The document presents a commercial study comparing the cost-effectiveness of various offshore wind foundation technologies, particularly focusing on new designs such as mono-suction bucket and crane-free gravity foundations. It highlights that new foundation designs can reduce material costs by up to 24% and installation costs by approximately 50% compared to conventional methods, especially for larger turbines and deeper installations. The analysis indicates a need for innovative solutions in the offshore wind sector to meet increasing demand and cost reduction goals by 2020.

1. www.quartzco.com
COPENHAGEN
Ryesgade 3A
2200 Copenhagen N
Denmark
T: +45 33 17 00 00
OSLO
Wergelandsveien 21
0167 Oslo
Norway
T: +47 22 59 36 00
STOCKHOLM
Birger Jarlsgatan 7
111 45 Stockholm
Sweden
T: +46 (0)8 614 19 00
www.mecintelligence.com
INDIA
112, Udyog Vihar Phase 4
122015 Gurgaon
Haryana, India
T: +91124 480 2700
DENMARK
Nordre Fasanvej 113, 2
2000 Frederiksberg
Copenhagen, Denmark
T: +45 3543 3277
Month day, year
Foundations for larger & deeper offshore wind
Which foundation type is cost effective for larger turbines and increasingly complex projects?
A commercial study comparing price for various offshore wind foundation technologies
February 2015

2. 2
– Currently there are 43 installation vessels suitable for offshore wind construction in EU; daily rate ranges between EUR 70k to
290k
– The current vessel days are just enough to meet the demand from conventional foundations
– In <800 tonne lifting category, new foundations eliminate the need for higher capacity vessel to meet the increase
– In, 800-1200 tonne lifting category, new foundation adoption increases the vessel oversupply by 141% percent by 2020
– In >1200 tonne lifting category, new foundations increase the vessel oversupply by 32% percent by 2020
New foundation
designs could
lead to major
oversupply in the
vessels market
II
New foundation designs could be cost effective as compared to conventional designs and also
reduce vessel demand for construction
Source: MEC+ analysis
SUMMARY
– Foundation cost are primary driven by Material and installation costs with 65-85 % share of the total cost and have been
considered in this study
– New foundation designs have lower costs as turbines become larger and installed in deeper sea
– For 6 MW, new foundations are ~4-20% lower in material cost when compared to monopiles & jackets while for turbine sizes 8
MW and larger, new designs reduce the cost by ~21-24%
– Installation cost does not vary much in comparison to material costs, but can be a bottleneck in timely execution of the OW
farm. New foundation designs can reduce the installation cost by ~50% as compared to the conventional designs
– Mono-suction bucket is cost effective for 4-6 MW turbine size at lower to medium depths, while CraneFree Gravity is most
suitable for even larger turbines at medium to larger depths
– Cost reduction potential of 5-15% is observed for foundations at select 5 farms in Europe. However, developers need to manage
risk and other associated premium costs with appropriate contracting
New foundation
designs could be
10 percent to 30
percent cheaper
as compared to
conventional
designs
I

3. 3
Around 5600 turbines are expected to be
installed by 2020
..resulting in cumulative capacity of 27 GW
expected to start construction by 2020
Innovation is being driven to reduce the high cost of energy from offshore wind planned in EU
INTRODUCTION
2,9
2019
5,9
2018
7,9
2017
5,5
2016
4,8
2015
1,3
2020
OW annual capacity in GW*
654
954
286
20202019
1.050
2018
1.493
2017
1.245
20162015
No. Of Foundations
* Based on the construction start year of the farms
Source: Windpower database, News articles, MEC+ analysis
4-6 MW 6-8 MW
Dominating Turbine Sizes
..the offshore wind energy industry
needs to attract between €90 bn. and
€123 bn. by 2020 to meet its
deployment targets, increasing its
installed capacity from 6 GW in mid-
2013 to 40 GW….
EWEA, 2013
..supply chain is innovating to reduce
costs and deliver a competitive product
for UK and international
markets….costs can be reduced to
around £100/ MWh for a project
financed in 2020…. main areas of cost
reduction are larger turbines, supply
chain competition, better design and
economies of scale,…risk reduction
and lower costs of capital..
UK Trade & Investment, 2014
Large investment is planned in OW…
1.8 10 6.3 5.6 2.5 2.8
XX Contracted capacity in the year
Expected annual capacity to start construction by
2020

