Skip to main content

Modeling Offshore Turbine Installation Vessel Dayrates in the U.S.

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Offshore Wind Energy Cost Modeling

Part of the book series: Green Energy and Technology ((GREEN))

  • 2253 Accesses

Abstract

The cost to install the foundation and turbines at offshore wind farms depends upon the duration of the operation and the vessel dayrate. In 2012, the market for offshore wind installation vessels is small and located exclusively in Europe with pricing mechanisms that are not transparent. The cost to a U.S. developer to lease an installation vessel is subject to a large degree of uncertainty and will be impacted by supply and demand conditions, willingness to pay, and regulatory requirements. The purpose of this chapter is to estimate dayrate ranges for U.S. offshore operations. Three model frameworks are developed using a capital cost model, a leasing strategy, and a developer-owned vessel strategy. Liftboat dayrates are expected to range between 12,500 and 75,000 $/d, jackup barges 25,000 and 150,000 $/d, and self-propelled installation vessels from 60,000 to 300,000 $/d. Mobilization costs are estimated and parameterized to estimate total costs by vessel type and mobilization distance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Effective dayrates were computed by dividing the value of the contract by the number of days of operation.

  2. 2.

    For example, Superior Energy Services released information on newbuild and dayrate costs for its large (265 class) liftboats. Superior built two vessels in 2009 for a cost of approximately $25 million and leased these vessels for approximately 37,500 $/day. This gives a dayrate of approximately 0.15% of newbuild cost [5]. In its 2009 financial statement, Tidewater provided information on the newbuild cost of domestic and international deepwater platform supply vessels. For domestic vessels, the dayrate was 0.075% of newbuild costs while for international vessels the dayrate was 0.1% of newbuild costs [6].

  3. 3.

    For example, a vessel financed for 20 years and a yield on a 20 year security of 4.5%, gives an interest rate of 5.3% if 80 basis points are used and 5.7% if 120 basis points are used.

  4. 4.

    Utilization rate is the proportion of time the vessel is under contract. For the future offshore wind industry in the U.S., utilization rate is unknown.

  5. 5.

    EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and is a commonly used measure of financial performance; it is particularly useful for firms with expensive long-lived assets such as ships.

  6. 6.

    Utility company DONG acquired the turbine installer A2SEA in 2009, BARD used its own vessel to construct the BARD 1 offshore wind farm, and RWE has recently acquired two new vessels.

  7. 7.

    For dimensional analysis, set 0.011DV 2 t equal to tug hp and since fuel use is 1 gal per hp per day, G can be considered as $/hp·day.

  8. 8.

    Heavy lift transport was used for the transfer of the Titan I and Titan II from the construction shipyard in Louisiana to the UK.

  9. 9.

    Depending on the circumstances of the tow, wet tows may have insurance rates above 3%, however, this produces exceptionally high costs making wet tows extremely costly. If insurance premiums exceed 3% there is likely to be no case in which they are favored and we therefore exclude this possibility from the analysis.

References

  1. Morgan CA, Snodin HM, Scott NC (2003) Offshore wind: economics of scale, engineering resource and load factors. Department of Trade and Industry, London. 3914/BR/01

    Google Scholar 

  2. Crown Estate (2010) A guide to an offshore wind farm. http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/guide_to_offshore_windfarm.pdf

  3. Cole JC, Herrmann RP, Scott RJ (1997) Discoverer Enterprise: World’s most advanced drilling unit. In: SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 4–6 March, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 37659-MS

    Google Scholar 

  4. Riglogix (2011). Database. www.riglogix.com, Accessed 15 Apr 2011

  5. Superior Energy Services (2010) 2009 Quarterly report. http://ir.superiorenergy.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=97570&p=irol-sec

  6. Tidewater (2010) 2009 Annual report. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81406&p=irol-reportsannual

  7. Cole JC (1995) Replacement cost economics of offshore drilling rigs. In: SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, February 28-March 2, Amsterdam, Netherlands. SPE 28197-MS

    Google Scholar 

  8. MARAD (2010) Title XI Federal Ship Financing Program. http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/title_xi_home/title_xi_home.htm

  9. Esber B (2004) Title XI financing for vessel and shipyard improvement projects. MarineLink. http://www.marinelink.com/news/article/title-xi-financing-for-vessel-and-shipyard-improvement-projects/322695.aspx. Accessed 24 Oct 2010

  10. Jayaram A, Royes A (2009) Offshore drillers: normalize it. Credit Suisse

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bailey JE, Sullivan CW, Cruise D (2010) Offshore drilling monthly. Jefferies and Company, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  12. Strauss-Wieder Inc (2010) Economic impact assessment. http://www.tigerii-tiv.com/. Accessed 20 Oct 2010

  13. Jablonowski CJ, Kleit AN (2011) Transaction costs and organizational choice: modeling governance in offshore drilling. Eng Econ 56:28–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goulielmos AM (2009) Risk analysis of the Aframax freight market and of its new building and second hand prices, 1976–2008 and 1984–2008. Int J Shipp Transp Logist 1:74–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Osmundsen P, Sorenes T, Toft A (2008) Drilling contracts and incentives. Energy Policy 36(8):3138–3144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kempton W, Mandelstam P, Mercurio M, Musial W, Watson G, Uliman J, Stewart S (2009) Research and development needs for offshore wind. American Wind Energy Association, Offshore Wind Working Group

