NORDIC GERMAN LAW SEMINAR 2019 Programme 15:00 15:05: Welcome and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NORDIC GERMAN LAW SEMINAR 2019

Programme

15:00 – 15:05: Welcome and introductions 15:05 – 15.35: ”The Prague Rules”, by Hans Bagner, Morssing & Nycander 15:35 – 16:00: ”Delay damages in offshore logistics”, by Rósing Rasmussen and Bo Sandroos, WSCO 16:00 – 16:30: Break, with coffee and snacks 16:30 – 16.55: ”Bills of Lading in the tramp trade ”, by Jesper Windahl, WSCO 16:55 – 17.30: ”Insurance, contracting and claims experience in offshore wind projects”, by John Croucher and Miles Wakefield, The Standard Club UK Ltd 17:30 – 18:30: Beverages and canapés

2

Presentation by Hans Bagner in Hamburg on 10 April 2019 TAKING O OF E EVIDENCE ENCE IN I INTER TERNA NATI TIONAL AL ARBI BITR TRATI TION AND ND TH THE E PRAGUE E RULES OF D OF DECEMBER 2 2018

Back ckgroun und

• International Arbitration
• Competition between two or more national procedural rules
• Arbitration – not litigation

IBA R A Rul ules

• 1999 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA

Rules)

• 2010 Revised version of IBA Rules
• IBA Rules: compromise of the common law and the civil law different

systems and procedures on the taking of evidence.

• IBA Rules successfully influenced the practice of international arbitration
• Critique of the IBA Rules : dominance of the common law traditions
• Creeping Americanisation of international arbitration e.g. use of written

witness statements, lengthy cross examination of witnesses, extensive document production.

• Time and cost efficiency - has it been achieved?

Prague gue Rul ules es

• The result of discussions since April 2017; a working group presented the

new Rules – adopted in December 2019 in Prague (www.praguerules.com)

• “Rules of the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration”
• Favoring the civil law tradition
• An inquisitorial approach (rather than an adversarial ) – proactive role of the

AT

• Reducing time and costs
• AT and the parties shall in principle avoid production of documents including

e-discovery (Art 4.2)

Summ mmar ary

• Prague Rules bridge gaps
• Parties from civil law countries (Continental Europe, Latin America,

Middle East, Asia) would feel more comfortable

• Attractive to Disputes comprising a limited amount
• One size does not fit all

Delay Damages in Offshore Logistics

Nordic German Law Seminar Hamburg 10 April 2019 Rósing Rasmussen & Bo Sandroos WSCO law firm

Introduction – delay damages

• Two legal constructs

– “Delay”; and – “Damages”

• The purpose is to provide insight into some of the legal

disputes and potential pitfalls regarding “Delay”, in particular

– the Programme and the significance of critical paths; – Programme float; and – and to highlight practical issues causing delays in offshore logistics, and illustrate how typical issues may be resolved in the contract

9

Introduction - Danish offshore markets

• Offshore oil and natural gas

– Exploration since 1962, production since 1972; – Operators include Total, Ineos, Hess; – Awards in 8th oil and gas round imminent; – Denmark has been self-sufficient in oil and gas since 1994 (2018: 98%)

• Offshore wind

– Production since 1991; – Operators include Ørsted, Vattenfall, Eon; – Horns Rev III and Kriegers Flak offshore wind parks being developed; –

• Ca. 50% of electricity production in Denmark is from wind

10

Danish construction law on delay

• Freedom of contract

– Delay; – Float; – Damages

• Case law

– Danish ordinary courts; – Danish Arbitration Board for Building and Construction (Voldgiftsnævnet for Bygge- og Anlægsvirksomhed) deciding on standard onshore contracts, including especially

• AB 92 and AB 18
• ABT 93

24/04/2019 11

Danish construction law on delay (cont.)

