8/14/2019 AWEA Poster: Combining On- and Offshore Logistics: Finding a Suitable Harbor for an Offshore Wind Jack-Up Vessel.

1/1

COMBINING ON- AND OFFSHORE LOGISTICS: FINDING A

SUITABLE HARBOR FOR AN OFFSHORE WIND JACK-UP VESSIsabel Kaubisch, Principal, Clarendon Hill Consulting, Somerville, MA

1. Introduction

Jack-up vessels are able to lift themselves above water level by lowering down a number of

legs into the seabed to provide good stability.

In addition they are self-propelled, which makes them independent from towing vessels (this

function differentiates them from jack-up barges).

The operability of a jack-up vessel depends on water depth at site and their crane

capabilities.

2. Study Objectives

* Investigate U.S. East coast ports with respect to their ability to function as a staging port for

an offshore wind jack-up vessel.

* Business use case: jack-up vessel stages and operates both the Cape Wind and Block Island

Offshore Wind projects (OWP).

* Analyze ports within a radius of 250 nm from the Cape Wind and Block Island projects

* The Representative analysis is based on all 45, currently used offshore wind jack-up vessels.

* Staging port requirements were broken down into first and second tier criteria:

* First tier criteria detail navigational access criteria derived from the

vessels length, breadth, draft and air draft

* Second tier criteria detail the port infrastructure such as available

berths, load capacity of the pier, availability of large cranes and the

possibility to jack-up in the harbor.

Contact information: Isabel Kaubisch, info@chillcons.com, +1 617 863 6593

AWEA OFFSHORE WINDPOWER Conference & Exhibition October 22-23 Providence, Rhode Island

Figure 1: Jack-up vessel MPI Resolution loading components for London Array at Esbjerg

Harbor in Denmark, March 2012 (Courtesy: Michael Vinther)

3. Specifications of Jack-up vessels

4. Development of Port Screening Criteria

5. Case Study: North-East Coast Ports

Results: How suited are the Ports t

offshore wind jack-up vessel

7. Results: Percentage of Suitable

vessels for North-East Coast P

Vessel type Vessel name Length (m) Beam (m) Air draft (m) Draft (m)

Jack-up vessel A2SEA- Sea Energy 91.76 21.6 27.7 4.25

Jack-up vessel/TIV A2SEA- Sea Installer 132 39 77.5 5.3

Jack-up vessel A2SEA- Sea Jack 91.2 33 45 5.5

Jack-up vessel A2SEA- Sea Power 91.76 21.6 27.7 4.25

Jack-up vessel A2SEA- Sea Worker 55.5 33 71 3.6

Jack-up vessel BARD - Wind Lift 101.8 36 70 3.5

Jack-up vessel Marine Construct International - LISAA 72.65 39.62 49.95 4

Jack-up vessel Deme - Geosea Goliath 56 32.2 75.3 3.55

Jack-up vessel Deme - Geosea Neptune 60 38 76 3.9

Jack-up vessel Geosea - Vagant 44 23 53.3 4.2

Jack-up vessel Geosea - Buzzard 43 30 52 3

Jack-up vessel Gulf Marine Services - GMS Endeavour 76 36 88.2 6

Jack-up vessel/TIV Fred Olsen Wind Carrier - Bold Tern 132 39 74.4 6

Jack-up vessel/TIV Fred Olsen Wind Carrier - Brave Tern 132 39 74.4 6

Jack-up vessel Fugro Seacore - Excalibur 60 32 77 2.8

Jack-up vessel/TIV Hochtief - Innovation 147 42 80 7.33

Jack-up vessel Hochtief - Odin 46.1 30 57.7 3.25

Jack-up vessel Hochtief - Thor 70 40 76.7 7.4

Jack-up vessel HochtiefVidar* 163.5 41 83.7 6.3

Jack-up vessel Inwind - Inwind Installer 100.5 68 109.5 4.5

Jack-up vessel Jack-up barge JB-114 55.5 32.2 70.15 3

Jack-up vessel Jack-up barge JB-115 55.5 32.2 70.15 3

Jack-up vessel Jack-up barge JB-117 75.9 40 76.1 3.9

Jack-up vessel Bull Ray (formerly KS Drilling - Titan 2) 52 35 49.12 2.9

Jack-up vessel Master Marine - NORA 117.62 50 124.5 7.4

Jack-up vessel Montco - LB Robert 55.4736 41.148 102 3

Jack-up vessel Muhibbah Marine - MEB JB1 49 31 46.8 3

Jack-up vessel/TIV MPI - Adventure 138.55 40.8 67.9 5.5

Jack-up vessel/TIV MPI - Discovery 138.55 40.8 67.9 5.5

Jack-up vessel/TIV MPI - Resolution 130 38 67.5 4.3

Jack-up vessel Weeks MarineR D MacDonald 79.2 23.7 46 4.4

Jack-up vessel RWE - Friedrich Ernestine 100 40 73.5 4.5

Jack-up vessel RWE - Victoria Mathias 100 40 73.5 4.5

Jack-up vessel Seajacks - Kraken76 36 82 3.7

Jack-up vessel Seajacks - Leviathan 76 36 82 3.7

Jack-up vessel Seajacks - Zaratan 81 41 79.7 5.3

Jack-up vessel SeajacksHydra* 75 36 81.85 6.75

Jack-up vessel/TIV Swire Blue Ocean - Pacific Orca 160.9 49 100.5 5.5

Jack-up vessel/TIV Swire Blue Ocean - Pacific Osprey 160.9 49 100.5 6

Jack-up vessel/TIV Van Oord - Aeolus 139 38 80 5.7

Jack-up vessel/TIV Workfox - Seafox 5 151 50 100.88 5.12

Jack-up vessel Workfox - Seafox 7 75 32.2 75.5 3.35

Jack-up vessel Besix-Pauline 52 24 47.5 2.5

Jack-up vessel DBB Jack-Up Services - MV Wind* 55 18 52.8 3

Jack-up vessel/TIV Gaoh Offshore - Deepwater Installer* 142.8 40 76.6 6.5

* under construction

(August 2013)

Adaptedfrom: DouglasWestwood. Assessment ofVessel Requirementsfor the U.S.Offshore WindSector.Prepared for the Departmentof Energy assubtopic 5.2 of

the U.S.Offshore Wind: RemovingMarket Barriers.August 2013.

Wind turbines growing in size and deployments expanding further out to sea pose new

challenges for offshore wind logistics. Clarendon Hill Consulting conducted a study of the U.S.

East Coast port and harbor infrastructure which could accommodate the larger and more sea-

going installation vessels mandated by these changing requirements.

In order to meet the target of 54 GW from offshore wind in the United States by 2030 a series ofinstallation ports will be required.

Available U.S. Offshore Wind Jack-up vessel

Currently, there is one U.S. flagged jack-up vessel :

The R.D. MacDonald built by Weeks Marine is a smaller scale jack-up vessel which could be used

for a limited amount of U.S. offshore wind projects due to its short jack-up legs.

Therefore, it can be assumed that a larger jack-up vessel (either foreign flagged or U.S. built)

would be used to stage most U.S. projects. Our representative study analyzed all currently

available jack-up vessels.

Specifications of Turbine Installation Vessels

New vessel generations, so-called Turbine Installation Vessels (TIVs) have been purposefully

built for the offshore wind industry. They offer better on-deck capacity and space, better lifting

capacity, and higher transit speed. Modern TIVs typically have the following dimensions:

90 m (295 ft) or more in length

a beam of 40 m (130 ft) or more.

Dimensions of currently used or planned

jack-up vessels

As depicted in Table 1 the dimensions of current and planned jack-up vessels show the

following ranges:

The length ranges between 41.6 m (137) 163.5 m (536)

The beam ranges from 18 (59) to 68 m (223)

The draft ranges from 2.5 m (8.2) 7.4 m (24.3)

The air draft 27.7 m (90.9) 124.5 m (408.5).

These are some major findings from the representative analysis (figure 3)

New London, CT meets the 1stand 2ndtier criteria for all current and fu

up vessels.

The ports of Bridgeport, CT and New Haven, CT meet all navigational a

have sufficient berth capabilities for 98% or 93% of the screened vesse

The port of New Bedford meets the navigational access requirements

vessels. The width of its hurricane barrier opening of 45.7 m (150) pos

remaining vessels. The Marine Commerce Terminal berths, scheduled t

2014, would meet all vesselsberthing requirements.

The ports of New York and New Jersey (Brooklyn, Bayonne, Newark) as

RI and Providence, RI have excellent or very good berth capabilities. Ho

the navigational access requirements of less than 30 % of the jack-up v

Narrows and Newport Pell bridge pose overhead restrictions due to t

less than 60 m (198). The Bayonne bridge has a vertical clearance of le

The figure lists the percentage of currently available and planned jack-u

compare table 1) that could be staged from each port (y-axis).

For each port 1stand 2ndtier infrastructure criteria are matched separa

First tier criteria specify navigational access requirements for each spec

matched each vessels beam, length, draft and air draft against the nav

of the screened ports (compare box 4). A buffer of 10% has been assum

Second tier criteria as described in box 4 were analyzed for each port.

screening results from the ports berth dimensions. Ports shown on top have the best potential to stage most jack-up vesse

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70

Fall River, MA

Newark, NJ

Brooklyn, NY

Providence, RI

Bayonne, NJ

Quonset Point, RI

Stamford, CT

New Bedford, MA

Port Jefferson, NY

New Haven, CT

Bridgeport, CT

New London, CT

1stTier

2ndTier (Berths)Figure 3: Percentage of Suitable Jack-up vessels that cou

First Tier Port Screening Criteria

Sheltered harbor

Horizontal Clearance (channel width)

Vertical Clearance (overhead restrictions)

Shipping Channel Depth

Second Tier Port Screening Criteria

Mimimum berth length

Mimimum berth width

Minimum berth depth

Quay side pier linear length

Quay side pier laydown area loading

capacity

Availability of 150t crane

Storage and assembly area

Adequate access by Highway and Rail

Figure 2: U.S. East Coast ports within a 250 nm radius of the planned Cape Wind and Block Island

projects

6. Ports Screened in this Study

Bayonne, NJ

Brooklyn, NY

Bridgeport, CT

Fall River, MA

Flushing, NY

New Bedford, MA

Newark, NJ

New Haven, CT

New London, CT

Port Jefferson, NY

Providence, RI

Quonset Point/Davisville, RI

Stamford, CT

Purely recreational ports with no industrial area were excluded from the search.

8. Current infrastructure upd

Current infrastructure upgrades are underway at several ports.

These include channel dredging to accommodate the up to 15 m (50) d

vessels at the Port of New York and New Jersey(PANYNJ).

PANYNJ also plans to elevate the Bayonne bridge from currently 46 m

A Finding of No Significant Impact and bridge permit were issued in Ma

9. Conclusions

A vessel-specific research on port infrastructure is crucial for the offsho

find the best and most efficient solutions for staging, deploying and op

farms.

Currently underway infrastructure upgrades will also benefit the offsho

However in order to have meaningful implications, those projects wou

implications from offshore wind jack-up vessel developments. Even w

bridge, the Port of New York and New Jersey would only be accessible

the jack-up vessels.

A more comprehensive infrastructure planning approach is needed brin

for waterways and the port and hinterland infrastructure.

More detailed infrastructure studies will be needed for offshore wind p

Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes and the West coast.

Figure 4: Chart showing the State Pier of New London, CT