DOCSLIB.ORG

Renewables Investor Event

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Renewables Investor Event Renewables Investor Event 29 September 2020 1 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Forward looking statements This announcement may contain ‘forward-looking statements’ (within the meaning of the safe harbour provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). These statements relate to our current expectations, beliefs, intentions, assumptions or strategies regarding the future and are subject to known and unknown risks that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of words such as ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘expect’, ‘future’, ‘goal’, ‘intend’, ‘likely’ ‘may’, ‘plan’, ‘project’, ‘seek’, ‘should’, ‘strategy’ ‘will’, and similar expressions. The principal risks which could affect future operations of the Group are described in the ‘Risk Management’ section of the Group’s Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2019. Factors that may cause actual and future results and trends to differ materially from our forward-looking statements include (but are not limited to): (i) our ability to deliver fixed price projects in accordance with client expectations and within the parameters of our bids, and to avoid cost overruns; (ii) our ability to collect receivables, negotiate variation orders and collect the related revenue; (iii) our ability to recover costs on significant projects; (iv) capital expenditure by oil and gas companies, which is affected by fluctuations in the price of, and demand for, crude oil and natural gas; (v) unanticipated delays or cancellation of projects included in our backlog; (vi) competition and price fluctuations in the markets and businesses in which we operate; (vii) the loss of, or deterioration in our relationship with, any significant clients; (viii) the outcome of legal proceedings or governmental inquiries; (ix) uncertainties inherent in operating internationally, including economic, political and social instability, boycotts or embargoes, labour unrest, changes in foreign governmental regulations, corruption and currency fluctuations; (x) the effects of a pandemic or epidemic or a natural disaster; (xi) liability to third parties for the failure of our joint venture partners to fulfil their obligations; (xii) changes in, or our failure to comply with, applicable laws and regulations (including regulatory measures addressing climate change); (xiii) operating hazards, including spills, environmental damage, personal or property damage and business interruptions caused by adverse weather; (xiv) equipment or mechanical failures, which could increase costs, impair revenue and result in penalties for failure to meet project completion requirements; (xv) the timely delivery of vessels on order and the timely completion of ship conversion programmes; (xvi) our ability to keep pace with technological changes and the impact of potential information technology, cyber security or data security breaches; and (xvii) the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting;. Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this announcement. We undertake no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. 2 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Offshore wind industry 3. Seaway 7 4. Case studies 5. Q&A 6. Floating wind 7. Financials 8. Closing 9. Q&A 3 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables John Evans CEO, Subsea 7 4 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Subsea 7 – our values Our Vision Our Values What makes us who we are To lead the way in the delivery of offshore projects and services for the energy industry. ValuesSafety Our Strategy Integrity In an evolving energy sector, we create sustainable value by being the industry’s Sustainability partner and employer of choice in delivering the efficient offshore solutions the world needs. Performance Our Stakeholders We seek to create sustainable value for our Collaboration clients, our people, our shareholders and society in everything we do. Innovation 5 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Subsea 7 – our sustainability focus 6 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Subsea 7 – our business units Group backlog Q2 2020: $7.0bn 7 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Strategic focus areas Subsea Field of the Future: Energy Transition: Systems and Delivery Proactive Participation • Early engagement and partnerships • Oil and gas – lower carbon developments • Systems innovation and enabling Products • Operations – sustainable and efficient • Integrated SPS and SURF • Emerging energy – new markets and opportunities • Digital delivery of projects and services • Renewables – offshore wind 8 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Energy transition: oil and gas – lower carbon developments • Leveraging early engagement and engineering capabilities • Digital solutions across the asset lifecycle – efficiency and lower carbon at every stage • Deploying Carbon Estimator across early engagement and tender activities • Subsea technologies to support Oil & Gas developments lower carbon intensity • Building our capabilities and track record for offshore electrification 9 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Energy transition: operations – sustainable and efficient • Strengthen our focus on clean operations • Improving energy efficiency and carbon footprint of our solutions and delivery • Leveraging digital capabilities towards more efficient vessel activities • Developing our long term strategy towards a sustainable fleet 10 