• A delay will have occurred where works are not completed by the

contractually agreed delivery date – Completion date for the entirety of works; – Completion dates for milestones

• Different contract, different terms

– Delivery Date (NEWBUILDCON, SAJ); – Time for Completion (FIDIC); – Completion Date (NEC, LOGIC)

• Contractual delay mechanisms

– Extension of time; – Requirements to give notice in connection with request for extension

• f time;

– Obligation to progress the works prior to completion date; – Recovery of time-related cost in certain circumstances and associated notice provisions

24/04/2019 12

Delay and causal link requirements

• Danish law: right for an extension of time if the occurrence

actually causes the works to exceed

– a date for the completion of the works or – a milestone on a critical path

• Pursuant to FIDIC, the Contractor is entitled to an extension
• f Time for Completion if delay caused by e.g.

– a Variation; – a cause of delay giving an entitlement to an extension of time under a Sub-Clause of the Contract; or – a delay, impediment or prevention attributable to the Employer

• If an occurrence does not fall on a critical path or does not

in itself cause a delay: no right for an extension of time

13

Float – definition and challenge

• Float defines

– the period between the finalization of the works and the agreed upon delivery date during which no works are scheduled to be performed; and – The period between individual activities scheduled under the Programme, e.g. on a critical path.

• a prolongation of the execution of the works on a critical

path caused by the Employer may not in itself affect the Taking Over of the Works or the agreed milestones.

“if all float is being consumed by the Employer and the Contractor has an incident that causes an actual delay exceeding the date for completion, the question of what party is entitled to consume (or revoke) the float arises“ 14

Float – legal issues

• Float may belong to:

– the Employer – the Contractor; or – the Project as such

• Enrichment considerations

– Contractor entitled to consume the float for delays that he himself has caused first – Contractor will not be entitled to an extension of time if the Employer causes a prolonging of the Works that may covered by unconsumed float

• The legal position is therefore (probably) that unconsumed

float belongs not to the Parties, but the project

• Exceptions?

15

What can cause a delay in offshore logistics and construction?

• Working methodology changed, by the Employer
• Weight, dimensions of item to be transported/installed not

as agreed

• Employer supplied items, e.g. barge, not available to

Contractor on time

• Unforeseen circumstances, requirements, requests
• Foundations, monopiles, transition pieces not available to

installation Contractor

• Weather downtime

16

Contract clauses to govern causes of delay, for illustration

Weather Downtime Weather Downtime shall mean any situation, other than a Force Majeure event, where the Marine Spread is prevented to perform the Work in a safe manner due to weather conditions, such as swells, currents, waves, visibility (both underwater and above water) and wind.

17

The Compensation and Execution Plan are subject to the condition that Contractor is allowed to work twenty-four (24) hours per day and seven (7) days per week. Contractor shall be entitled to a Variation Order in accordance with Clause 30 of the Conditions of Contract for any deviation to these working practices due to decision(s)/instructions of Employer or in accordance with any applicable law, state, regulation or otherwise from an authority having jurisdiction.

5.0 LIMITED DURATIONS The Execution Plan and Compensation are subject to the limited duration(s) for time spent or lost for various activities as further detailed in this Clause 5.0. If the subject durations exceed(s) the time indicated for the applicable activity, Contractor shall be entitled to a Variation Order in accordance with Clause 30 of the Conditions of Contract.

(i) Nil (0) hours for delay due to permits, certificates, approvals, authorisations, consents, licences, interface coordination, etc., which shall all be provided by Employer. (ii) Nil (0) hours for delays and cost associated with the removal of any debris or other obstructions, not caused by

• Contractor. Removal of any debris, not caused by Contractor, may be removed at the applicable day rates,

however can only be executed if within the capability of the ROV. [ (iii) – (xii) ]

Damages

• Starting points

– Contractual regulation – Danish law conditions for damages/calculation – Mitigation – limitation of losses

• Often liquidated damages

– Milestones – Catch-up?

• Indirect and consequential damages
• ”Global” liability (?)
• ”Disruption” (?)

18

Recommendations

• Establish and update Schedule(s)/Programme(s)
• Set out provisions for what constitutes delay
• Set out provisions for what entitles the contractor to a

variation order

• Regulate ”float” between the parties

19

20

Break

Bills of Lading in the tramp trade

Nordic German law seminar 22

Bills of Lading in the tramp-trade

• The Nordic perspective

Jesper Windahl, advokat, partner

”Tramp Trade” and Bills of lading – Nordic perspective

• What is ”Tramp trade” (”Trampfahrt”, ”trampfart”) ?

– Carriage of goods by ships not operating according to a fixed schedule. – Contracts of carriage generally entered into as voyage charter parties.

• Bills of lading issued in the tramp trade generally include an ”incorporation

clause” the purpose of which is to make the C/P-terms applicable also between the issuer and the holder of the B/L:

• CONGENBILL 2007 BILL OF LADING To be used with charter parties Conditions of

Carriage

(1) All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleaf, including the Law and Arbitration Clause/Dispute Resolution Clause, are herewith incorporated.

• Tramp trade pursuant to a C/P is, with a few exceptions, not governed by

any mandatory provisions under Scandinavian law.

• The Merchant Shipping Act (“MSA”) includes in chapter 14 non-

mandatory rules on charter-parties.

Nordic German law seminar 23

• Contract for the sale of 10,000 MT tons of Soyabean-meal on FOB-Buenos Aires-

terms.

• B/L issued by Shipowner:
• ”Cargo received clean on board”;
• ”C/P dated as overleaf is incorporated into this B/L”;
• ”All Disputes to be decided by arbitration in London”
• Cargo contaminated with rust-flakes, pieces of coal and plastic-waste when

unloaded in Aarhus, Denmark.

Nordic German law seminar 24

Shipowner m/v ”Annette” Voyage-charterers

”Grain-experts A/S” BUYER

V/C Gencon 94-form

SELLER

B/L

Tramp trade and Bills of Lading – FOB-sales

Nordic German law seminar 25

Nordic German law seminar 26

Nordic German law seminar 27

• B/L issued by Shipowner:
• ”Cargo received clean on board”: B/L is evidence of the condition of the cargo when

shipped only, MSA § 299.

• ”C/P dated as overleaf is incorporated into this B/L”: B/L does not alter or override the

conditons of carriage set out in the C/P

• ”All Disputes to be decided by arbitration in London”: Arbitration clause binding on

charterers

Nordic German law seminar 28

Shipowner m/v ”Annette” Voyage-charterers

”Grain-experts A/S” BUYER

V/C Gencon 94-form

SELLER

B/L

Tramp trade and Bills of Lading – FOB-sales

MSA § 325: ”If the carrier [Danish: bortfragteren] issues a bill of lading for goods on the ship, the bill of lading shall govern the conditions for the carriage of and delivery of the goods as between the carrier [bortfragteren] and a third party holder of the bill of lading. Provisions of the chartering agreement which are not included in the bill of lading cannot be invoked against a third party unless the bill of lading includes a reference to them” MSA § 253 ”[…] if a bill of lading has been issued under a charterparty, the provisions of this Chapter shall nevertheless apply to the bill of lading if it governs the legal relationship between the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading.”

Nordic German law seminar 29

Shipowner m/v ”Annette” Voyage-charterers

”Grain-experts A/S” SELLERS

V/C Gencon 94-form

BUYERS

B/L CIF-sale B/L

Tramp trade and Bills of Lading – CIF-sales

• B/L issued by Shipowner:
• ”Cargo received clean on board”: B/L is evidence of the condition of the

cargo when shipped, MSA § 299.

• ”C/P dated as overleaf is incorporated into this B/L”: Liability decided

pursuant to the mandatory regulation of the MSA.

Nordic German law seminar 30

Shipowner m/v ”Annette” Voyage-charterers

”Grain-experts A/S” SELLERS

V/C Gencon 94-form

BUYERS

B/L CIF-sale B/L

Tramp trade and Bills of Lading – CIF-sales

31

Shipowner m/v ”Annette” Time-charterers

Bulk-masters Ltd.