4. 4
New foundation designs claim to reduce the cost of foundation and also of the entire offshore
windfarm
* Others include risks, insurances, noise mitigation, sea fastening, onshore logistics etc.
Source: IRENA 2012, MEC+ Analysis
LOW MATERIAL COSTS
• Lesser quantity of materials
• Use of Cheaper Material
1
OTHER ADVANTAGES
• Noise mitigation regulations compliance
• Easier decommissioning
• Reusable designs
3
INSTALLATION COSTS
• Less installation time
• No use of expensive installation vessels
2
INTRODUCTION
21%
18%
22%
100%
Wind
Turbine
Foundation
Grid
Connection
Planning &
Miscellaneous
Cost breakup of
OW Installation
39%
Others
100%
Cost Breakup of
OW Foundation
Installation
Cost
Material
Cost
100
15-20%
15-25%
50-60%
Foundations are a large
investment on a farm level
Costs are divided into three
major components
New designs are being offered in the market which
lower the cost

5. 5
Three new designs have been considered to compare their cost effectiveness against the
conventional monopiles and jackets
Jacket
CraneFree Gravity
(CFG)
Suction Bucket Jacket
(SBJ)
Mono Suction Bucket
(MSB)
Source: Windpower.net, Company websites, News articles, MEC+ analysis
Monopile
Structural Design Column of steel
Steel lattice frame
with piles
Concrete base
with steel column
Steel lattice with
bucket in bottom
Steel bucket with
column on top
• London Array, UK
• Horn Rev I, DK
• Nordsee One, DE
• Egmond aan Zee, NL
Prototype at:
• Borkum Riffgrund 1
• Ormonde, UK
• Alpha Ventus, DE
• Thronton Bank, BE
• Beatrice, UK
Prototype at:
• Fecamp, FR
Prototype at:
• Dogger Bank, UK
• Frederikshavn, DKProminent Projects
The three new innovative designs considered for the analysis, benchmark their two main advantages:
• Material cost effectiveness
• Alternative installation techniques and cost savings
INTRODUCTION
• Easier to fabricate
• Cutting and Rolling of
steel
• Complex design,
difficult to fabricate
• Requires intensive
welding at joints
• Difficult to fabricate
• Requires extensive
welding at joints
• Requires fabrication
yard to be setup at port
for mass production
• Intricate design but
relatively easier to
fabricate due to
symmetrical design
Fabrication
• Installation through
OW construction
vessels with significant
lifting capabilities
• Requires drilling/pilling,
grouting, scour
protection
• Installation through
OW construction
vessels with significant
lifting capabilities
• Requires drilling/piling,
grouting, scour
protection
• Requires OW
construction vessels
with significant lifting
capabilities
• Installation through
suction action of three
suction pumps working
in tandem
• Installation through
Tugboats and position
assisting OW vessels
• Requires sand
ballasting, scour
protection
• Installation through
Tugboats, OW
construction vessels;
through specialized
suction pumpInstallation
Commercial Designs New Designs

