DOCSLIB.ORG

Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment ARCTIC OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Xiaobing Shi and Walter Rodriguez American Global Maritime Inc., 11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 660, Houston, TX 77079 This study was funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C., under Contract Number M10PC00104 Final Report June 2011 This report has been reviewed by BOEMRE and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Bureau, nor does mention of the trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use BOEMRE Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. VII ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. VIII SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... X 1. TASK1: ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .................................. 1 1.1 General .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Wind, Seastate and Current Assessment ........................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Beaufort Sea ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Chukchi Sea....................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.3 Dutch Harbor and Captains Bay...................................................................................................................... 13 1.3.4 Norton Basin.................................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Air Temperature ................................................................................................................................................ 16 1.5 Ice Cover ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 1.6 Trends.................................................................................................................................................................. 23 1.6.1 Air Temperature .............................................................................................................................................. 23 1.6.2 Ice Break-up & Freeze-up ............................................................................................................................... 26 1.6.3 Sea Ice Extent .................................................................................................................................................. 29 2. TASK2: STUDY OF ABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF EQUIPMENT USED TO TRANSPORT PLATFORMS ........................................................................................33 2.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................ 33 2.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................................................. 33 2.3 Class vs. Marine Warranty-Definition and Concept ...................................................................................... 33 2.3.1 Classification and Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................... 33 2.3.2 Marine Warranty Overview ............................................................................................................................. 34 2.4 Chukchi and Beaufort Sea................................................................................................................................. 35 2.5 Types of Drilling Units ....................................................................................................................................... 36 2.5.1 Jack-ups........................................................................................................................................................... 36 2.5.2 Drillships ......................................................................................................................................................... 37 2.5.3 Drilling Semi-submersibles ............................................................................................................................. 38 PAGE | I BOEMRE Table of Contents 2.5.4 Ice Strengthened Drilling Barges .................................................................................................................... 39 2.5.5 Rigs Operational Perspective .......................................................................................................................... 39 2.6 Drilling Units Geographical Locations ............................................................................................................. 39 2.7 Dry Transportation............................................................................................................................................ 40 2.7.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 2.7.2 Rig Principal Dimensions ................................................................................................................................ 41 2.7.3 Heavy Lift Market ........................................................................................................................................... 42 2.7.4 Heavy Lift Operators ....................................................................................................................................... 43 2.7.5 Particulars of the Heavy Lift Vessels .............................................................................................................. 48 2.7.6 Particulars of the Heavy Lift Barges ............................................................................................................... 50 2.7.7 Design Criteria and Meteorological Data ........................................................................................................ 51 2.8 Base of Operations ............................................................................................................................................. 52 2.8.1 Port of Nome ................................................................................................................................................... 52 2.8.2 Unalaska, Dutch Harbor .................................................................................................................................. 54 2.8.3 Suitability for Operations ................................................................................................................................ 56 2.9 Float-on /Float-off Operations .......................................................................................................................... 56 2.9.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................................... 56 2.9.2 Float-on Procedure .......................................................................................................................................... 57 2.9.3 Float-off Procedure.......................................................................................................................................... 58 2.10 Wet Transportation ........................................................................................................................................... 59 2.10.1 Towing Operations ......................................................................................................................................... 59 2.10.2 Tug Boat Services........................................................................................................................................... 59 2.10.3 Tug Feasibility ................................................................................................................................................ 60 2.11 Drillship Mobilization ........................................................................................................................................ 63 2.11.1 General............................................................................................................................................................ 63 2.11.2 Anchor Handling Vessels ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transits of the Northwest Passage to End of the 2019 Navigation Season Atlantic Ocean ↔ Arctic Ocean ↔ Pacific Ocean
    TRANSITS OF THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE TO END OF THE 2019 NAVIGATION SEASON ATLANTIC OCEAN ↔ ARCTIC OCEAN ↔ PACIFIC OCEAN R. K. Headland and colleagues 12 December 2019 Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 1ER. <[email protected]> The earliest traverse of the Northwest Passage was completed in 1853 but used sledges over the sea ice of the central part of Parry Channel. Subsequently the following 314 complete maritime transits of the Northwest Passage have been made to the end of the 2019 navigation season, before winter began and the passage froze. These transits proceed to or from the Atlantic Ocean (Labrador Sea) in or out of the eastern approaches to the Canadian Arctic archipelago (Lancaster Sound or Foxe Basin) then the western approaches (McClure Strait or Amundsen Gulf), across the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea of the Arctic Ocean, through the Bering Strait, from or to the Bering Sea of the Pacific Ocean. The Arctic Circle is crossed near the beginning and the end of all transits except those to or from the central or northern coast of west Greenland. The routes and directions are indicated. Details of submarine transits are not included because only two have been reported (1960 USS Sea Dragon, Capt. George Peabody Steele, westbound on route 1 and 1962 USS Skate, Capt. Joseph Lawrence Skoog, eastbound on route 1). Seven routes have been used for transits of the Northwest Passage with some minor variations (for example through Pond Inlet and Navy Board Inlet) and two composite courses in summers when ice was minimal (transits 149 and 167).