V/C Gencon 94-form Voyage-charterers

”Grain-experts A/S” BUYERS

Sellers Baltime T/C

• ”Grain-experts A/S” bound by Voyage-

charter with Bulk-masters Ltd.

• B/L incorporates C/P – which C/P is

incorporated?

• MSA § 325: Mandatory provisions may

give voyage-charterers a right to claim against owners as a ”third party”.

• Recourse from shipowner agaist Bulk-

masters Ltd. and from Bulk-masters Ltd. against Grain-experts A/S ?

Nordic German law seminar

Tramp trade and Bills of Lading – FOB-sales revisited

B/L

32

Shipowner m/v ”Annette” Time-charterers

Bulk-masters Ltd.

V/C Gencon 94-form Voyage-charterers

”Grain-experts A/S” BUYERS

Sellers Baltime T/C

• MSA S. 311: ”Arbitration

”The parties may agree in writing that disputes shall be settled by arbitration. It shall be regarded as part of the arbitration agreement that arbitration proceedings can be instituted at the discretion of the plaintiff in one of the States where a place as mentioned in […] is located and that the arbitration tribunal shall apply the provisions of the present Chapter.”

Nordic German law seminar

Tramp trade and Bills of Lading – FOB-sales revisited – Dispute resolution

B/L

33

Shipowner m/v ”Annette” Time-charterers

Bulk-masters Ltd.

V/C Gencon 94-form Voyage-charterers

”Grain-experts A/S” BUYERS

Sellers Baltime T/C

• MSA S. 295 Master’s Bill of Lading
• ”A bill of lading signed by the master
• f the ship carrying the goods shall

be deemed to have been signed on behalf of the carrier”

• ”Carrier” is defined as ”the person

who enters into a contract with a sender for the carriage of general cargo by sea”

Nordic German law seminar

Tramp trade and Bills of Lading – FOB-sales revisited – Master’s B/L

B/L B/L issued “on behalf of the master”

Bills of Lading in the tramp trade

Nordic German law seminar 34

Bills of Lading in the tramp-trade

• The Nordic perspective

Jesper Windahl, advokat, partner

Thank you

Insurance, contracting and claims in offshore wind projects

John Croucher, Head of Division, Offshore – Standard Club Miles Wakefield, Adjusting Manager – Renewables, Natural Resources 10th April 2019

Insurance and Contracting

• verview

37

Contents

1 Offshore wind – current market outlook 2 Key stakeholders 3 Insurance overview and role of P&I 4 Offshore Windfarm Contracting

Offshore wind – current market

• utlook

39

Current market outlook

40

Current market outlook

Key stakeholders

stakeholders

42

Who is involved?

Diagram provided by Aon UK Ltd

Insurance overview and role of P&I

44

Key insurances involved

Hull and Machinery Construction All Risk (or PD policy) Protection and Indemnity

45

Key insurances involved

Hull and Machinery Construction All Risk (or PD policy) Protection and Indemnity

Construction All Risk

What is WELCAR 2001? Insurance policy wording Wellington Syndicate at Lloyd’s [since purchased by Catlin, then XL Catlin] - Construction All Risks Released in 2001

46

Construction All Risk

• Widespread adoption by both the insurance market (underwriters) and the
• ffshore industry
• Wording is intended to cover:

Section I Physical Damage Section II Third Party Liabilities (NB Watercraft Exclusion and P&I deemed Primary) All participants in the project – joint venturers, contractors, sub-contractors, yards All activities in the project, from cradle to grave (e.g. design, engineering, procurement, fabrication, transits, installation, hook up and commissioning)

47

Standard P&I Poolable cover

Rules cover – Crew – Pollution from the ship – Wreck removal of ship – Collision / dock damage – Cargo Limits – $7.9 billion (approx) – $2bn in respect of passengers – $3bn in respect of passengers and crew – $1bn oil pollution Poolable cover governed by the POOLING AGREEMENT

48

Mutual Cover for mutual risks

49

Pooling Agreement

(a) Eligibility of ship types (c) Contracting (b) Eligibility of operation Access to Mutual cover governed by Pooling Agreement (PA)

Type of Activity – Specialist Operations

50

Rule 5.11 – Non Exhaustive Definition “including but not limited to dredging, blasting, pile driving, well stimulation, cable or pipe laying, construction, installation or maintenance work….”