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thresher R, Robinson M, Veers P (2008) Wind energy technology: current status and R&D future. Presented at the Physics of Sustainable Energy Conference University of California, Berkeley. March 1-2. NREL/CP-500-43374

    Google Scholar 

  18. Green J, Bowen A, Fingersh LJ, Wan Y (2007) Electrical collection and transmission systems for offshore wind power. In: Offshore Technology Conference, April 30–May 3, Houston, 19090-MS

    Google Scholar 

  19. Musial W, Butterfield S, Ram B (2006) Energy from offshore wind: preprint. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, NREL/CP-500-39450

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zahalka P (2008) Bollard pull. http://www.vht-online.de/vht2008/pdf/Bollard-Pull.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2010

  21. Van Hoorn F (1990) Semi-submersible heavy-lift ships in operation. Schip en Werf 52(8):448–453

    Google Scholar 

  22. EPA (2000) Analysis of commercial marine vessels emissions and fuel consumption data. Washington, EPA420-R-00-002

    Google Scholar 

  23. De Jong E (2010) Ready for a heavy-lift of the share price. SNS Securities

    Google Scholar 

  24. Roddick BM (1995) Towage insurance. Tulane Law Review (70):679

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lim R (2008) KS Energy liftboat sinks on way to fulfill North Sea contract. The Business Times, 29 October

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gulfnews.com (2010) Lamprell Energy signs wind vessel deal. February 16. http://gulfnews.com/business/general/lamprell-energy-signs-wind-vessel-deal-1.583730. Accessed 20 Oct 2010

  27. Philips P (2010) WTIV market expanding rapidly. Pacific Maritime online. http://www.pmmonlinenews.com/2010/10/wtiv-market-expanding-rapidly.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2010

  28. Osborne A (2004) Mayflower installation ship sold for just £12 million. The London Telegraph, 22 April

    Google Scholar 

  29. RWE (2009) RWE awards contract to Korean shipyard to build an offshore construction ship. http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/86182/rwe-innogy/news-press/press/?pmid=4004290. Accessed 20 Oct 2010

  30. Forston D (2009) Turbine ship proves to be an idea with legs. The Sunday Times. October 4

    Google Scholar 

  31. BARD Engineering (2008) Keel laying of Wind Lift 1. BARD Magazine. 6 June

    Google Scholar 

  32. Offshore Shipping (2008) Master Marine awarded first contract for self-propelled jackup. October 24. http://www.oilpubs.com/oso/article.asp?v1=7921. Accessed 20 Oct 2010

  33. Hercules Offshore (2010) 2009 Annual report. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=192573&p=irol-reportsannual. Accessed 29 Oct 2010

  34. Hornbeck Offshore (2010) 2009 Annual report. http://ir.hornbeck.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=132245&p=irol-reportsannual. Accessed 24 Oct 2010

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendices

Appendix A. Leasing Dayrates

Dayrates associated with a vessel lease (D L ) are composed of three factors: the daily finance costs (F d ), the daily operating costs (O) and the daily ROI (R d ):

$$ D_{L} = F_{d} + O + R_{d} $$
(7.6)

The daily finance costs are composed of the daily principal and interest payment to the lender plus the daily proportion of the down payment. Over the course of a term loan, the monthly interest payment declines with the declining principal; therefore the finance costs could be determined by either the average interest payment or the specific interest payment. For our purposes, the average interest payment is sufficient and simplifies the equations. In this case, the average monthly principal and interest payment (A) is the first payment plus the last payment divided by two:

$$ A = \frac{{\left[ {\frac{SP}{12T} + \frac{I}{12}SP} \right] + \left[ {\frac{SP}{12T} + \frac{I}{12}\left( \frac{SP}{12T} \right)} \right]}}{2} $$
(7.7)

where S is the total ship cost, P is the proportion financed, T is the term of the loan and I is the interest rate. In Eq. (7.7), the two terms in square brackets in the numerator are the first and last payments, respectively. Within each bracketed term, the first term (SP/12T) is the monthly principal payment, while the second term is the monthly interest payment. The non-financed portion (N) of the capital costs are:

$$ N = S - SP $$
(7.8)

The daily capital costs (F d ) are then:

$$ F_{d} = \frac{A}{30.4} + \frac{N}{Y365} $$
(7.9)

where Y equals the life of the vessel in years (alternatively, T could be used instead of Y). To account for unutilized days, the daily finance costs can be divided by the expected utilization rate, U e .

The operating costs, O, are derived from annual operating costs divided by utilized days and therefore already account for unutilized periods.

The daily ROI (R d ) is the total investment (S) times the annual ROI (R A ) divided by 365:

$$ R_{d} = \frac{{SR_{A} }}{365} $$
(7.10)

R d may also be divided by the expected utilization rate U e .