    [Show full text]
  • Expertise for Marine and Offshore Industries
    EXPERTISE FOR MARINE AND OFFSHORE INDUSTRIES ® The leading design, project management and expert services specialist for the technology and engineering industries EXPERTISE FOR MARINE Electrical engineering: INDUSTRY • Propulsion systems We are specialised in electrical and automation design, • Electric power distribution from the initial conceptual design phase through to the • Switchboards & distribution boards • Technical space layouts basic and detail design phases. • Lighting • Automation • Low voltage systems • AV systems • Navigation and communication systems • Safety/security systems • IT networks Mechanical engineering: • Azimuth propulsion • Structural strength analysis WHY CHOOSE COMATEC AS A STRATEGIC PARTNER? We are We are We are experienced knowledgeable effective Long-term, experience-based Using our knowledge of Comatec’s project arctic and offshore technology classification societies, local implementation method know-how that is widely authorities and environmental together with our capacity and appreciated by the marine requirements, we can promptly understanding of the industry industry. focus on results. enables the shortest lead times. We are cost- We are trusted We add value efficient Projects are delivered in Our professionals help you High-quality, cost-competitive accordance to the planned develop new features, functions, Finnish marine engineering timetable and budget. We follow inventions and even patents for offers flexibility according to your through on all projects even in your product. requirements. the most challenging project environments. CASE: Arctic ice-breaking supply vessel Customer need: • Arctech Helsinki built an icebreaking supply vessel “I have been very happy with the • Year-round operation, including temperatures as low as -35°С • Comatec was in charge of basic and detail design for the lighting, team’s work.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of LNG As Marine Fuel in Current Vessels. Perspectives and Improvements on Their Environmental Efficiency
    Implementation of LNG as marine fuel in current vessels. Perspectives and improvements on their environmental efficiency. Master’s Thesis Facultat de Nàutica de Barcelona Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Candidate: Llorenç Sastre Buades Supervised by: Dr. Francesc Xavier Martínez de Osés Master’s Degree in Nautical Engineering and Maritime Transport Barcelona, February 2017 Department of Nautical Sciences and Engineering i Implementation of LNG as marine fuel in current vessels. Perspectives and improvements on their environmental efficiency. ii Acknowledgments First of all, I would like to express my most sincere thanks to my supervisor Dr. Francesc Xavier Martínez de Osés for his accessibility and continuous support of my master’s thesis, for his wise advice and suggestions, which guided me throughout the development of this paper, and also for sharing with me his immense knowledge about marine pollution and maritime activities. Second, I would like to make special mention to my grandparents, Llorenç Sastre and Jeroni Sampol, with whom I will forever be grateful for bringing me up in my infancy, instilling their outlook on life and essential values on me and their undying love for me. Third, I would like to thank my parents for providing me with all the things that a child can ever deserve and for their attention and support in the good times and most important in the bad ones. To my father for his unceasing encouragement to achieve my academic and career goals, and my mother for her dedication and patience during my adolescence. Then, I would like to thank my university colleague, Eduardo Sáenz, for his feedback, understanding about maritime subjects related to my study and of course long-life friendship.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic Marine Transport Workshop 28-30 September 2004
    Arctic Marine Transport Workshop 28-30 September 2004 Institute of the North • U.S. Arctic Research Commission • International Arctic Science Committee Arctic Ocean Marine Routes This map is a general portrayal of the major Arctic marine routes shown from the perspective of Bering Strait looking northward. The official Northern Sea Route encompasses all routes across the Russian Arctic coastal seas from Kara Gate (at the southern tip of Novaya Zemlya) to Bering Strait. The Northwest Passage is the name given to the marine routes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans along the northern coast of North America that span the straits and sounds of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Three historic polar voyages in the Central Arctic Ocean are indicated: the first surface shop voyage to the North Pole by the Soviet nuclear icebreaker Arktika in August 1977; the tourist voyage of the Soviet nuclear icebreaker Sovetsky Soyuz across the Arctic Ocean in August 1991; and, the historic scientific (Arctic) transect by the polar icebreakers Polar Sea (U.S.) and Louis S. St-Laurent (Canada) during July and August 1994. Shown is the ice edge for 16 September 2004 (near the minimum extent of Arctic sea ice for 2004) as determined by satellite passive microwave sensors. Noted are ice-free coastal seas along the entire Russian Arctic and a large, ice-free area that extends 300 nautical miles north of the Alaskan coast. The ice edge is also shown to have retreated to a position north of Svalbard. The front cover shows the summer minimum extent of Arctic sea ice on 16 September 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Spanish National Action Framework for Alternative Energy in Transport