6. 6
Material and installation costs are the largest cost constituents with 65-85 % share of the total cost
and have been considered in this study
Indicative cost breakup of a typical OW foundation
Note: Cost shares vary in a broad range due to varying foundation design, risks and insurances based on local industries experience, and contracting models
* Game changers refers to large cost shares which have potential to change the COST based analysis
Source: MEC+ analysis
Material used to
manufacture the
foundation, e.g.
• Different types of
steel
• Concrete
• Others
Installation at
offshore site using
• Installation
vessels
• Drilling/pilling/
suction pumps,
• Sand ballasting,
Grouting, Scour
protection
• Others
• Noise mitigation
• Onshore logistics
• Sea-fastening
• Risk premiums
• Insurances
• Profit margins
Out of Scope
Depend on market factors, driven by
local needs
Material Cost
50-60%
Total
100%
15-25%
Installation Cost Other costs Market Costs
5%
15-20%
INTRODUCTION
In Scope
Depend on design
Includes costs that are
due to design advantages
but are not ‘game
changer’* in light of
comparisons
• Noise mitigation
• Decommissioning

7. 7
Material cost depends upon the quantities and unit prices of variable types of materials
used in the foundations
Source: Scholar articles and thesis from various research institutions, Industry expert inputs, foundation manufacturers, MEC+ analysis
Monopile,
Transition
piece
-4 pre-piles Top
cylindrical
structure, bottom
skirt
Top
shaft
Primary Steel
- Jacket body,
3 suction
buckets
Jacket body,
Transition
piece
- Bottom bucket,
middle inter-
connecting lid
Higher Grade
Primary Steel
Boat-
landing, J-
tubes, platforms
etc.
Boat
landing, J-
tubes, platforms
etc.
Boat
landing, J-
tubes, platforms
etc.
Boat
landing, J-
tubes, platforms
etc.
Boat
landing, J-
tubes, platforms
etc.
Secondary Steel
- -- Bottom
cement
gravity structure
-
Concrete
- -- Sand
ballasting
material: 62.500
EUR/foundation
-
Miscellaneous
1.600
3.200-4.500
7.800
170
MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS
Low
High
Jacket
CraneFree
Gravity (CFG)
Suction Bucket
Jacket (SBJ)
Mono Suction
Bucket (MSB)Monopile
Unit Rate
(EUR per tonne)
Relative
quantity used
Materials
Utilisation in designMaterial Cost

8. 8
The quantity of material used in foundation is driven mainly by the depth of the seabed and turbine
size
• Material cost has been
analyzed as a variation of the
depth of the seabed and
turbine size
• Factors like physical conditions
of the site have been
considered too, though
affecting the cost marginally
10 20 30 40 50 60
2.500
0
5.000
10 20 30 40 50 60
3.000
0
Depth of the seabed
Turbine Size
Others
• Physical condition e.g.
Seabed, Weather
• No. Of Foundations
• Physical soil conditions have very little effect
on the weight of the foundation
• No. Of foundations contribute only as the
economy of scale factor and are highly
variable according to the contracting model
Weight comparison of the foundation types
Tonne
MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS
SBJ
Monopile (8 MW)
Jacket (6 MW)
MSB
Jacket (8 MW)
Monopile (6 MW)
CFG
Various factors affect the weight
of the foundation and in turn the
material cost

9. 9
For 6 MW, new foundations have ~4-20% lower material cost when compared to monopiles &
jackets
Steel quantity* for different foundation designs for 6 MW
Tonnes
Note: CFG uses steel in upper cone, cylindrical tower and reinforced bars for concrete cone. The steel quantity graph excludes the reinforced bars. Steel tonnage for CFG not
available for >4MW turbine sizes;
* Monopile’s steel tonnage includes monopile, TP and secondary structures; Jacket includes lattice structure, TP, pre-piles, secondary structure; MSB includes bucket/skirt,
lid, shaft, secondary structure; SBJ includes 3 buckets, lattice structure, secondary structure
Source: MEC+ analysis
Depth (in m)
10 20 30 40 50 60
0
3.000
2.000
1.000
Tonnes
JacketMonopile SBJMSB
10 20 30 40 50 60
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-20%
-4%
EUR mil.
Total material cost for different foundation designs for 6 MW
Euro millions per foundation
SBJMSBCFGJacketMonopile
MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS
Introduction of
XL/XXL monopiles
By weight, the new designs are similar to monopiles and jackets (up
to 30 m)…
..While the cost reflects a different trend due to variable mix of
material component