Windfarm Installation

51

Cover during Specialist Operations

Poolable (Standard P&I cover) – Injury, illness or death p.o.b. – Wreck removal of the ship – Oil pollution from ship Non poolable (Extended P&I cover) ‘other’ 3rd party liabilities (i) during the course of performing specialist operations (ii) as a consequence of the specialist nature of the

• peration

Excluded – Failure to perform or fitness for purpose or quality of member’s work – Loss of or damage to the contract works (e.g wind turbine)

52

Offshore Windfarm Contracting

Offshore Windfarm Contracting

Not to contract for liabilities that would not have arisen either: – at law – Knock for Knock

54

Offshore Windfarm Contracting

55

Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs – Conseils (the International Federation of Consulting Engineers)

Choice of FIDIC contracts

Green Book “Short Form” - straight forward, quick or cheap project Red Book - employer design (the construction contract) Yellow Book - contractor design (design/ build contract) Pink Book - (Multilateral Development Banks providing finance) Silver Book - EPC/Turnkey project Gold Book - design, build, operate project (long-term operation and maintenance commitment is required )

56

Choice of FIDIC contracts

Green Book “Short Form” - straight forward, quick or cheap project Red Book - employer design (the construction contract) Yellow Book - contractor design (design/ build contract) Pink Book - (Multilateral Development Banks providing finance) Silver Book - EPC/Turnkey project Gold Book - design, build, operate project (long-term operation and maintenance commitment is required )

57

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Definitions (Clause 1.1.2 FIDIC yellow)

“Employer” means the person named as employer in the Appendix to Tender and the legal successors in title to this person”

Any indemnities will not apply in respect of customers or clients or any affiliates, parent or subsidiary companies of the Employer

58

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Personal Injury / death (Clause 17.1 (a) FIDIC yellow)

“The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Employer.…in respect of bodily injury, sickness, disease or death of any person whatsoever arising out of or in the course of…the Works.” “The Employer shall indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor .…in respect of bodily injury, sickness, disease or death…which is attributable to any negligence, wilful act or breach” Unbalanced Indemnity that exposes the contractor to non negligence based liabilities

59

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Care of the Works (Clause 17.2 FIDIC yellow)

“The Contractor shall take full responsibility for care of the Works and Goods from the Commencement Date until Taking-Over Certificate…not caused by Employers Risks listed in sub-clause 7.3 [war, rebellion, riot etc]” Onerous exposure, almost blanket assumption During Transportation P&I cover can respond During Installation Contractor must have access to CAR cover as excluded as contract work

60

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Damage to other property (Clause 17.1(b) FIDIC yellow)

“The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Employer….in respect of damage to any property…(other than the works) to the extent such damage or loss… arises out of or in the course of the ..execution of the work and… is attributable to any negligence”

Fault based liability for all property other than the work. During Transportation P&I cover can respond. Query extent of contract work exclusion particularly during maintenance Onerous exposure in respect of high value existing property.

61

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Removal of wreck (Clause 11.11 FIDIC yellow)

“The Contractor shall remove any…surplus material, wreckage, rubbish and temporary works from the site….if all these items have not been removed within 28 days…employer may sell or otherwise dispose of any remaining items” Intended as obligation to leave a clean site after completion of work, not to allocate liability following a casualty Cover can respond to removal of wreck of the ship, but not debris per se that arises as a consequence of performing the work Consider effect of company step in rights. 28 day target?