    INTERMINISTERIAL GROUP FOR GOVERNMENT COORDINATION OF THE NATIONAL ACTION FRAMEWORK FOR OF SPAIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN TRANSPORT NATIONAL ACTION FRAMEWORK FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN TRANSPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS INFRASTRUCTURE. IN COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIVE 2014/94/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, OF 22 OCTOBER 2014. 14 OCTOBER 2016 COORDINATED BY SECRETARIAT-GENERAL FOR INDUSTRY AND SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES PRESIDENCY OF THE INTERMINISTERIAL GROUP INTERMINISTERIAL GROUP FOR GOVERNMENT COORDINATION OF THE NATIONAL ACTION FRAMEWORK FOR OF SPAIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN TRANSPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 9 I.1. PRESENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2014/94/EU......................................... 9 I.2. BACKGROUND.................................................................................... 10 I.3. PREPARATION OF THE NATIONAL ACTION FRAMEWORK......................... 13 II. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR............................................. 17 II.1. NATURAL GAS.................................................................................... 17 II.2. ELECTRICITY..................................................................................... 21 II.3. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS.............................................................. 23 II.4. HYDROGEN………………………………………..…………................. 26 II.5. BIOFUELS…………………………………………….………………….. 28 III. ROAD TRANSPORT…………………………………………..………..…………….
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 10 Issue 2 1989 Canada's Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage Donat Pharand University of Ottawa Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the Law of the Sea Commons Recommended Citation Donat Pharand, Canada's Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage, 10 MICH. J. INT'L L. 653 (1989). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol10/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CANADA'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE Donat Pharand* In 1968, when this writer published "Innocent Passage in the Arc- tic,"' Canada had yet to assert its sovereignty over the Northwest Pas- sage. It has since done so by establishing, in 1985, straight baselines around the whole of its Arctic Archipelago. In August of that year, the U. S. Coast Guard vessel PolarSea made a transit of the North- west Passage on its voyage from Thule, Greenland, to the Chukchi Sea (see Route 1 on Figure 1). Having been notified of the impending transit, Canada informed the United States that it considered all the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as historic internal waters and that a request for authorization to transit the Northwest Passage would be necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic Offshore Development Concepts – History and Evolution
    Arctic Offshore Development Concepts – History and Evolution By Roger Pilkington and Frank Bercha Presented by Roger Pilkington At the SNAME AS Luncheon: March 19, 2014 Presentation • Systems and structures used in Beaufort Sea from 1970 to 1990 • Some concepts for Beaufort Development 1980s • Production systems currently in use in Arctic • Some interesting new concepts Rough Timetable • 1960s Panarctic drilled on Arctic Islands • In late 1960s Land sales in Beaufort Sea • Esso acquired land from 0 to ~15m Water Depth • Gulf acquired land from about 15 to about 30 m WD • Dome acquired land from about 30 to about 60m WD • From 1972s and 1989, Esso built sand and spray ice islands • ~1974 Canadian Government brought in Arctic drilling incentives • 1976 to about 1980 Dome brought 4 drillships, 8 support boats, super tanker, and floating dry dock into Arctic. 1980 Kigoriak. Rough Timetable (Cont) • 1981 Dome built Tarsuit Island • 1982 Dome brought SSDC into Arctic • 1983 Esso brought in Caisson Retained Island (CRI) to operate in deeper waters • 1983 Gulf brought Kulluk barge, Molikpaq GBS and 4 support vessels into Arctic • 1984 oil price went down and Government ended drilling incentives • All activity stopped in about 1994 Dome Gulf Esso The 3 Major Ice Zones in Arctic Esso ‐ Nipterk Ice Island Made from flooding ice with water from large pumps Shallow water only Esso sand and gravel island construction in summer and also winter by hauling sand and gravel in trucks over ice Artificial Islands • Ice islands – typically 0 to 3m • Sand and
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Challenges Faced by Arctic Ships
