Foundation Types for Larger Turbines

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 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 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

3Around 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 EUINTRODUCTION

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 MWDominating 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

4New 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

9%

Grid

Connection

Planning &

Miscellaneous

Cost breakup of

OW Installation

64%

16%

11%

100%

Wind

Turbine

Foundation

Installation

Cost

Material

Cost

Cost Breakup of

OW Foundation

100

15-20%

15-25%

50-60%

100%

Others

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

5Three 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, FRPrototype 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

6Material 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


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

7Material 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 lidHigher 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

8The 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


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

9For 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;

* Monopiles 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


Depth (in m)

10 20 30 40 50 60

0

3.000

2.000

1.000

TonnesJacketMonopile 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


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

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;

* Monopiles 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


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

TonnesSBJMSBJacketMonopile

10 20 30 40 50 60

5

4

3

2

1

7

6

0

-21%

-24%

EUR mil.SBJMSBCFGJacketMonopile


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

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

PillingUpending/

LoweringDrilling GroutingSuction

Sand

Ballasting

Scour

Protection

2-3

2-3*

4-6

1-2*

1-2*

Stability Ensuring Process

High

Low

Required

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


4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

0,5

2,5

1,5

3,5

4,5

Euro millions

per foundation


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


Typical** Material Cost for 6 MW

Installation* cost range

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)


0,31

MSB CFG

0,56

MonopileJacket

0,42

0,33

0,27

SBJ

EUR mil

0,19

(50%)


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

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)


10 20 30 40 50 60

4

3

2

1

0

7

6

5

EUR mil.


COST ANALYSIS

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 doesnt include EPC margins, profits, insurance costs, manpower expenses, transportation costs incurred from manufacturing location to the port

2. CFG is not applicable for depth 25

Figure in the grid depicts the lowest cost foundation (within 10% error margin)

16

Inch Cape, United Kingdom

Seabed: Soft No. of turbines: 213Distance: 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: RockyNo. of turbines: 60Distance: 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: SoftNo. of turbines: 70Distance: 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: 90-150Distance: 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: 80Distance: 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

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


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

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 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


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

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

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


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

In

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


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

Su

pp

ly

Sh

ort

ag

e

Excessiv

e

Su

pp

ly

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


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



New foundation

designs considered

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


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

Su

pp

ly

Sh

ort

ag

e

Excessiv

e

Su

pp

ly

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


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



New foundation

designs considered

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

References and Disclaimer

This report has been prepared by MEC Intelligence using a wide range of resources and databases. MEC Intelligences 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

([email protected]) ([email protected])

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

MEC+ experience and resources are a valuable asset for insights in offshore wind strategy decisionsMEC 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

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 ReportsMEC WIND REPORTS

Documents

Foundation Types for Larger Turbines