2011-06-30-Innovation on the Horizon for Offshore Wind Logistics MAKE Consulting

8/12/2019 2011-06-30-Innovation on the Horizon for Offshore Wind Logistics MAKE Consulting

1/29

1

Innovation on the Horizon for Offshore Wind Logistics

Research Note

Wind Power Sector

June 2011


2/29

Executive Summary

2

Long term growth opportunities are spurring innovation in the nascent offshore wind market

Offshore wind power growth expected to take off in 2011

Driven by the European Unions 20% by 2020 mandates, but also impacted byincreased ambitions from China, over 26GW is due to be installed globally from2011 to 2016.

Near shore, shallow development opportunities will diminish

Analysis of the EUs project pipeline shows a clear trend of projects movingfarther offshore and into deeper waters as time passes.

New design concepts emerging for offshore logistics challenges

A rash of new turbine installation vessels and floating foundationconcepts have been emerging ahead of what is expected to be a keygrowth segment in the global wind space.


3/29

Global Offshore Wind Demand Set for Significant Upswing

3

Global Offshore Market Outlook, 20062016Source: MAKE ConsultingQ2 Market Outlook Update

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011e 2012e 2013e 2014e 2015e 2016e

Americas Asia Pacific European Union

Ample onshore resources and

premium cost of offshore wind limit

global uptake

EU offshore segment matures

China increasing offshore targets

Onshore wind dominates Americas

An

nualTurbineInstallations(MW)

Note:Annualinstallationsindicative

ofgrid

conn

ected

turbines


4/29

Offshore vs. Onshore Wind: CAPEX comparison

4

Typical Onshore versus Offshore Wind Capital Cost Breakdown (EUR)Source: MAKE Consulting

4

Turbine

70%

Civil

11%

Electrical

8%

Substation

6%Mgt.

1%

Install &Logistics

1%

Insurance

1%Eng.

1%

Other1%

Turbine

45%

Foundations

22%

Electrical

7%

Substation

7%

Management

1%

Install &

Logistics

15%

Insurance

2%

Engineering

1%

Onshore

1.15M/MW

Offshore

3.1M/MW

Cost reduction is imperative within the offshore wind space to ensure its long term success

against alternate power generation technologies logistics will be a key focus area.


5/29

Current and Future Offshore Project Characteristics

5

Evolution of EU Offshore Wind Power Plant Depth and Distance from ShoreSource: MAKE Consulting

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

MaxWaterDe

pth(m)

Distance from Shore (km)

Planned Operational

Offshore logistics will become even more challenging as wind power plants move farther from

shore and deeper in depth

Vessel speed and payload capacity

imperative to develop distant wind power

plants economically

Deep water offshore wind development calls for

increased use of jacketed foundations and possibly

floating technology

Near shore, shallow depth wind power

plants largely developed

NOTE: Water depths based on max water depth, not

average water depth at site


6/29

Saturation Pushes Projects Farther, Deeper Offshore

6

Impact of Increased Project Distances and DepthsSource: MAKE Consulting

Increasing ProjectWater Depth

Need for jackets ortripods results in lessfoundations per trip

Use of jackets and tripodsincreases pile driving time

as well

Deeper waters increasejack-up time per site, may

exceed jack-up vesselcapabilities

Increasing DistanceFrom Shore

Installation vessel transittime increases

Increased export cablingtime as additional cable is

required

Increased weatherdowntime as sea

conditions often worsenfar from shore

Logistics CostDrivers

Greater depths drive need for larger, faster vessels as well as some deepwater substructure

alternatives for especially challenging sites.


7/29

Self-Propelled Install Vessel (SPIV) Serve Todays Needs

7

New purpose built self-propelled jack-up vessels will be able to achieve install rates of less

than 2 days per site but asset owners still pushing for more

Loading Time

Transit Time

InterarrayTime

Turbine &

FoundationInstall 2400h

1000h

90h

1200h

Wind Power Plant

Installation Task Times (SPIV)Source: MAKE Consulting Loading Time:Time required to transfer wind turbine components and

turbine foundation from port loading facility to vessel

o Vessel payload capacity and port material handling drive this parameter

Transit Time:Time required f0r fully loaded vessel to travel from port to

the wind farm and back

o Vessel payload capacity defines number of round trips required from port to wind

farm while vessel speed helps define this parameter

Interarray Time: Time required for jack-up vessel to jack up & down from

service height, preload its legs and move from turbine site to turbine site

o Floating vessels will have lower time requirements as jacking and preload of

vessels jacking legs are not required

Turbine & Foundation Install Time: Time needed for upending, setting and

piling monopiles and mechanical erection of turbine and transition pieces.o Timing is strongly influenced by crew efficiency and to a lesser degree crane

capacity, as specialized lifting equipment is not prevalent in the market

Key Definitions

Note:

