets, foundations and topsides in one hit.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not only the scale of the engines that make it interesting: they are also dual fuel, adhering to the company\u2019s green agenda. However Sipke Schuurmans of Heerema explains there was concern that this kind of dual fuel engine wouldn\u2019t cope with the large fluctuations in the onboard power demand, especially when combined with very rough sea conditions. So different candidates were put through their paces on a test rig: \u201cThey had to ramp up to 3.8MW in 20 seconds to simulate a big wind shift, and to satisfy the lift case they had to get up to 2.5MW in 5 seconds while keeping the output in a narrow frequency band.\u201d<\/p>\n Interestingly, he says \u201cthey all complied\u201d.<\/p>\n Feeding these giants are eight, vertical type C-type tanks sitting in pairs, held within four of the vessel\u2019s eight column structures. These were chosen over other varieties as they allow pressure to build up to approximately 6bar, providing more operational flexibility.<\/p>\n As for LNG market conditions, Schuurmans admits that although \u201cthings have changed a bit from back in 2013\u201d when the vessel was conceived, \u201clonger term we have a strong belief that LNG will be the future\u201d adding that there\u2019s a downward force on LNG pricing with more streams being added in the near future; on the other hand MGO in 2020 may well fall foul of limited refining capacity \u201cso we think LNG will have a price advantage in the long term\u201d.<\/p>\n There is another element to consider: big ships like Sleipnir and the older Thialf are semisubmersibles so they simply settle themselves down into the water to minimise movement… they don’t rely on motion compensated handling equipment for installation activities. However, the smaller F3000 doesn\u2019t have the bulk and anyway has given up this characteristic in favour of DP so, in case of installing monopiles, it is going to use motion compensated handling kit \u2013 for example an MC gripper frame – to keep its load in position for installation.<\/p>\n Motion compensation may be the way that smaller vessels might make up some ground: while they can\u2019t carry as much, they could do more journeys.<\/p>\n CHANGING MINDSETS<\/strong><\/p>\n Although it\u2019s taken a while, \u201cthere\u2019s a mindset change happening\u201d, says Herman Groot Beumer of Barge Master. He adds: \u201cYou see more attention being paid to motion compensated systems now \u2013 because it means you can continue working in different sea states, without that you can be limited to a few months of the year. The effect is a reduction of 30% to 50% on the total cost of an operation.\u201d<\/p>\n The Barge Master comes in a couple of different flavours: there\u2019s a complete gangway and cargo transfer device \u2013 the system used on Vroon\u2019s walk-to-work VOS Start – a motion compensated offshore crane operating on the Kroonborg (KNVTS Ship of the Year 2015) and a six-cylinder actuated, 700-tonne platform which can be used as a flexible base for various offshore operations. The model at the show simulated 3m waves, and it was tempting to balance a cup of tea on the motionless plate it presented \u2013 just to prove the point.<\/p>\n However, the story isn\u2019t straightforward and there are some interesting alternatives that may prove game changers.<\/p>\n One innovation \u2013 affectionately known as \u2018Twisties\u2019 \u2013 could alter the dynamic. These, say Chris Garrett of DNV GL, aim at stopping the big installation vessels wasting time and money cycling in and out of port, instead allowing faster feeder vessels to supply them. According to him, this means the installation ship wouldn\u2019t even have to pause while being loaded from behind.<\/p>\n The reason it hasn\u2019t been done before is because vessel-to-vessel offshore lifts \u201care an absolute nightmare\u201d he explains, falling under very strict regulations that limit operations to moderate wind speeds; all well and good in other circumstances, but these are windfarms after all, and the \u2018acceptable\u2019 conditions are restricted to a few summer months.<\/p>\n By contrast, the DNV GL concept allows for a roll-on roll-off deployment between jackups: Twisties (named after twistlocks, the elements that hold them in place) provide a modular, lock together frame with adaptors to allow for several different foundations and\/or towers to be moved across a retractable bridge on the back of SPMTs.<\/p>\n More to the point, this could turn back the clock as \u201cpotentially smaller but still capable mid-range jack-ups can be used as they won\u2019t need the carrying capacity,\u201d explains Garrett. \u201cThe feeders can keep them supplied, without the WTIV\u2019s crane stopping operation.\u201d<\/p>\n FLOATING WINDFARMS<\/strong><\/p>\n The entrance of floating windfarms could also make a difference: \u201cYou could create the whole thing in one go at or close to the quayside and tow it out into position,\u201d says Alun Roberts, altering the entire scope of work.<\/p>\n While he says at present floating turbines are \u201chorrendously expensive… about 40% more than current windfarms\u201d he also points out that in certain places around Japan where the demand is, there\u2019s simply no choice, the shelf drops away too steeply to install foundations on the sea bed itself. Given these drivers, it may be possible to get a batch process running that would lead to economies of scale, and at this point they might be cheap enough \u201cto compete with current technology\u201d.<\/p>\n Floating turbines may, he adds, also provide a method for the US to avoid struggling with the Jones Act: designed to stop foreign vessels trading along the US coast it also, strangely, stops foreign vessels transiting between foundations.<\/p>\n Dutch company TenneT is preparing for a mammoth offshore energy hub. The company says its \u2018Wind-connector\u2019 island will add to the region\u2019s overall efficiency by tying together many wind farms: not only will it absorb incoming power surges it could more evenly distribute energy demand around the North Sea and facilitate an international powertrade. This element has been on the cards for a while: an integrated offshore transmission grid is also being pursued by the \u2018PROgress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks\u2019 (PROMOTioN) project explains Andreas Wagner of the Offshore Wind Energy Foundation.<\/p>\n According to Wagner, something like the TenneT artificial island may also have an impact on support roles as it will be big enough to act as a base, potentially shortening the duty cycles of both installation and maintenance vessels – and possibly changing the size and shape of these vessels once again.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There\u2019s a contradiction at the heart of the wind industry: its upward trajectory will add to the downward pressure on costs. But is the industry ready to respond? Stevie Knight asks around at Offshore Energy 16.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":4192,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"sponsor":[],"class_list":["post-4191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4191\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4192"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4191"},{"taxonomy":"sponsor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorship.com\/propulsion-and-future-fuels-conference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/sponsor?post=4191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}