62

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Pollution (Clause 4.18 FIDIC yellow)

“The Contractor shall take all reasonable steps to protect the environment (both on and offsite)” Creates huge litigation risks compared to sources based allocations, for example under Supplytime 2017 wording:

63

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Pollution (Clause 15 ST2017)

Owners shall be liable for, and agree to indemnify….the Charterers against all claims….and liabilities whatsoever arising out of actual or threatened pollution …from the Vessel, except as may emanate from cargo thereon even if such claims… are caused wholly or partially by the act, neglect, breach of duty (whether statutory or

• therwise) or default of the Charterers’ Group.

Charterers shall be liable for and agree to indemnify…the Owners from all claims….and liabilities…whatsoever arising out of or resulting from any other actual or threatened pollution damage, even if such claims….are caused wholly or partially by the act, neglect, breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise) or default of the Owners’ Group, and even if such loss, damage or liability is caused wholly or partially by the unseaworthiness of the Vessel.

64

Contracting Issues - FIDIC

Consequential loss (Clause 17.6 FIDIC yellow)

“ Neither party shall be liable to the other Party for loss of use of any works, loss of any contract, or for any indirect or consequential loss or damage which may be suffered by the other party….other than under sub clause 17.1 [Indemnities]”

Arguably covers both Direct and Indirect consequential loss but severely limits its effect by excluding those liabilities following from damage to property other than the work.

65

Contracting Issues - general

– How effective is knock for knock as an alternative? – Parties are free to contract on any terms they consider appropriate – However, some jurisdiction can, in some circumstances, void terms in contracts that unreasonably disadvantage one party, including knock-for-knock indemnities, e.g German Unfair Terms Act – Key question is whether contract terms have been individually negotiated or whether contract is

• n a standard form

66

Contracting Issues

– If knock-for-knock indemnities have been individually negotiated they will generally be upheld – In such circumstances, German Unfair Terms Act will not step-in to override them – ‘individually negotiated’ what does this mean? – Relevant term needs to have been discussed and the party seeking to rely on the indemnity needs to show that, during negotiations, it was prepared to consider alternative allocation of liability if necessary

67

Contracting Issues

– However, if contract is on a standard form (including e.g. unamended LOGIC, BIMCO suite) there is a risk that German Unfair Terms Act will seek to void knock-for-knock indemnities – Void unless party seeking to rely on k-f-k indemnity can show that terms of standard form were negotiated or if can show that term is not unreasonably disadvantageous to other party – Only in rare circumstances have German Courts held that unamended terms

• f a standard form contract were individually negotiated

68

Offshore Wind in Europe

Miles Wakefield, Adjusting Manager – Renewables, Natural Resources

April 2019

A quick anatomy lesson…

70

71

Currently 90% installed global capacity is offshore Northern Europe

72

Why Europe?

• Politics?
• Economics?
• Resources?
• Geology?
• Water depth?

73

European Offshore Wind 2018

In 2018 European offshore wind capacity grew by 18%. 15 new wind farms were brought online. Bringing 2.6GW of new offshore capacity. UK – 49% (1.3GW) & Germany – 36% (969 MW) led the way bringing 85% of that new capacity. The average size of a new turbine grew 15% from 2017 to 2018 to 6.8MW. Europe is now home to 105 offshore wind farms (and counting). Europe has a total of 18.5GW capacity. 1.2GW generates enough electricity to power approx. 1,000,000 homes.

A brief history of time… and how things have changed!

74

Foundations

75

2009 – UK North Sea – 450 tonnes 2017 – German Baltic Sea – 1000 tonnes

WTGs

76

2008 Vestas V90 – 3MW 2018 Vestas 8MW

Vessels

77

Vessels

78

At the forefront of making the industry cost competitive

79

Rapid technological development

Wind turbine rotor diameter, year of commissioning

80 m 90 m 120 m 107 m 154 m 164 m 220 m

Boeing 747, 76m

• Turbines and rotor size
• Sites
• Vessel size
• Cable capacity
• Foundation design (e.g.monopiles)
• Electrical



• Transition fromsingle supply to

multiple global suppliers

2002 2005 2007 2011 2014 2016 2021 1

• 1. In Mar. 2018 GE unveiled a 12 MW turbine. Each Haliade-X unit, will be capable of powering 16,000 homes and producing 67 GW/h per year, based on wind conditions on a typical German North Sea site