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Energy transition: emerging energy – new markets and opportunities • Participating in early stage projects through Xodus • Understanding and seizing opportunities in carbon capture and hydrogen • Evaluating emerging markets and partnership opportunities Source: Equinor 11 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Energy transition: renewables – offshore wind • Top tier service provider in fixed offshore wind • Top tier service provider in floating offshore wind by 2030 • Supporting the growth of our specialist capabilities in Xodus and 4Subsea • Building our investment in renewables technology 12 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Offshore wind industry 3. Seaway 7 4. Case studies 5. Q&A 6. Floating wind 7. Financials 8. Closing 9. Q&A 13 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Steph McNeill CEO Seaway 7 14 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Offshore fixed wind fast growing new energy source All Energy Sources Renewable Sources Offshore Renewables TW TW GW 7 12 200 3% 6 3% 10 5 150 8 41% 96% 56% 4 6 40% 100 1% 3 5% 4% 27% 4 27% 2 22% 3% 50 0% 5% 55% Fossil Fuels 40% 2 1 45% Hydro 26% 99% 0 Wave & Tidal 1% 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030 Source: BNEF 1H 2020 15 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Global expansion forecast for offshore wind energy (GW) Annual installation OWFs (Giga Watts) 26 25 America China Asia (excluding China) 18 19 19 CAGR 17 Europe 20% 10 9 9 8 7 5 4 4 4 1 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Source: BNEF 1H 2020 16 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Offshore wind – cost is continuing to reduce 300 Subsidised China 250 Taiwan Japan 200 Vietnam U.K. Germany 150 Netherlands cost of electricity $/MWh France 100 Denmark Belgium Levelised Finland 50 Italy Subsidy free U.S. 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Commercial operation date Source: BNEF 1H 2020 for Development LCOEs 17 Market, Fixed and Floating indicative trend lines: Seaway 7 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Investment in offshore wind forecast to increase significantly ($bn) Annual CAPEX for offshore wind farms ($ billion) 59 CAPEX China 56 CAPEX Rest of the world 44 44 44 42 CAPEX/MW CAGR 18% 2015: 3.0m USD/MW 2030: 2.3m USD/MW 25 22 21 22 17 13 13 12 11 3 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 12 20 48 Average Annual Investment Source: BNEF 1H 2020, Seaway 7 18 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Offshore wind – typical timeline for a development -5 -4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ National Develop Legislation & Site Develop Subsidy Process Plan Leasing Process Years Project Grid Connection & Consent Securing Site Define Application Surveys Supply Chain Engagement Bid for FID Subsidy Process FEED & Detailed Design Project Construction IRM & Warranty 19 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Major components of an offshore fixed windfarm Wind Turbine Generators Export Cable Substation Topsides Transition Pieces Substation Foundations WTG Foundations Foundation Array Piles Cables 20 © Subsea 7 - 2020 Subsea 7 Renewables Contractor perspective – turbines, foundations and array cables • Wind turbine generators – Standardised products, common designs – Mostly sub contractor to WTG manufacturer Wind – Lower engineering, supply chain and project Turbine Generators management content – Lower project complexity • Foundations and array cables Transition – High level of customisation Pieces – Main contractor WTG – Typically lump sum contracts Foundations – Unique design, fabrication, logistics and installation for each location Foundation – Highly bespoke engineering, supply chain and Piles project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gravity-Based Foundations in the Offshore Wind Sector
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Review Gravity-Based Foundations in the Offshore Wind Sector M. Dolores Esteban *, José-Santos López-Gutiérrez and Vicente Negro Research Group on Marine, Coastal and Port Environment and other Sensitive Areas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, E28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (J.-S.L.-G.); [email protected] (V.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 December 2018; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 12 March 2019 Abstract: In recent years, the offshore wind industry has seen an important boost that is expected to continue in the coming years. In order for the offshore wind industry to achieve adequate development, it is essential to solve some existing uncertainties, some of which relate to foundations. These foundations are important for this type of project. As foundations represent approximately 35% of the total cost of an offshore wind project, it is essential that they receive special attention. There are different types of foundations that are used in the offshore wind industry. The most common types are steel monopiles, gravity-based structures (GBS), tripods, and jackets. However, there are some other types, such as suction caissons, tripiles, etc. For high water depths, the alternative to the previously mentioned foundations is the use of floating supports. Some offshore wind installations currently in operation have GBS-type foundations (also known as GBF: Gravity-based foundation). Although this typology has not been widely used until now, there is research that has highlighted its advantages over other types of foundation for both small and large water depth sites. There are no doubts over the importance of GBS.