The total dayrate is thus given by:

$$ D_{L} = \frac{{\left[ {\frac{SP}{12T} + \frac{I}{12}SP} \right] + \left[ {\frac{SP}{12T} + \frac{I}{12}\left( \frac{SP}{12T} \right)} \right]}}{{60.8*U_{e} }} +\frac{N}{{\text{Y}365U_{e} }} + O + \frac{{SR_{A} }}{{365U_{e} }} $$
(7.11)

Appendix B. Newbuilding Dayrate

The dayrate for newbuilding is derived differently from the dayrate for leasing. For newbuilding, the daily cost (D N ) to the developer is the total financed cost (F T ) divided by the duration of the project (L) in years plus the daily operating expense.

$$ D_{N} = \frac{{F_{T} }}{L365} + O $$
(7.12)

This gives the vessel no value after completion of the project; to give value to the vessel we take the total cost of the project minus the total net income (G) from the vessel after the project, and divide by the duration of the project:

$$ D_{N} = \frac{{F_{T} + O365L - G}}{L365} $$
(7.13)

In this case, G may be either a lump sum value accrued from the sale of the vessel (G S ), or it may be revenue generated from the future lease of the vessel (G L ).

F T is given by the total vessel cost plus the interest paid where the total interest paid is calculated as the average of the first and last interest payments times the total number of interest payments:

$$ F_{T} = S + T12*\left[ {\frac{{\frac{SPI}{12} + \left( \frac{SP}{T12} \right)\frac{I}{12}}}{2}} \right] $$
(7.14)

which simplifies to:

$$ F_{T} = S + \frac{SPI}{2}\left( {T + \frac{1}{12}} \right) $$
(7.15)

Assuming the vessel is leased, the total vessel net income following use in the initial wind farm (G L ) is a function of the dayrate (not including operating costs), and the remaining life of the vessel:

$$ G_{L} = 365\left( {Y - L} \right)U_{e} \left( {D_{L} - O} \right) $$
(7.16)

where Y equals the total expected life of the vessel, in years. The dayrate, D L , is given in Eq. (7.11) and represents the net income for a similar vessel. Combining the equations and simplifying gives a total dayrate for a newbuilt vessel to be leased after initial use (D NL ) of:

$$ D_{NL} = \frac{1}{L365}\left( \begin{gathered} S + \frac{SPI}{2}\left( {T + \frac{1}{12}} \right) + O365L - \\ \left[ {365\left( {Y - L} \right)*\left( \begin{gathered} \hfill \frac{{\left( {\frac{SP}{12T} + \frac{I}{12}SP} \right) + \left( {\frac{SP}{12T} + \frac{I}{12}\left( \frac{SP}{12T} \right)} \right)}}{60.8} \\ \hfill + \frac{N}{Y365} + \frac{{SR_{A} }}{365} \\ \end{gathered} \right)} \right] \\ \end{gathered} \right) $$
(7.17)

In Eq. (7.17), D NL is negative for many plausible combinations of parameters which suggests that future earnings offset the costs of installation. However, a negative dayrate is uninformative for the purpose of cost estimation. Further, Eq. (7.17) assumes that the expected utilization rate equals the actual utilization rate and that vessel supply and demand are in equilibrium over the life of the vessel so that dayrates are well modeled by D L . If supply and demand are not in equilibrium, D L will be a poor estimator of the real dayrate.

Conversely, the vessel may be sold at the conclusion of the project, reducing future risk to the developer. The total revenue from the sale (G S ) is a function of the depreciation rate and the length of the project. Assuming that the vessel depreciates constantly over the vessel life (Y):

$$ G_{S} = S*\left( {\frac{Y - L}{Y}} \right) $$
(7.18)

This gives a dayrate for a newbuilt vessel sold after completion of the project of:

$$ D_{NS} = \frac{{S + \frac{SPI}{2}\left( {T + \frac{1}{12}} \right) + O356L - S\left( {\frac{Y - L}{Y}} \right)}}{365L} $$
(7.19)

However, it may be more reasonable to assume that when the vessel is sold the loan would be paid off, with no additional interest accruing. In this case, F T is not a function of the total interest paid over the life of the loan, but the interest paid up until year L. In this case, we can determine the average interest payment as the first interest payment plus the interest payment at time L, divided by two. We then multiply the average interest payment by the number of interest payments made.

$$ F_{T} = S + L \cdot 12\left( {\frac{{\tfrac{SPI}{12} + [SP - L12\left( {\tfrac{SP}{12T}} \right)] \cdot \tfrac{I}{12}}}{2}} \right) $$
(7.20)

This gives a total D NS of:

$$ D_{NS} = \frac{{S + L \cdot 12\left( {\frac{{\tfrac{SPI}{12} + [SP - L12\left( {\tfrac{SP}{12T}} \right)] \cdot \tfrac{I}{12}}}{2}} \right) + O356L - S\left( {\frac{Y - L}{Y}} \right)}}{365L} $$
(7.21)

We consider this to be the most useful equation for the costs associated with a newbuilt vessel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaiser, M.J., Snyder, B.F. (2012). Modeling Offshore Turbine Installation Vessel Dayrates in the U.S.. In: Offshore Wind Energy Cost Modeling. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2488-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2488-7_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2487-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2488-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics