COMBINING ON- AND OFFSHORE LOGISTICS: FINDING A SUITABLE HARBOR FOR AN OFFSHORE WIND JACK-UP VESSEL

Isabel Kaubisch, Principal, Clarendon Hill Consulting, Somerville, MA

1. Introduction
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 seagoing 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 of installation ports will be required.

7. Results: Percentage of Suitable Jack-up vessels for North-East Coast Ports

New London, CT Bridgeport, CT New Haven, CT Port Jefferson, NY

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.

New Bedford, MA Stamford, CT Quonset Point, RI Bayonne, NJ Providence, RI Brooklyn, NY Newark, NJ

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. Figure 1: Jack-up vessel MPI Resolution loading components for London Array at Esbjerg Harbor in Denmark, March 2012 (Courtesy: Michael Vinther)

Fall River, MA
1st Tier 2nd Tier (Berths)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 3: Percentage of Suitable Jack-up vessels that could be staged at Ports

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).

4. Development of Port Screening Criteria

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

The figure lists the percentage of currently available and planned jack-up vessels (x-axis, compare table 1) that could be staged from each port (y-axis). For each port 1st and 2nd tier infrastructure criteria are matched separately. First tier criteria specify navigational access requirements for each specific vessel; the analysis matched each vessels beam, length, draft and air draft against the navigational access criteria of the screened ports (compare box 4). A buffer of 10% has been assumed. Second tier criteria as described in box 4 were analyzed for each port. Figure 3 shows the screening results from the ports berth dimensions. Ports shown on top have the best potential to stage most jack-up vessels.

3. Specifications of Jack-up vessels

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.

Results: How suited are the Ports to handle offshore wind jack-up vessels?
These are some major findings from the representative analysis (figure 3): New London, CT meets the 1st and 2nd tier criteria for all current and future offshore wind jack up vessels. The ports of Bridgeport, CT and New Haven, CT meet all navigational access criteria but only have sufficient berth capabilities for 98% or 93% of the screened vessels. The port of New Bedford meets the navigational access requirements of 91% of the screened vessels. The width of its hurricane barrier opening of 45.7 m (150) poses an obstacle to the remaining vessels. The Marine Commerce Terminal berths, scheduled to be built by December 2014, would meet all vessels berthing requirements. The ports of New York and New Jersey (Brooklyn, Bayonne, Newark) as well as Quonset Point, RI and Providence, RI have excellent or very good berth capabilities. However they only meet the navigational access requirements of less than 30 % of the jack-up vessels. The VerrazzanoNarrows and Newport Pell bridge pose overhead restrictions due to their vertical clearance of less than 60 m (198). The Bayonne bridge has a vertical clearance of less than 46m (151).

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.

5. Case Study: North-East Coast Ports

Dimensions of currently used or planned jack-up vessels

Vessel type Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel/TIV Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel Jack-up vessel/TIV * under construction (August 2013) Vessel name A2SEA - Sea Energy A2SEA - Sea Installer A2SEA - Sea Jack A2SEA - Sea Power A2SEA - Sea Worker BARD - Wind Lift Marine Construct International - LISA A Deme - Geosea Goliath Deme - Geosea Neptune Geosea - Vagant Geosea - Buzzard Gulf Marine Services - GMS Endeavour Fred Olsen Wind Carrier - Bold Tern Fred Olsen Wind Carrier - Brave Tern Fugro Seacore - Excalibur Hochtief - Innovation Hochtief - Odin Hochtief - Thor Hochtief Vidar* Inwind - Inwind Installer Jack-up barge JB-114 Jack-up barge JB-115 Jack-up barge JB-117 Bull Ray (formerly KS Drilling - Titan 2) Master Marine - NORA Montco - LB Robert Muhibbah Marine - MEB JB1 MPI - Adventure MPI - Discovery MPI - Resolution Weeks Marine R D MacDonald RWE - Friedrich Ernestine RWE - Victoria Mathias Seajacks - Kraken Seajacks - Leviathan Seajacks - Zaratan Seajacks Hydra* Swire Blue Ocean - Pacific Orca Swire Blue Ocean - Pacific Osprey Van Oord - Aeolus Workfox - Seafox 5 Workfox - Seafox 7 Besix-Pauline DBB Jack-Up Services - MV Wind* Gaoh Offshore - Deepwater Installer* Length (m) Beam (m) Air draft (m) Draft (m) 91.76 21.6 27.7 132 39 77.5 91.2 33 45 91.76 21.6 27.7 55.5 33 71 101.8 36 70 72.65 39.62 49.95 56 32.2 75.3 60 38 76 44 23 53.3 43 30 52 76 36 88.2 132 39 74.4 132 39 74.4 60 32 77 147 42 80 46.1 30 57.7 70 40 76.7 163.5 41 83.7 100.5 68 109.5 55.5 32.2 70.15 55.5 32.2 70.15 75.9 40 76.1 52 35 49.12 117.62 50 124.5 55.4736 41.148 102 49 31 46.8 138.55 40.8 67.9 138.55 40.8 67.9 130 38 67.5 79.2 23.7 46 100 40 73.5 100 40 73.5 76 36 82 76 36 82 81 41 79.7 75 36 81.85 160.9 49 100.5 160.9 49 100.5 139 38 80 151 50 100.88 75 32.2 75.5 52 24 47.5 55 18 52.8 142.8 40 76.6 4.25 5.3 5.5 4.25 3.6 3.5 4 3.55 3.9 4.2 3 6 6 6 2.8 7.33 3.25 7.4 6.3 4.5 3 3 3.9 2.9 7.4 3 3 5.5 5.5 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 3.7 3.7 5.3 6.75 5.5 6 5.7 5.12 3.35 2.5 3 6.5

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

8. Current infrastructure updates

Figure 2: U.S. East Coast ports within a 250 nm radius of the planned Cape Wind and Block Island projects Current infrastructure upgrades are underway at several ports. These include channel dredging to accommodate the up to 15 m (50) deep new Panamax vessels at the Port of New York and New Jersey(PANYNJ). PANYNJ also plans to elevate the Bayonne bridge from currently 46 m (151) to 65.5 m (215). A Finding of No Significant Impact and bridge permit were issued in May 2013.

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

9. Conclusions
A vessel-specific research on port infrastructure is crucial for the offshore wind industry to find the best and most efficient solutions for staging, deploying and operating offshore wind farms. Currently underway infrastructure upgrades will also benefit the offshore wind industry. However in order to have meaningful implications, those projects would need to look closer at implications from offshore wind jack-up vessel developments. Even with an elevated Bayonne bridge, the Port of New York and New Jersey would only be accessible for less than 30 % of the jack-up vessels. A more comprehensive infrastructure planning approach is needed bringing together planning for waterways and the port and hinterland infrastructure. More detailed infrastructure studies will be needed for offshore wind projects at the Mid Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes and the West coast.

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

Adapted from: Douglas Westwood. Assessment of Vessel Requirements for the U.S. Offshore Wind Sector. Prepared for the Department of Energy as subtopic 5.2 of the U.S. Offshore Wind: Removing Market Barriers. August 2013.

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

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