Latest generation SPIV employed

360MW wind farm

3.6MW turbines and monopiles

25m average project depth

20km distance from port


8/298

New Installation Vessel Overview


9/29

New Install Vessel Concepts Abound, but Uptake Limited

9

Vessel Industry Barriers to EntrySource: MAKE Consulting

GainingTrack

Record

CrewTraining

Huge CapitalExpenditure

Barriers exist,but can beovercome

OffshoreWind MarketUncertainty

EstablishedDeveloper &

UtilityRelations

Long VesselBuild Cycle

Size and duration of the investment are

not suitable for smaller organizations

o EUR 300 Million and 2-3yr build cycle

o Strong corporate backing like that of Swire

Pacific or Hochtief Construction is critical

Market demands purpose built vessels, but

overexposure to wind may doom a smallercompany

o Off-ramps do exist in the oil & gas industry

as well as the offshore wind O&M space

Track record and established relationships

are critical

o End users will look to reduce risk to max

extent possible, especially as project sizesand capital expenditures increase

o Gaining approval to conduct trial

operations of Unproven design concepts

may be difficult

Barriers to Entry

The dramatic increase in new offshore wind vessel investments over the past 18-24 months has been focused

on traditional self-propelled jack-up vessels from larger players like Swire and Hochtief


10/2910

Ability of vessel to reduce installation timesin excess of todays state of the art self-

propelled install vessels

Indicates ability of vessel to support

installation need s for monopiles, tripods,

tripiles and jacket foundations

Indicates ability of the vessel to support a multitude

of tasks such as transport, turbine service, oil & gas

duty, etc

Indicates the level of specialization required in

port facility to accommodate the vessels

loading/unloading mechanism

Indicates ability of vessel to support

installation activities for wind turbines of

various nameplate ratings, technology, as

well as transport orientation

3 2 1

Potential Install Time

Savings

Strong upside potential over most advanced

purpose built jackup vessels

Similar performance to soon-to-be released

vessels (MV Adventure)No advantage over existing vessel fleet

Turbine Tech FlexibilityCapable of installing all turbine types in

multiple configurations

Customized around a singular turbine type or

turbine orientation Cannot install wind turbines

Foundation Tech Flexibility Capable of installing all foundation typesCustomized around a singular foundation

typeCannot install foundations

Mission Flexibility

Can support installation, transportation and

service operations within wind while also

capable le of supporting adjacent industries

Can support installation, transportation and

service operations within wind industry

Can only support wind turbine or foundation

installation activities

Port Flexibility

Requires no port facility modification in order

to achieve benefits of chosen installation

vessel equipment

Requires minor port facility modification to

support ships transfermechanism or support

onshore turbine commissioning

Requires major port facility modification to

support ships transfermechanism and

support onshore turbine commissioning

Explanation of Analysis

Port

Flexibility

Mission

Flexibility

Potential InstallationTime Saving

Turbine

Technology

Flexibility

Foundation

Technology

Flexibility

Install times include loading/unloading ofvessel, transit times, & turbine/foundation

installation times

Analysis of New Installation Vessel Concepts


11/29

Strabag Applying Integrated Approach to Market Entry

11

Strabag Carrier Vessel & FoundationsSource: Strabag (images) Investing in development of its own offshore wind power

plants, complements its construction competence bundled

in STRABAG Offshore Wind GmbH

Planning tightly integrated value chain engagement from

foundation design/manufacture to port assembly facility to

installation services

Massive transportation load, as foundation and fully

assembled turbine are carried out at once

Taking into account considerations of transporting

foundation and turbine elements in a single trip, the

vessels payload limitations will require a huge number of

trips from port to site

Technology Highlights

Integrated approach necessary as limited payload capacity of vessel may

not yield installation cost savings Port Flexibility Mission Flexibility

Potential Installation

Time Saving

TurbineInstallation

Flexibility

FoundationInstallation

Flexibility


12/29

Windlifter More of a Design Exercise v. Commercial Product

12

Windlifter Vessel ConceptSource: Windlifter (images) Joint development effort of Dutch Shipbuilder Ulstein