10. 10
For turbine sizes 8 MW and larger, new designs reduce the cost by ~21-24%
Note: CFG uses steel in upper cone, cylindrical tower and reinforced bars for concrete cone. The steel quantity graph excludes the reinforced bars. Steel tonnage for CFG not
available for >4MW turbine sizes;
* Monopile’s steel tonnage includes monopile, TP and secondary structures; Jacket includes lattice structure, TP, pre-piles, secondary structure; MSB includes bucket/skirt,
lid, shaft, secondary structure; SBJ includes 3 buckets, lattice structure, secondary structure
Source: MEC+ analysis
Steel quantity* for different foundation designs for 8 MW
Tonnes
Total material cost for different foundation design for 8 MW
Euro millions per foundation
Depth (in m)
10 20 30 40 50 60
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
Tonnes
SBJMSBJacketMonopile
10 20 30 40 50 60
5
4
3
2
1
7
6
0
-21%
-24%
EUR mil.
SBJMSBCFGJacketMonopile
MATERIAL COST ANALYSIS
Introduction of
XL/XXL monopiles
Even with larger turbine to support, new designs have steadier
weight trends, while monopile weight increases exponentially..
…which is reflected in material cost as new designs could be cost
effective

11. 11
Installation cost depends on the various processes, unique to each foundation design,
affecting its installation duration and cost
* Days are estimated based on assumption that there are no delays like supply chain delays, unavailability of vessels/boats
Source: Seatower, Universal foundations, Dong Energy, DTU, MEC+ analysis
Brief description on installation concept and number of days required
• New foundation
designs can be
installed in 1-3 days-
decreasing the total
time for installation of
foundations
• The OW farm can
therefore be installed
in shorter
construction
schedules saving cost
and faster generation
of revenues
Total Days
Installation Process
Duration
Cost
INSTALLATION COST ANALYSIS
Pilling
Upending/
Lowering
Drilling GroutingSuction
Sand
Ballasting
Scour
Protection

















2-3
2-3*
4-6
1-2*
1-2*
Stability Ensuring Process
High
Low
 Required

12. 12
Installation cost do not vary much as compared to the material cost, but can be a bottleneck in timely
execution of the OW farm
• Installation cost is a minor factor
approx. 5- 25 % of the material
cost for a typical** farm
configurations
• Therefore, its minor variation
does not affect the cost trend
obtained from material cost
• However, farm construction
duration and installation cost are
significantly affected by the
vessel availability in market
necessitating easier installation
concept
Installation cost range compared to material costs
for a single foundation for variable configurations*
* Configuration used for determining cost: Turbine size= 6 & 8 MW, Depth= 0 to 60 m, Distance= 0 to 90 km, Seabed= soft for pilling & rocky for drilling, Wind farm size = 50-100
** Configuration for calculating typical cost: Turbine size= 6 MW, Depth= 30 m, Distance= 0 -30 km Seabed= soft, Wind farm size = 50-100
Source: MEC+ analysis
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
0,5
2,5
1,5
3,5
4,5
Euro millions
per foundation
SBJMSBCFGJacketMonopile
Installation cost has been estimated
based on the variation across
following factors
• Installation Concepts-
– Feeder concept- transit through
barges or floating pulled by
tugboats and/or installation via
installation vessel
– Installation vessels for end to end
installation
• Turbine size & depth of the seabed
determining the foundation weight,
crane capacity, and therefore vessel
day-rate
• No. of days of foundation
installation
• Seabed type determining the need
for pilling or drilling
• Distance from the shore
determining transit time
INSTALLATION COST ANALYSIS
Typical** Material Cost for 6 MW
Installation* cost range

