Cost reduction: Safety is safety in any language

OW15_spread.jpg 18 1

Offshore wind power is about as pure as energy generation gets. However, it is frustrating that statutory regulations in a key area, the deployment of novel vessels that service the industry, muddy these crystal waters. While a wind farm is rooted to the seabed, generating clean energy for decades to come, owners and operators may wish to transport their valuable project experience elsewhere, to another country in Northern Europe, for example. 

The headache comes when they bring their fleet of vessels along. Transferring these vessels to another region potentially means addressing a different set of statutory codes and conventions, a time-consuming and costly exercise having already previously complied with another set of statutory requirements.

To be clear, I mean clarity around statutory requirements, not classification requirements, which are well defined. Statutory aspects fall outside of the scope of classification and encompass a range of important safety and environmental protection issues, including subdivision and stability, life-saving appliances, pollution prevention, structural fire protection, navigational aids, loading and discharging – areas where currently there is a lack of clarity on what should be applied.

Regulatory disparity between national administrations does not help an emerging industry facing a barrage of variable, hostile conditions. Take the ever-changing wind forces, wave heights and current strengths and it is no wonder that some offshore wind farms are inaccessible for maintenance activities for up to 45% of the time. Consistent international guidance on minimum requirements should be a given; safety is safety in any language.

OW15_spread.jpg 18 2

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is seeking to establish agreement between flag authorities as to acceptable international statutory standards which can be applied to the industry and which will help improve safety, streamline operations and save costs. The agency established a correspondence group in March this year at the 57th session of the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE). The session was attended by people like myself, with well-rehearsed arguments for clarity.

Two vessel types

Central to the industry’s success are two kinds of vessel. Both vessel types can be either new constructions, built specifically to service offshore wind projects, or modified versions of existing vessels. Wind Turbine Installation Vessels (WTIVs) are used to install turbine foundations, towers, nacelles and blades. They also help maintain existing turbines throughout the operational phase.

Various options are available, but jack-up vessels are proving to be the current standard method. These WTIVs comprise a ship shaped single hull form; jack-up mechanism; four or six legs, which, when lowered to the sea bed, enable the hull to be ‘jacked up’ out of the sea; and a large deck and crane, capable of holding and handling hefty components, from turbine monopoles and jackets, to towers and blades.

In short, WTIVs perform their activities in the elevated mode, above the rolling waves. Once work is completed, the vessel is ‘jacked down’ and ready to sail to the next turbine site. WTIVs are often heavily manned with accommodation for around 100 crew and client’s installation personnel. The new generation of these vessels are self-propelled and no longer require tugs to move them between locations.

At around $100 to $150m each, these installation vessels are expensive to manufacture (approximately $35m buys a new Panamax bulk carrier), due to the unusually complex nature of these vessels and issues such as the requirement for high reliability demanded for the jack-up mechanism and legs. For example in the oil and gas sector, the Jack-up mechanism may only be called upon three or four times a year in contrast to 250 cycles annually when installing and maintaining turbines.

Another key issue is the crane, its size, location and integration into the hull for optimum configuration capable for lifting these heavy components regularly. These points aside, the technical challenges addressed by a set of classification rules are relatively straightforward and well understood.

The other vessel type is Wind Farm Service Vessels (WFSVs), which are typically mono or multi-hull workboats. Currently, WFSVs tend to be under 24 metres in length and carry less than 12 ‘passengers’, travelling at high speeds of between 20 and 25 knots. The vessels are primarily a transfer service, transporting technicians to and from wind farms for day-to-day maintenance and, in some instances, they also carry a small payload. The main challenge is being able to transfer technicians to the turbine tower in wave heights of 1.5 metres Hs and upwards, especially as Round 3 wind farm locations are located further offshore.

Innovative Turbine Access System (TAS) designs are already on the market to provide safe personnel transfer between workboats and turbine towers. Lloyd’s Register has carried out a number of marine design approvals for such gangway systems and the aim of all these small TAS systems is to make transfer operations possible at 2 metres Hs. Other than that, as in the case of WTIVs, the technical matters dealt with by a set of classification rules are not overtly problematic.

The challenge

A real challenge for owners and operators of installation and service vessels is not the technical matters dealt with by a set of classification rules; it is the different statutory demands they may face when operating in different countries. This has a negative impact on both multinationals and smaller companies.

A few examples of the current regulatory scene are telling. For a $100m plus WTIV, some flags authorities may adopt the IMO’s Special Purpose Ship (SPS) Code, while others apply the IMO MODU Code to the same type of vessel. If this is not considered early enough during the design phase then redeploying this type of vessel to another international operating location can mean, at best, an minor refit and at worst a major refit. For WFSVs, an owner or operator will need to meet the Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 280(M) in the UK, but elsewhere in Europe other codes such as the High-Speed Code (HSC) may be applied.

The current situation begs the question of how the industry defines the people who climb onboard their turbine transfer service. Are they maintenance technicians, crew members, passengers or a special category of offshore personnel? Common, common sense must prevail. Given that these technicians can travel 80km offshore to scale turbines for their living, they are clearly not passengers with a disability. Neither are they crew.

When trying to operate offshore wind farms at different regionally international sites, inconsistent meeting different codes for design and implementation,. Regulatory uncertainty dampens investors’ interests and blunts the development of cutting-edge thinking.

Progress to date

costreductionThe statutory issues have not gone unnoticed. In the recent past, a number of flag states have gathered in an attempt to resolve the matter, meeting with experts from shipyards and equipment manufacturers, classification societies and other maritime associations.

Although these meetings have led to some agreements, slightly different viewpoints have tended to prevail. With IMO involved, an international agreement will no doubt follow. At the session in March, the matter was discussed in plenary. Subsequently, a working group has established terms of reference and a correspondence group has now been set up.

The general consensus of opinion is to adapt existing statutory codes and conventions to create a clear set of non-mandatory guidelines based on existing international standards, rather than generate new requirements from scratch. Even if these guidelines were only aligned with Northern European statutory requirements, it would be a good start, as this will cover the bulk of the existing industry’s fleet.

Arriving at a universal agreement is not insurmountable. Generally speaking flag states may well agree to adopt IMO International Safety Conventions, but this process is likely to be a number of years, not months in gestation. As an example, look at the updated IMO MODU Code, which was published in late 2009 for application on 1st January 2012, but took 4 years to be re-written. In the interim, some flag states may go it alone, i.e. in the UK (MGN) 280(M) is already being rewritten to help the industry. Until there is a resolution, societies such as ours with strong links to flag states must do all they can to best manoeuvre their clients’ vessels through the current statutory labyrinth.

Beyond the immediate

Offshore wind projects have tended to run late and over-budget, but the industry is forecast to grow at pace. The European Environment Agency’s (EEA) estimates that Europe’s offshore wind potential is able to meet the continent’s energy demand seven times over. Some industry experts predict more than a trebling of wind power generation to 100GW by 2030 in Offshore Europe.

As the industry matures, we will see a greater number of larger turbines being installed in deeper waters and further from shore, such as the planned 9GW wind farm at Dogger Bank, which lies 120km off the east coast of England.

Such developments may require owners and operators of offshore wind farms to rethink their installation and service vessels entirely, rather than adapt existing designs from the offshore oil and gas business, which has been the case to date.

Marine vessel designers and builders are already developing vessel concepts that are akin to a turnkey, one-stop shop approach, which fulfil all the necessary functions a distant wind farm requires, from accommodating and transferring staff to meeting general maintenance needs. By then, valuable groundwork will have been done on the statutory side, which should assist rather than hinder the industry’s rapid progress.

It is essential that, throughout this process, there is an eye to the future of the industry as well as current concerns.

Rob Whillock, for Lloyd’s Register Energy