    [Show full text]
  • Suction Caisson Track Record 2019
    Suction Caisson Track Record 2019 Expertise, Seabed and Below. cathiegroup.com Pushing Boundaries, Delivering Solutions cathie-associates.com Client Project Name Description Date Region Sector Genesis Oil and Gas Detailed design and seismic assessment of suction caissons for a manifold Consultants Ltd Design experience & fishing protection structure. 2019 Middle East Oil & Gas Third party driveability analysis for CP and assessment of suction-assisted Northern Total E&P Third-party review penetration of CAN-ductor (composite CP and suction can). 2018-2019 Europe Oil & Gas FPSO mooring anchor concept selection (driven or suction pile), FEED- stage sizing and installation analysis of selected concept (suction caisson), including inverse catenary assessment and effect of seismic loading/ SBM Offshore Design experience liquefaction. 2018-2019 Oceania Oil & Gas R&D and development of Development of philosophy and design standard doucments for design methods/ geotechnical anchor systems, which will be part of SBM Corporate Northern SBM Offshore guidelines Specifications, Geotechnical discipline. 2018-2019 Europe Oil & Gas R&D and development of design methods/guide- Update seismic design guidelines to address specific Technip queries Northern Technip U.K. lines (including design of caisson foundations). 2018-2019 Europe Oil & Gas Mc Dermott Inc Foundation design review Design review of skirted mudmat and bucket foundations . 2018 Mediterranean Oil & Gas Holding capacity analysis accounting f.or chain trenching for different ExxonMobil Third-party review configurations. 2018 Africa Oil & Gas Suction Caisson Track Record 2019 Client Project Name Description Date Region Sector Geotechnical design review of 2 Universal Foundation monobucket designs for Deutsche Bucht site in Germany. The review covers document review Northern Offshore Van Oord Third-party review and independent installation and in-service design calculations.
    [Show full text]
  • WELL POSITIONED for the FUTURE Who We Are
    Subsea 7 S.A. Annual Report 2012 WELL POSITIONED FOR THE FUTURE WHO WE ARE Subsea 7 is a seabed-to-surface engineering, construction and services contractor to the offshore energy industry worldwide. Our vision is to be acknowledged by our clients, our people and our shareholders as the leading strategic partner in our market. We provide integrated services and have a proven track record of safely and reliably executing offshore projects of all sizes and complexity in all water depths. Our operating principles define the way we conduct our operations and shape our approach to business: Safety is at the heart of our operations – we are committed to an incident-free workplace, every day, everywhere. Projects are core to our business – our people are motivated to ensure that our projects deliver exceptional performance. Engineering is at the heart of our projects – we create technical solutions and sustainable value for our stakeholders. People are central to our success – we build our business around a valued and motivated workforce. We make long-term investments in our people, assets and know-how – we build strong relationships with clients and suppliers, based on mutual trust and respect. We operate in a consistent manner on a worldwide basis – we are locally sensitive and globally aware. Subsea 7 S.A. Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements 2012 2012 Financial Highlights Overview Overview 1 2 Chairman’s Statement Revenue Revenue by Territory 4 What We Do AFGOM $2,182m 6 Where We Operate 8 Chief Executive Offi cer’s Review $6,297m
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering Sustainable Value Across the Energy Lifecycle
    DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE VALUE ACROSS THE ENERGY LIFECYCLE SUBSEA 7 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2020 OUR PROGRESS INSIDE THIS REPORT CEO’s letter 2 In 2020 we made good progress Materiality assessment 3 on our sustainability journey Sustainability priorities Health, safety and wellbeing 4 REINFORCED OUR CORPORATE Energy transition 6 GOVERNANCE AROUND SUSTAINABILITY Labour practices and human rights 8 Business ethics 10 Operational eco-efficiency 12 Ecological impacts 14 ESTABLISHED WORK GROUPS OF SENIOR Additional sustainability topics 16 MANAGEMENT TO FOCUS ON OUR Covid-19 19 SUSTAINABILITY PRIORITIES Data summary 20 Report abbreviations 24 EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive 24 CONTINUED TO DEVELOP METRICS AND TARGETS KEY METRICS WE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS WITH EACH OF OUR SUSTAINABILITY PRIORITIES: Employee health, Energy transition DEVELOPED A CARBON ESTIMATING TOOL TO safety and wellbeing CALCULATE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF OUR WORK INCREASED THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES COMPLETING 0.07 6.0 GW COMPLIANCE AND ETHICS E-LEARNING Lost-time incident Cumulative power capacity frequency rate per of renewables projects 200,000 hours worked supported to end of 2020 FOCUSED ON THE WELLBEING OF OUR EMPLOYEES WITH DEDICATED RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THEM STARTED ELIMINATION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTICS Labour practices Business ethics EMBEDDED THE PRINCIPLES OF BUILDING and human rights RESPONSIBLY AND THE UN GLOBAL COMPACT COMMITTED TO PROACTIVE PARTICIPATION 6,660 5,153 IN ENERGY TRANSITION Number of suppliers Number of employees with a contract that who have completed
    [Show full text]
  • Stochastic Dynamic Response Analysis of a 10 MW Tension Leg Platform Floating Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
    energies Article Stochastic Dynamic Response Analysis of a 10 MW Tension Leg Platform Floating Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Tao Luo 1,*, De Tian 1, Ruoyu Wang 1 and Caicai Liao 2 1 State Key Laboratory for Alternate Electrical Power System with Renewable Energy Sources, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China; [email protected] (D.T.); [email protected] (R.W.) 2 CAS Key Laboratory of Wind Energy Utilization, Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +10-6177-2682 Received: 2 October 2018; Accepted: 23 November 2018; Published: 30 November 2018 Abstract: The dynamic response of floating horizontal axis wind turbines (FHWATs) are affected by the viscous and inertia effects. In free decay motion, viscous drag reduces the amplitude of pitch and roll fluctuation, the quasi-static mooring system overestimates the resonant amplitude values of pitch and roll. In this paper, the quasi-static mooring system is modified by introducing linear damping and quadratic damping. The dynamic response characteristics of the FHAWT modified model of the DTU 10 MW tension leg platform (TLP) were studied. Dynamic response of the blade was mainly caused by wind load, while the wave increased the blade short-term damage equivalent load. The tower base bending moment was affected by inclination of the tower and the misaligned angle bwave between wind and wave. Except the yaw motion, other degrees of freedom motions of the TLP were substantially affected by bwave. Ultimate tension of the mooring system was related to the displacement caused by pitch and roll motions, and standard deviation of the tension was significantly affected by the wave frequency response.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    SUBSEA 7 S.A. ANNUAL REPORT 2020 DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE VALUE ACROSS THE ENERGY LIFECYCLE SUBSEA 7 S.A. ANNUAL REPORT 2020 Strategic report Chairman’s Statement 2 2020 FINANCIAL Chief Executive Officer’s Review 4 Our Business Model 8 PERFORMANCE Our Markets 10 Our Activities 12 Strategy 14 Business Review 18 REVENUE ADJUSTED EBITDA Sustainability 22 Risk Management 26 Governance $3,466M $337M Governance Overview 37 (2019: $3,657m) (2019: $631m) Board of Directors 38 Executive Management Team 40 Corporate Governance Report 42 Consolidated Financial Statements Financial Review 52 CASH AND CASH DIVIDENDS AND SHARE Consolidated Financial Statements 59 EQUIVALENTS REPURCHASES Subsea 7 S.A. Financial Statements Subsea 7 S.A. Financial Statements 137 $512M $10M Glossary 149 (2019: $398m) (2019: $304m) Additional Information 155 NET INCOME/(LOSS) DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE $(1.1)BN $(3.67) (2019: $(82)m) (2019: $(0.27)) BACKLOG ORDER INTAKE $6.2BN $4.4BN (2019: $5.2bn) (2019: $3.9bn) Get the latest investor information online www. subsea7.com VISION To lead the way in the delivery of offshore projects and services for the energy industry STRATEGIC REPORT Discover online how we are fulfilling our vision. Visit www.subsea7.com STRATEGY In an evolving energy sector, we create sustainable value by being the industry’s partner and employer of choice in delivering the efficient offshore solutions the world needs Information on our strategic priorities and progress is set out on pages 14 to 17 GOVERNANCE SUBSEA FIELD ENERGY TRANSITION OF THE FUTURE –
    [Show full text]
  • Suction Caissons: Model Tests PI’S: R.E
    1 Comprehensive Status Report: November 18, 2004 OTRC Project Title: Suction Caissons & Vertically Loaded Anchors MMS Project 362 TO 16169 Project Subtitle: Suction Caissons: Model Tests PI’s: R.E. Olson, Alan Rauch, & Robert B. Gilbert MMS COTR: A. Konczvald This report provides a comprehensive summary the research completed in all prior Phases of this project (September 1999 – August 2004), and describes research being done in the present Phase (September 2004 – August 2005) to complete this project. Note that this report addresses one of four related research areas on this project. The other three areas are reported separately under the subtitles – Suction Caissons: Seafloor Characterization for Deepwater Foundations, Suction Caissons: Finite Element Modeling, and Suction Caissons & Vertically Loaded Anchors: Design Analysis Methods. Suction Caissons: Model Tests Roy E. Olson and Robert B. Gilbert BRIEF HISTORY OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES The intent of this introductory section is to provide a brief history of evolution that led to use of suction caissons. It is not intended to deal with offshore structures in general, nor with structures not part of the evolution of suction caissons. Further, views here are those of the authors and may not represent the convoluted manner in which developments typically occur. The early offshore oil production structures were steel frames (Fig. 1), called jackets, which were fixed to the seafloor using open-end steel pipe piles that were driven through the jacket legs and then welded to the jacket. When oil was discovered in the North Sea, the subsoil was generally stiff enough that shallow foundations could be used. This allowed the design to change to gravity platforms (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Finite Element Analysis of Suction Bucket Foundations in Sand Subjected to Cyclic Loading
    Finite Element Analysis of Suction Bucket Foundations in Sand Subjected to Cyclic Loading Ingerid Elisabeth Rolstad Jahren Civil and Environmental Engineering Submission date: June 2018 Supervisor: Hans Petter Jostad, IBM Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering i Preface This is a master thesis written in the spring of 2018 as the final part of my M.Sc. degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim. The thesis is a part of the master’s programme in Geotechnical Engi- neering at the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The thesis has been carried out in a cooperation with the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), which also proposed the thesis. Trondheim, 2018-06-10 Ingerid Rolstad Jahren iii Acknowledgement I would like to express my gratitude to my academic supervisor Adjunct Prof. Hans Petter Jostad, NGI, who provided great insight and expertise throughout the thesis work. His interest and enthusiasm for the topic in addition to great knowledge is truly inspiring. I also thank members of the staff at the Geotechnical Division at NTNU for kindly sharing their wisdom during my years as a student at NTNU. Finally, thank you to all my fellow students for valuable discussions and support. I.R.J. v Abstract A suction bucket or suction caisson is a foundation concept for supporting offshore installa- tions. The practical experience related to this concept is mainly based on applications in the oil and gas industry. Observations show significant difference in response for wind turbines compared to more traditional installations offshore.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Challenges for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines
    A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future Engineering Challenges for Conference Paper NREL/CP-500-38776 Floating Offshore Wind Turbines September 2007 S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and J. Jonkman National Renewable Energy Laboratory P. Sclavounos Massachusetts Institute of Technology Presented at the 2005 Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference Copenhagen, Denmark October 26–28, 2005 NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 NOTICE The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Floating Offshore Wind 101 Webinar Q & A
    Floating Offshore Wind 101 Webinar Q & A This Q&A document is based on the webinar, Floating Offshore Wind Overview. Cost and Economics Questions Answers Can you comment on the recent report that characterizes offshore wind in the We are unaware of the report being referenced, but we can say recent cost declines in Europe have been United States as too expensive? Is the industry positioned to counter that verified by NREL’s analysis of the revenue generated from negotiated power purchase agreements for assertion? the first few U.S. offshore wind projects suggest offshore wind: 1. Is no more expensive in the United States than in Europe 2. May soon be competitive in many electric markets, especially in the Northeast 3. May be able to provide additional benefits to the utility system, especially in constrained energy markets. What are the most likely financing schemes for U.S. utility-scale projects For early commercial-scale floating wind projects (e.g., those in the mid-2020s), we expect project starting construction in the mid-2020s or later without the benefit of federal tax financing arrangements that are similar to today’s financing of fixed-bottom wind projects in the United credits? Is a single-owner power purchase agreement the most likely financing States. The benefits of the fading tax credits will have to be compensated through other means to make mechanism, absent the past tax benefits for flip structures? projects bankable. These other means include lower costs or technology-specific, state-mandated power purchase agreements or offshore wind renewable energy certificates, which are known as ORECs, and they may need to be used in combination with public financing.