13. 13
New foundation designs can reduce the installation cost by ~50% as compared to the conventional
designs
Indicative installation cost in for different foundation types*
Euro millions per Foundation
* All calculations done for base case configuration (Turbine size = 6MW, Depth = 30 m, Distance = 0-30 km, Sea Type = North Sea, Wind farm size = 50-100, Seabed = Soft)
Source: MEC+ analysis
0,31
MSB CFG
0,56
MonopileJacket
0,42
0,33
0,27
SBJ
EUR mil
0,19
(50%)
INSTALLATION COST ANALYSIS
Average for
conventional designs
Average for new
designs
New foundations have drastically lower
installation cost mainly due to the
cumulative effect of
− Less number of installation days
− Less expensive vessels
corresponding to lower lifting
capacity required or not needed at
all

14. 14
Cumulative cost of material and installation indicates that new foundations could be a more cost
effective solution than traditional designs for higher turbine sizes and greater depths
10 20 30 40 50 60
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
EUR mil.
6 MW 8 MW
Depth (in m)
• For a 6 MW turbine, CFG and MSB would offer cost advantage than the conventional Monopile and Jacket foundations at depths > 30m
• CFG, a gravity based design could potentially be the most economical foundation design at all depths for turbine sizes > 6MW
Total cost for different foundation types*
Euro Millions / foundation
Note: *All calculations done for base case configuration (Distance = 0-30 km, Sea Type = North Sea, Wind farm size = 50-100, Seabed = Soft)
Source: MEC+ analysis
10 20 30 40 50 60
4
3
2
1
0
7
6
5
EUR mil.
SBJMSBCFGJacketMonopile
COST ANALYSIS

15. 15
Most cost effective offshore wind foundations across different project configurations
Mono-suction bucket is cost effective for 4-6 MW turbine size at lower to
medium depths, while CraneFree Gravity is most suitable for even larger
turbines at medium to larger depths
Note: 1. Cost includes mainly material cost, seabed preparation costs, installation costs. However, cost doesn’t include EPC margins, profits, insurance costs, manpower expenses,
transportation costs incurred from manufacturing location to the port
2. CFG is not applicable for depth <15 m, as the structure would be too light to be stable at lower depths
3. All calculations done for base case configuration (Distance = 0-30 KM, Sea Type = North Sea, Wind farm size = 50 - 100, Seabed = Soft)
* The cost reduction potential has been estimated based on the comparison of the lowest cost design to the monopile cost for depths <30 m and with jacket cost for
depths >30 m
Cost Reduction* Potential
10MW8MW6MW4MW
10 m 20 m 60 m50 m40 m30 m
Depth
Turbinesize
COST EFFECTIVE FOUNDATION
05-10%
10-15%
15-20%
20-25%
>25
Figure in the grid depicts the lowest cost foundation (within 10% error margin)

16. 16
Inch Cape, United Kingdom
Seabed: Soft
No. of turbines: 213
Distance: 22 KM
Turbine size: 5 MW
Average depth: 47,5
m (40 – 55 m)
SBJ 5,7
MSB 4,2
CFG 3,6
J 4,3
M 4,7
Transport and Installation
Seabed Prep
Material
Baltic Blue C, Estonia*
Seabed: Rocky
No. of turbines: 60
Distance: 6,7 KM
Turbine size: 7 MW
Average depth: 30 m
(24 - 36 m)
SBJ 0,0
MSB 0,0
CFG 3,4
J 4,0
M 4,6
Wikinger, Germany
Seabed: Soft
No. of turbines: 70
Distance: 35 KM
Turbine size: 6 MW
Average depth: 35m
(25 - 45 m)
SBJ 4,7
MSB 2,8
CFG 3,3
J 3,6
M 3,4
Oost Friesland, Netherlands
Seabed: Soft
No. of turbines: 90-150
Distance: 23 KM
Turbine size: 4 MW
Average depth: 20 m
SBJ 3,8
MSB 2,3
CFG 2,9
J 2,8
M 2,7
Saint-Nazaire, France
Seabed: Medium
No. of turbines: 80
Distance: 12 KM
Turbine size: 6 MW
Average depth: 17,5
m
4,3
MSB
SBJ
2,6
CFG 3,1
J 3,2
M 3,0
Different foundations will be attractive for different farm configurations. Cost simulation results for some upcoming OW farms in Europe are presented below
Total cost per foundation (EUR Millions)
EUROPE - KEY PROJECTS AND FOUNDATION COSTS
Note: This mapping is based on the results of the cost simulation model built by MEC+, Transportation cost is computed from the nearest manufacturer
*Since practical application of the suction bucket concepts in rocky seabed are highly unlikely, the cost comparisons are therefore not shown
Source: MEC+ analysis, The Wind Power database
Cost reduction potential of 5-15% is observed for foundations at select 5 farms in
Europe

