Sponsored by

Diamond Sponsor Supported by Created and produced by

Benefits of offshore-based maintenance strategies
Eeke Mast, PhD, Senior consultant Wind

DNV GL - Renewables Advisory

23 October 2018

2 DNV GL © 24 October 2018 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Introduction: main access methodologies

Crew Transfer Vessel (Wind farm service vessel) Helicopter Service Operations Vessel

3 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Introduction: Today’s presentation

 Offshore wind developments

– Further away from shore, at more onerous conditions
– More options available; more (purpose-built) vessels
on the market
– Choosing your optimal site specific O&M strategy

 Application and (dis)advantages of access strategies

– Offshore-based strategies: Service Operations Vessels (SOV)
 Modelling examples with in-house O&M simulation tool O2M
 Conclusions on the selection of an offshore-based strategy

4 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

An indicative, non-exhaustive list of offshore wind projects utilising SOVs
Total
Project No. Of capacity Distance to
Loc. Start WTGs [MW] shore [km] Distance to port Vessel Owner Operator Term
Baltic 2 DE 2015 80 288 32 Froude Esvagt Siemens 10 year
Butendiek DE 2015 80 288 53 Faraday Esvagt 10 year
Dudgeon UK 2016 67 402 32 Njord Esvagt 5 years
Nobelwind & Belwind
BE 2017 105 330 47 Mercator Esvagt MHI Vestas 10 years
1
Sandbank DE 2017 72 288 90 Windea Leibniz BS-Offshore/ICBC Siemens
Veja Mate DE 2017 67 402 95 SOV plus heli Siemens
Race Bank UK 2018 91 573.3 27 70 Edda Passat Østensjø Rederi Ørsted 5 years
Ocean Breeze
Bard Offshore 1 DE 2018 80 400 100 Acta Auriga Acta Marine 2 year (O&M)
Energy
Gemini NL 2018 150 600 85 Windea La Cour BS-Offshore/ICBC Siemens 15 years
Borkum Riffgrund 1
and 2 & Gode Wind DE 2018 231 1344 40-57 Salt SOV LDA Ørsted
1&2
Deutsche Bucht DE 2019 31 252 118 SOV MHI Vestas 15 years

Hohe See & Albatros DE 2019 87 609 95 Bibby WM Horizon EnBW Siemens 10 years
Horn Sea Project
174 1218 120 Edda Mistral Østensjø Rederi Ørsted 5 years
One UK 2020
Borssele 3 & 4 NL 2020 77 731.5 22 60 SOV 146 & 149 Esvagt MHI-Vestas 15 years
Triton Knoll UK 2020 90 855 33 60 SOV 146 & 149 Esvagt MHI-Vestas
5 DNV GL © 24 October 2018
SOVs receiving more attention as we move further off coast with larger farms

Number of wind turbines Distance to coast

300 140

Distance to coast [km]

120
Number of WTGs [#]

250

100
200
80
150
60
100
40

50 20

0 0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Size bubble represents individual capacity Size bubble depicts total capacity

 Non-exhaustive list of offshore wind projects: SOVs since 2015, in BE, DE, DK, NL;
 SOVs used for projects of > 60 WTGs, one exception for project with 8 MW WTGs
 Not only farshore project, although distance to coast is not distance to port!

6 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

(Dis-)advantages of the SOV versus other access strategies
Crew transfer Wind farm service Helicopter Service Operations
Vessel vessel Vessel
Vessels

Accessibility - - + +
(Hs limit 1-1.5 m, (Hs limit 1.75 – 2.0, (wind 20 m/s, visibility (appr. 2.5 m Hs limit)
wind 15 m/s) wind 15 m/s) >6km, Hs ~ ditching)
Transit time - - + +
(20-25 knots, limits (20-40 knots, shorter (110-135 knots) (offshore-based,
distance) weather window CTV) reduced transit times)
Experience + - - Relatively new - (Relatively new,
New methodologies methodologies deeper waters)
Operational risk - 0 - +
Operational costs + + - -

Storage - - - (Space & weight +

constraints) (Almost all spares
onsite)

7 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Improve your accessibility with the SOV to improve your availability

 Accessibility for 12 hours weather window Accessibility in Borssele type of conditions – 12 hours
120%

 Similar to Borssele conditions (Hs 1.26 m):

100%
– 1.5 m average 66% accessibility
– 2.0 m average 83% accessibility 80%

– 2.5 m average 92% accessibility!