    NTIS # PB2011- SSC-461 STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES FACED BY ARCTIC SHIPS This document has been approved For public release and sale; its Distribution is unlimited SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE 2011 Ship Structure Committee RADM P.F. Zukunft RDML Thomas Eccles U. S. Coast Guard Assistant Commandant, Chief Engineer and Deputy Commander Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security For Naval Systems Engineering (SEA05) and Stewardship Co-Chair, Ship Structure Committee Co-Chair, Ship Structure Committee Mr. H. Paul Cojeen Dr. Roger Basu Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Senior Vice President American Bureau of Shipping Mr. Christopher McMahon Mr. Victor Santos Pedro Director, Office of Ship Construction Director Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Maritime Administration Marine Safety, Transport Canada Mr. Kevin Baetsen Dr. Neil Pegg Director of Engineering Group Leader - Structural Mechanics Military Sealift Command Defence Research & Development Canada - Atlantic Mr. Jeffrey Lantz, Mr. Edward Godfrey Commercial Regulations and Standards for the Director, Structural Integrity and Performance Division Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship Dr. John Pazik Mr. Jeffery Orner Director, Ship Systems and Engineering Research Deputy Assistant Commandant for Engineering and Division Logistics SHIP STRUCTURE SUB-COMMITTEE AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING (ABS) DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CANADA ATLANTIC Mr. Craig Bone Dr. David Stredulinsky Mr. Phil Rynn Mr. John Porter Mr. Tom Ingram MARITIME ADMINISTRATION (MARAD) MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND (MSC) Mr. Chao Lin Mr. Michael W. Touma Mr. Richard Sonnenschein Mr. Jitesh Kerai NAVY/ONR / NAVSEA/ NSWCCD TRANSPORT CANADA Mr. David Qualley / Dr. Paul Hess Natasa Kozarski Mr. Erik Rasmussen / Dr. Roshdy Barsoum Luc Tremblay Mr. Nat Nappi, Jr. Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Day Pioneering and Its Safety in the Floating Ice Offshore
    Modern Day Pioneering and its Safety in the Floating Ice Offshore Arno J. Keinonen AKAC INC. Victoria, B.C. Canada [email protected] Evan H. Martin AKAC INC. Victoria, B.C. Canada [email protected] ABSTRACT al. (2006a), Keinonen et al. (2006b), Keinonen et al. (2000), Pilkington et al. (2006a), Pilkington et al. (2006b), Reed (2006), Tambovsky et al. Floating ice offshore pioneering has been performed since the mid (2006), Wright (1999), and Wright (2000). 1970s. This paper presents the key lessons learned from 5 such operations of wide geographic as well as operational range. The intent FLOATING STATIONARY OPERATIONS IN PACK ICE is to present the safety related lessons from these operations for the OFFSHORE benefit of the future safety of similar operations. Beaufort Sea Drillships KEY WORDS: ice offshore operations; station keeping in ice; ice management; safety in ice. When four open water drillships, upgraded to an ice class and winterized, entered the Beaufort Sea mid seventies, together with INTRODUCTION several ice class supply vessels, the operators had an expectation of having an open water season of a few months each year to be able to Several early pioneers going to the Arctic went all out, all thinking that explore for oil and gas (Keinonen and Martin, 2010). The operation they were well prepared, yet some were clearly not prepared for what itself was expected to be a seasonal summer operation only and not to could happen. Some became heroes while others left their names on interact with ice. pages of history books for not completing their missions, at times paying the ultimate price, losing their lives, equipment and leaving The first pioneering lesson was that the so-called summer season had behind a low level, local pollution to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Services
    Offshore services The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. Activities include: – drilling , exploration and production of hydrocarbon – carriage of passengers, goods and other materials for rigs, production platforms, FSOs and FPSOs – allied activities - diving support, maintenance support, towage, anchor handling, cable laying, survey, pipe laying, marine construction services – port & terminal related services - aiding berthing and unberthing, dredging OilOil fieldfield activityactivity spinespine Surveys: Bottom Profiling, Seismic Studies etc. •Support Services: -Logistics Support -Well Testing Drilling: -Casing Exploration & Development -Mud Engineering -Well Logging -Directional Drilling -Cementing Production Drilling Rig Jack-up Floaters Drilling Rig Jack-up Independent leg Mat supported Slot Cantilever “KEDARNATH” Independent leg Jack up rig Mat supported Jack up rig Cantilever type Slot type Drilling Rig Floaters Drill Ships Semi submersibles Barges Drill ship Semi submersible Offshore Support Vessels • Supply Vessels: Vessels engaged in carrying fuel, fresh water and other provisions from shore to offshore installations • Platform Supply Vessel: Specially designed vessels providing support services to offshore installations • Anchor Handling Tug: Specially designed vessel for anchoring/ mooring of offshore rigs and work barges additionally used for maritime towage and salvage • Anchor Handling Tug Supply Vessel: A hybrid vessel to anchor handling tug with supply vessel capability Offshore Support Vessels Vessels that support offshore activities Offshore Supply Vessels Vessels engaged in carrying fuel, fresh water and other provisions between shore base and offshore installations Diving support vessel Vessel engaged in supporting diving activities offshore Platform Support Vessel Vessel specially designed for providing support services viz. transporting fuel , fresh water and other materials such as pipes, cement, tools and provisions to offshore oil and gas platforms and drilling rigs.