Source: Ørsted Wind Power, August 2018

Multiple levers to drive down cost in offshore wind

1 2 3

Scale Innovation Industrialisation

  

Levelised cost of electricity for different technologies

80

The rapid cost reductions in the industry, have made offshore wind power competitive relative to conventional power generation based on fossilfuels EUR/MWh 2016 prices 2017 165€ Offshore* 65€ Offshore** 55€ Onshore 66€ Solar PV 113€ Nuclear*** 70€ Natural gas 72€ Coal

• 60%

2012

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) for CCGT and Coal plants for Northwest Europe, Danish Energy Agency and BNEF for Offshore WInd. For offshore wind: Including cost of transmission – Calculated as Levelised revenue (subsidy and market price) of electricity over 25yrs lifetime as a proxy for the levelised cost of society. 3,5% real discount rate used. *Generic Offshore Wind, Northwest Europe, FID 2012. In 2012 our goal was to reduce offshore wind costs to 100 Euro/MWh in 2020, ** Hornsea 2, UK, *** Hinkley Point, UK. Same approach as for Offshore Wind. Strike price of 92,5 £/MWh in 2012 real prices. Lifetime of 60yrs, 91% capacity factor. Source: Ørsted Wind Power, August 2018

81

However… There remains one common cause of claims through the history of

• ffshore wind projects…

Cables!

Cable Losses vs Everything Else 2002-2017

82

69% 22% 9%

Losses

Cables WTG Others

What’s next?

Floating Offshore Wind Turbines

84

Hywind2 – Scotland – Equinor (Statoil)

85

Windfloat1 – Portugal - Principle Power

86

FLOATGEN – France – Ideol

87

Kitakyushu Demonstrator– Japan – Consortium

88

89

What does this all mean?

− Projects are now further offshore and in deeper water. − Demand for suitable vessels (greater lifting and jacking capabilities). − New technologies / untested components. − Less is more – WTGs greater generating capacity means fewer foundations − Shorter programme times. − Greater expectation for early generation (staggered commissioning and take over).

90

Conclusions

It is clear that the offshore wind industry Europe has gone through a period of development. Through the developments in WTG technology and industrialisation it has allowed the industry to grow and become competitive in a market focused on LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). Potentially offshore wind would have fallen by the way side in favour of cheaper and more reliable forms of energy generation. What does this mean to the rest of the world? The learnings that have been made in Europe will allow projects in the newer emerging markets, such as the USA and Asia, to be built of such as size, that would have been unimaginable when at the same point of development in Europe.

Questions?

The Standard Club Ltd is regulated by the Bermuda Monetary Authority and is the holding company of The Standard Club UK Ltd, The Standard Club Ireland DAC (both managed by Charles Taylor & Co. Limited) and The Standard Club Asia Ltd (managed by Charles Taylor Mutual Management (Asia) Pte. Limited). The Standard Club UK Ltd is registered in England, No.17864, at The Minster Building, 21 Mincing Lane, London EC3R 7AG, authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority FRN 202805 and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. The Standard Club Ireland DAC is registered in Ireland, No. 631911, at Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2; authorised and regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. The Standard Club Asia Ltd is incorporated in Singapore, No.199703224R, at 140 Cecil Street, #15-00 PIL Building, Singapore 06954; authorised and regulated by the Monetary Authority of

• Singapore. Charles Taylor Mutual Management (Asia) Pte. Limited, registered in Singapore No.
• 199703244C. Registered office: 140 Cecil Street, #15-00 PIL Building, Singapore 069540.

Charles Taylor & Co. Limited. Registered in England No. 02561548 is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority FRN 785106. Registered Address: The Minster Building, 21 Mincing Lane, London EC3R 7AG

92

Regulatory status

@StandardPandI The Standard P&I Club www.standard-club.com @ctaylorplc Charles Taylor plc www.ctplc.com