17. 17
Developers need to manage risk and other associated premium costs with appropriate
contracting High
Low
* The definition of risks is limited to systematic project risks inherent in the business and excludes unexpected weather, geotechnical & political risks
** Suitability is based on the key need to manage risk at project level for the developer or contractor
Source: MEC+ analysis
RISK ANALYSIS
Value proposition
to developer
Suitable
foundation**
Construction
contracts are given
out in packages of
turbines,
foundations, etc
Brief Description
Project owner signs
many contracts
within each
segment, while
managing the
project
Construction
management is
out sourced
One contract for
the entire project
Package EPC
Contracting
Structure
Multi contract
EPCM
Project EPC
Benefits to the developer
Risk* Cost
No risk premium
attached and has
full project control
Limited EPC
capabilities
needed, which
takes time and are
costly to develop
Sub package risks
are with the
supplier and
limited risk
premium and
project control
Limited EPC
capabilities
needed, which
takes time and are
costly to develop

18. 18
– Currently there are 43 installation vessels suitable for offshore wind construction in EU; daily rate ranges between EUR 70k to
290k
– The current vessel days are just enough to meet the demand from conventional foundations
– In <800 tonne lifting category, new foundations eliminate the need for higher capacity vessel to meet the increase
– In, 800-1200 tonne lifting category, new foundation adoption increases the vessel oversupply by 141% percent by 2020
– In >1200 tonne lifting category, new foundations increase the vessel oversupply by 32% percent by 2020
New foundation
designs could
lead to major
oversupply in the
vessels market
II
New foundation designs could be cost effective as compared to conventional designs and also
reduce vessel demand for construction
Source: MEC+ analysis
SUMMARY
– Foundation cost are primary driven by Material and installation costs with 65-85 % share of the total cost and have
been considered in this study
– New foundation designs have lower costs as turbines become larger and installed in deeper sea
– For 6 MW, new foundations are ~4-20% lower in material cost when compared to monopiles & jackets while for turbine
sizes 8 MW and larger, new designs reduce the cost by ~21-24%
– Installation cost does not vary much in comparison to material costs, but can be a bottleneck in timely execution of the
OW farm. New foundation designs can reduce the installation cost by ~50% as compared to the conventional designs
– Mono-suction bucket is cost effective for 4-6 MW turbine size at lower to medium depths, while CraneFree Gravity is
most suitable for even larger turbines at medium to larger depths
– Cost reduction potential of 5-15% is observed for foundations at select 5 farms in Europe. However, developers need to
manage risk and other associated premium costs with appropriate contracting
New foundation
designs could be
10 percent to 30
percent cheaper
as compared to
conventional
designs
I