    [Show full text]
  • Logoboek 2021-01-26
    Offshore Supply and Support Vessels – World Wide JANUARI 2021 A Westcoasting Product Compiled by Ko Rusman, Herbert Westerwal and Dries Stommen [email protected] 1 Fleet List explanatarory notes ABS Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India The fleet listings are shown under the operating groups. The vessel listings indicate: Column 1 – Name of vessel. Column 2 – Year of build. Column 3 – Gross tonnage. Column 4 – Deadweight tonnage. Column 5 – Break horsepower. Column 6 – Bollard pull. Column 7 – Vessel type. ABS Amelia 2010 2177 3250 5452 PSV FiFi 1 Column 8 – FiFi Class. ABS Anokhi 2005 1995 1700 6002 65 AHTS FiFi 1 Explanation column 7 Vessel types: Abu Qurrah Oil Well Maintenance Establishment, Abu Dhabi, UAE PSV –Platform Supply Vessel. AHTS –Anchor Handling Tug Supply. AHT –Anchor Handling Tug. DS –Diving Support Vessel. StBy –Safety Standby Vessel. MAIN –Maintenance Vessel. U-W –Utility Workboat. SEIS –Seismic Survey Vessel. RES –Research Vessel. OILW –Oilwell Stimulation Vessel. OilPol –Oil Pollution Vessel Al Nader 1970 275 687 1700 20 OILW MAIN –Maintenance Vessel. Al-Manarah 1971 275 687 1700 OILW W2W –Walk To Work Vessel. Al-Manarah 2 1998 769 1000 1250 OILW FRU –Floating Regasification Unit. ACSM Agencia Maritima S.L.U., Vigo, Spain Nautilus 2001 2401 3248 5302 PSV ACE Offshore Ltd., Hong Kong, China A & E Petrol Nigeria, Ltd., Warri, Nigeria Guangdong Yuexin 3270 2021 1930 1370 6400 75 AHTS Guangdong Yuexin 3271 2021 1930 1370 6400 75 AHTS O'Misan 1 1968 575 550 1700 PSV Acta Marine Group, Den Helder, Netherlands AAM
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Vessel Requirements for the U.S. Offshore Wind Sector
    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 Grant Opportunity 24th September 2013 Disclaimer This Report is being disseminated by the Department of Energy. As such, the document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and information quality guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. Though this Report does not constitute “influential” information, as that term is defined in DOE’s information quality guidelines or the Office of Management and Budget's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin), the study was reviewed both internally and externally prior to publication. For purposes of external review, the study and this final Report benefited from the advice and comments of offshore wind industry stakeholders. A series of project-specific workshops at which study findings were presented for critical review included qualified representatives from private corporations, national laboratories, and universities. Acknowledgements Preparing a report of this scope represented a year-long effort with the assistance of many people from government, the consulting sector, the offshore wind industry and our own consortium members. We would like to thank our friends and colleagues at Navigant and Garrad Hassan for their collaboration and input into our thinking and modeling. We would especially like to thank the team at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) who prepared many of the detailed, technical analyses which underpinned much of our own subsequent modeling.
    [Show full text]