    [Show full text]
  • IEA Wind Technology Collaboration Programme
    IEA Wind Technology Collaboration Programme 2017 Annual Report A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR Wind energy continued its strong forward momentum during the past term, with many countries setting records in cost reduction, deployment, and grid integration. In 2017, new records were set for hourly, daily, and annual wind–generated electricity, as well as share of energy from wind. For example, Portugal covered 110% of national consumption with wind-generated electricity during three hours while China’s wind energy production increased 26% to 305.7 TWh. In Denmark, wind achieved a 43% share of the energy mix—the largest share of any IEA Wind TCP member countries. From 2010-2017, land-based wind energy auction prices dropped an average of 25%, and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) fell by 21%. In fact, the average, globally-weighted LCOE for land-based wind was 60 USD/ MWh in 2017, second only to hydropower among renewable generation sources. As a result, new countries are adopting wind energy. Offshore wind energy costs have also significantly decreased during the last few years. In Germany and the Netherlands, offshore bids were awarded at a zero premium, while a Contract for Differences auction round in the United Kingdom included two offshore wind farms with record strike prices as low as 76 USD/MWh. On top of the previous achievements, repowering and life extension of wind farms are creating new opportunities in mature markets. However, other challenges still need to be addressed. Wind energy continues to suffer from long permitting procedures, which may hinder deployment in many countries. The rate of wind energy deployment is also uncertain after 2020 due to lack of policies; for example, only eight out of the 28 EU member states have wind power policies in place beyond 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 March 2020 Dear Shareholders, on Tuesday 7 April
    Subsea 7 S.A. 412F, Route d'Esch L-2086 Luxembourg www.subsea7.com 17 March 2020 Dear Shareholders, On Tuesday 7 April 2020, the Annual General Meeting (the “AGM”) of the Shareholders of Subsea 7 S.A., (the “Company”), RCS Luxembourg N° B43172, will be held at the registered office of the Company, 412F, route d’Esch, L-2086 Luxembourg, at 15:00 hours (local time). Due to the fact that the Company is incorporated in Luxembourg as a Société Anonyme, the Company’s affairs are governed by the provisions of Luxembourg Company Law. Under these provisions and the provisions of the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, the AGM will be restricted to the matters set out in the enclosed Notice. Matters to be considered at the AGM At the AGM, shareholders will be asked to approve the Group’s Annual Report and consolidated financial statements, the Company’s annual accounts, discharge the Directors from their duties for the financial year and approve the statutory auditor’s appointment. In addition, this year’s AGM agenda includes three items with respect to the election to the Board of Directors of three directors standing for re-election, Mr Jean Cahuzac, Mr Niels Kirk and Mr David Mullen. The biographies of the relevant directors are attached to this letter in an Appendix. Quorum and Majority At the AGM, since under Luxembourg law there is no minimum quorum requirement, decisions taken shall be valid regardless of the number of shares represented, provided there is approval by the majority of the votes of the shareholders validly cast.
    [Show full text]