19. 19
Currently there are 43 installation vessels suitable for offshore wind construction in EU; daily rate
ranges between EUR 70k to 290k
Source: Ballast Nedam, IT Power UK, Windpower Offshore, News articles and research papers, MEC+ analysis
Supply of OW vessels in Europe
# of vessels by lifting categories
VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
>20001600-20001200-1600800-1200400-8000-400
Cranes(Sheerleg+Monohull)
HLV(HLVs+WIVs)
Jack Ups(Vessels+Barges)
Lifting capacity in tonnes
0,30
0,00
0,25
0,15
0,20
0,05
0,10
>20001600-20001200-1600800-1200400-8000-400
Day rate range
Day rates of OW vessels in EU
Indicative day rates in EUR mil.
Lifting capacity in tonnes
EUR
millions

20. 20
The planned OW pipeline is prone unavailability risk of appropriate installation vessel, if conventional
foundations are considered to scale with expected demand thereby impacting costs
10.000
5.000
0
2020
2.006
2019
7.670
2018
4.569
2017
3.703
2016
3.029
2015
2.089
6.494
00
2020
2.779
20192018
5.609
2017
1.595
2016
4.060
2015
3.212
001360
721
2015
2.920
20202019201820172016
3.534
800 - 1200 tonne0 - 800 tonne >1200 tonne
Scenario I: Vessel supply demand based on installation of only conventional designs
In Vessel Days
Minor Shortfall
• Can be met with higher capacity
cranes at higher cost
Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered.
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11 months a year
Source: Windpower, Wind energy update, NREL, Offshore Wind Energy Cost Modelling By Mark J Kaiser, Brian F Snyde, MEC+ analysis
Crane lifting
capacity
VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY
Shortfall
• Can be met with higher capacity
cranes at high cost
• Prone to project delays
Minor Shortfall
• Cannot be met with the existing fleet
• Most likely to cause project delays
• Alternate: use multple support vessels
to ensure timely execution
SupplyDemand

21. 21
In <800 tonne lifting category, though the demand is less than supply except slight increase in 2019,
new foundations eliminate the need for higher capacity vessel to meet the increase
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
-5.000
-4.405
2020
-4.223
2019
-2.462
2018
-2.037
2017
-3.471
2016
-3.465
2015
Demand-supply analysis for 0-800 T lifting capacity vessels
In Vessel Days
Supply
Shortage
Excessive
Supply
VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY
2.000
1.000
3.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
-5.000
-3.465
-2.791
2016 2017 2018
-1.925
2015
-4.405
2019
1.176
2020
-4.488
Scenario 2:
Most cost effective foundation is considered; including the innovative
foundations; post 2017*
Scenario 1:
Conventional designs are installed in the planned OW farms till 2020
Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered. Average days for installation of new foundation
designs is 2. CFG does not require a lifting vessel
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11 months a year
Source: MEC+ analysis
New foundation
designs considered

22. 22
In, 800-1200 tonne lifting category, vessel demand declines significantly post 2016 due to the
introduction of new foundations, reducing risk of cost overruns by using higher capacity vessels
Demand-supply analysis for 800-1200 T lifting capacity vessels
In Vessel Days
VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY
848
-433
-5.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
-3.212
20202019
-3.212
2018
2.397
2017
-1.617
20162015
Scenario 2:
Most cost effective foundation is considered; including the innovative
foundations; post 2017*
Scenario 1:
Conventional designs are installed in the planned OW farms till 2020
Supply
Shortage
Excessive
Supply
848
3.000
-5.000
1.000
2.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
2020
-2.940
2019
-3.212
2018
-2.151
2017
-1.945
20162015
-3.212
Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered. Average days for installation of new foundation
designs is 2. CFG does not require a lifting vessel
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11 months a year
Source: MEC+ analysis
New foundation
designs considered