60%

40%

20%

0%
jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

1.25 m Hs 1.5 m Hs 2 m Hs 2.5 m Hs

8 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

 O2M simulations: balancing direct costs and lost revenue

 Optimise the O&M costs: Simulations of multiple scenarios to identify optimum

Direct Costs

Lost Production Costs

Operating cost

Total Cost = Direct Costs + Lost Production Costs

Optimal solution

Availability

9 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Modelling Approach
YEAR 6
Total Opportunity
YEARCost
6 Breakdown
Total Opportunity Cost Breakdown
Failure Rates and maintenance reqs £40

Millions
£40
£35

Millions
Project Planning Wind Balance of
£35
£30
£30
£25 Annual Lost Revenue
Turbines Plant £25
Project
£20 Annual Lost Revenue
£20
£15
Annual Direct Cost
Characteristics £15
£10 Annual Direct Cost
£10
£5
£5
£0
O&M Total Opportunity Cost
£0
Time-domain Simulations O&M Total Opportunity Cost

Strategic YEAR 6 Direct Costs

Monte Carlo Engine Helicopter YEAR 6 Direct Costs

Options Helicopter
Advanced Workboat
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%

(100 years of operations) Advanced

MothershipWorkboat
(incl.
daughtercrafts costs) 15%
1%
0%
0%
19%
Mothership
Workboats (incl.
daughtercrafts costs) 15% 19%
Workboats
Crane barge (Jack-Up)
11%
Crane barge (Jack-Up)

Unit cost
Technicians
11% WF BALANCE OF PLANT COST BREAKDOWN
19%
Technicians 9.0
Parts & Consumables

assumptions
8.0 19%

Site Conditions and Constraints

Parts & Consumables
Onshore Base Support & Staff 20% 7.0

Onshore 6.0
InsuranceBase Support & Staff 20% 15%

£M / annum
5.0
Insurance 15%
Miscellaneous 4.0

Metocean Miscellaneous 3.0

Constraints
2.0

Climate
1.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Year
BoP Unscheduled Maint. Direct Costs BoP Scheduled Maint. Direct Costs
Operator Profit & Risk Margin BoP Lost Prodution Costs

10 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Modelling 2 cases
1 ‘Borssele’ 2 ‘Boven de Wadden’

Hs 1.26 1.68 m 2
Distance 35 nm 50 nm
WTG 94 x 8.0 MW
Total capacity 750 MW
Revenue Constant over lifetime at 55 EUR/MWh
BoP availability 99% constant
Logistics costs • Vessels incl. helicopter and Jack Up,
• Technicians, parts and consumables,
• WTG energy consumption and
• O&M facilities and staff.

1
 Costs estimated exclude:
– BOP and transmission assets O&M, environmental surveys,
insurance, guard vessels as well as leases and transmission
charges.

11 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Modelling 2 cases: access strategies selected

Crew transfer Crew transfer CTVs + heli Increased Hs SOV + CTV

vessel 1.5 m vessel 1.75m limit (SES)
CTV Hs Limit 1.5 m 1.75 m 1.5 m /1.75 m 2.0 m 1.5 / 1.75m

Other Hs limits - - Heli 5.5 m - SOV 2.5 m,

DC 1.0 / 1.25 m
Transit 20 knots 20 knots 20 knots 35 knots 13 knots/ 20 knots

Number of vessels Optimised Optimised Optimised, Optimised 1 SOV, 1 DC, 1 CTV

1 heli

12 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Case 1: ‘Borssele’, 94 x 8 MW WTG, at 35 nm DTP, 1.26 m Hs

60 100%

98%
50

Availability [%]
96%
Cost [mln EUR]

94%
40
92%

30 90%

88%
20
86%

84%
10
82%

0 80%
CTVs Hs 1.50 m CTVs Hs 1.75 m CTVs Hs 1.50 m + SES Hs 2.00 m SOV + CTV 1.50 m
Heli
Direct cost Lost revenue Availability

13 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Case 2: ‘Boven de Wadden’, 94 x 8MW WTGs, at 50 nm DTP, 1.68m Hs

70 100%

98%
60
96%
Cost [mln EUR]

Availability [%]
50 94%

92%
40
90%
30
88%

20 86%

84%
10
82%

0 80%
CTVs Hs 1.50 m CTVs Hs 1.75 m CTVs Hs 1.50 m + SES Hs 2.00 m SOV + CTV 1.50 m
Heli
Direct cost Lost revenue Availability

14 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Conclusions on selecting an offshore-based strategy

 SOVs offer:
– High accessibility and therefore high availability
– Reduced transit times, working at night, storage of spares
– Potential reduction of number of full-time employed technicians (more efficient
use of resources and more weather windows) & working environment

 However, novel vessel design could outperform SOVs,

 Optimal access strategy depends on
– Wind farm: Number of turbines serviced, distance to port
– Relative costs (vessel rates & fuel, revenue)
– Climate conditions (impact accessibility)

 Selection of an SOV can also rely on

– Foreseen asset sharing over several wind farms in the same region
– Higher foreseen electricity prices or (corporate) PPAs
– Risk attitude

15 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Thank you for your attention

Eeke Mast (NL) Fernando Sevilla Montoya (UK)

Eeke.Mast@dnvgl.com Fernando.Sevilla@dnvgl.com

www.dnvgl.com

The trademarks DNV GL®, the Horizon Graphic and Det Norske Veritas®
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER are the properties of companies in the Det Norske Veritas group. All rights reserved

16 DNV GL © 24 October 2018

Simulations breakdown

Available choices

WoW + Transit time

WoW + Transit time + Lead time Vessel

17 DNV GL © 24 October 2018