23. 23
In >1200 tonne lifting category, marginal high demand in 2017 could be reduced by new foundation
designs and no supply risk would be envisaged, preventing the minor delay risk expected
Demand-supply analysis for > 1200 T lifting capacity vessels
In Vessel Days
VESSEL DEMAND-SUPPLY
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
-5.000
2020
-2.920
2019
-2.920
2018
-2.199
2017
614
2016
-2.784
2015
-2.920
Supply
Shortage
Excessive
Supply
Scenario 2:
Most cost effective foundation is considered; including the innovative
foundations; post 2017*
Scenario 1:
Conventional designs are installed in the planned OW farms till 2020
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
-5.000
2020
-2.920
2019
-2.920
2018
-2.920
2017
-2.838
2016
-2.784
2015
-2.920
Note: The complete process will take about 5 days on average for installation of conventional foundations with 2.5 days in turbine installation. The standard turbine weights has
been considered in estimating the demand for turbine installation. Demand from OW O&M has not been considered. Average days for installation of new foundation
designs is 2. CFG does not require a lifting vessel
Note 2: Demand for vessels is estimated on the construction/installation start year of the OW farms. Lifting cranes vessels are expected to operate for 10-11 months a year
Source: MEC+ analysis
New foundation
designs considered

24. 24
Abbreviations used
• OW Offshore Wind
• EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
• T ton (= 1000 kg)
• TP Transition piece
• EUR Euro
• MP Monopiles
• J Jackets
• CFG CraneFree Gravity
• MSB Mono Suction Bucket
• SBJ Suction Bucket Jacket
• m metre
• KM Kilometre
• NM Nautical mile
• GW/MW Giga / Mega Watt
All numbers are in European number format
APPENDIX

25. 25
References and Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by MEC Intelligence using a wide range of resources and databases. MEC Intelligence’s internal databases on OW farms and OW
installation vessels have been the base for the analysis. Extensive secondary research through continues wind industry monitoring through news and press
releases, primary research with OW EPC contractors, foundation designers, vessel operators and independent OW experts in the industry have all contributed to
the depth of the analysis conducted.
For any further queries, please contact:
Jacob Jensen Sidharth Jain
(jj@mecintelligence.com) (sidharth@mecintelligence.com)
MEC Intelligence Denmark MEC Intelligence India
Nordre Fasanvej 113, 2 112, Udyog Vihar Phase 4
2000 Frederiksberg 122015 Gurgaon
Copenhagen, Denmark Haryana, India
www.mecintelligence.com www.mecintelligence.com
Disclaimer
The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. MEC Intelligence disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy,
completeness or adequacy of such information. MEC Intelligence shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or
for the interpretation thereof. Therefore MEC is not liable for any indirect, incidental, consequential damage or loss of revenues or profits in any case.
APPENDIX

26. 26
MEC+ experience and resources are a valuable asset for insights in offshore wind strategy decisions
MEC EXPERIENCE – QUALITY ASSURANCE ON CRITICAL DECISIONS
MEC+ provides insights by combining its granular data, cost and forecasting models, and primary information along with deep experience and understanding
of players and concepts. Client assurance is guaranteed in the results with high-touch transparent processes.
MEC+ has done more than 60 analyses in the offshore wind industry covering demand, supply, business models for contracting strategies, WTG, foundations,
cables, vessels, installation concepts, and O&M
Expert contacts
Our work has led to a strong network of
relations with industry experts who have
deep offshore experience.
Relevant experience & Concepts
We have worked extensively on and
developing concepts within Cost of
Energy, Pipeline, Procurement, ,
construction management and O&M.
Our reputation and trust has been
built on our knowledge and very
structured and transparent process.
-
Farm Level Data (Operation) and Proven
cost and forecasting models
We have an extensive library of in-house and
high-quality third-party offshore wind data
which we update regularly – 1) wind farms,
2) turbine technology 3)foundation & electrical
systems technology 4) historic costs and
benchmarks 5) cost and forecasting models
-MEC+ approach
leverages the rich
resources that the
firm has access to

27. 27
The team at MEC Intelligence has published industry leading reports on the maritime, energy and clean-tech industries.
In addition, multiple insights have been published to provide perspectives on the market.
MEC Intelligence || Offshore Wind Reports
MEC WIND REPORTS