Group and IDEA Heavy Equipment

Primary differentiator is proposed skidding mechanism to

move turbines from ships deck to turbine foundation

Lack of heave compensation and other motion

compensation is notable, especially given the top heavy

nature of wind turbines

Inability to perform foundation or turbine O&M worklimits addressable market

Method of sea fastening for turbine while in transit is

unknown, and may require specialized port equipment


Turbine transfer mechanism focused on simplicity, but may introduce

concern on stability of transfer mechanism Port Flexibility Mission Flexibility


Time Saving

TurbineTechnology

Flexibility

FoundationTechnology

Flexibility


13/29

Forward Integration of Critical Component Supplier

13

Huisman Wind Turbine ShuttleSource: Husiman (images) Huisman is a privately held supplier of heavy construction

equipment (i.e. heavy lift ship cranes)

Compensating for small payload with increased transit

speed (14 knots) and speed of turbine installation

(Huisman estimates 2 hrs/turbine)

Vessel stability requires a myriad of sophisticated motion

compensation technologies in addition to typical dynamic

positioning technology

Installation also requires a mooring concept whereby theship is directly connected to the foundation

Unknown impact to foundation design/construction

Unclear if pile driving operations are feasible


Port Flexibility Mission Flexibility


Time Saving

TurbineInstallation

Flexibility


Flexibility

SWATH style vessel built for speed and stability, but limited payload

capacity requires frequent trips


14/29

Focused Foundation Installer from NorWind

14

NorWind Foundation Vessel ConceptSource: NorWind (images) NorWind AS designs, fabricates, and installs foundations

for offshore wind turbines.

One converted DP vessel with two special handling

packages focused on reducing installation costs for

jacketed foundations

Design concept is centered upon experience gained at

Alpha Ventus

o Pre-piling and installation of jacket foundations

o Combine function of eleven vessels into a singular vessel to

increase efficiency, reduce spread

Innovative piling template with integrated monitoring and

survey technology and four winch deployment system for

jackets are main differentiators


Unclear if significant advantages will be gained over the next

generation of jack-up vessels to be delivered in 2013 timeframe Port Flexibility Mission Flexibility


Time Saving

TurbineInstallation

Flexibility


Flexibility


15/29

Focused Foundation Installer from IHC Merwede

15

IHC Merwede Turbine Install VesselSource: IHC (images) IHC Merwede specializes in designing and building state-

of-the-art offshore and dredging vessels, and handling

equipment

Combines key success factors of a self-propelled jack-up

vessel with innovative lift/transfer systems

o Transit speed at 10knots and max operating depth of

45m falls below planned best-in-class jack-up vessels

o Rotating hydraulic lift/transfer system to reduce

turbine installation time and minimize HSE concerns

o Port equipment specialization should be minimized

Purpose built for turbine installation only, which reduces

overall utility of the vessel


An ambitious hybrid approach that can build upon existing industry

know-how and lessons learned Port Flexibility Mission Flexibility


Time Saving

TurbineInstallation

Flexibility


Flexibility


16/29

16

Self-Propelled Jack-up Vessel Define New Standards

o Faster vessels capable of carrying larger payloads and installing them at greater projectdepths are being delivered and deployed to todays offshore wind farms

o End users comfortable with technology and capabilities

Advanced Installation Concepts Will Have limited Uptake

o Significant investment in SPIV installation technology adds additional challenges for new

vessel conceptso Marginal increases in installation efficiencies will not be enough to warrant investment

in unproven technologies

o Transportation of fully assembled turbines over long distances has not been

accomplished and introduces concerns over the impact of transportation loads to the

wind turbine

o Integrated approaches combining new foundation technologies and loading/installationmethods may offer enough financial benefits to be considered

Conclusions


17/29

17

Floating Foundation Technology


18/29

Increased Depth Drives Shifts in Foundation Technology

18

Gravity Monopile Tripod Jacket

Description

Re-enforced concrete Steel structure Heavy steel structure Lattice steel structure

Max Water

Depth30 meters 25-35 meters 35-40 meters 45-50 meters

Max Turbine

SizeSuitable for +5 MW turbines 3.6 MW turbines Suitable for +5 MW turbines Suitable for +5 MW turbines

Weight at Max

Water Depth (t)

1,400 300 700 700

Bigger turbines and deeper project depths drive uptake of larger

foundation technology in the long term

Expected to makeup the majority of

installations through 2020

Current industry focus

technology


19/29

Project Depths >50m Drive Floating Foundation Research

19

Key Areas of Concern for Floating TechnologySource: MAKE Consulting

Massive forces from turbine pitching, rapid acceleration/deceleration

Compensated for by pitch controls may undermine power production

Drive train bearing failure concerns

Heave, Pitch

& Roll

Servicing a pitching and bobbing platform from jack up barge

Towable platforms may be advantaged in this respect

Increases the criticality for onshore service facilities

Major

Component

Service

Understanding the weather windows required for towing fully assembled units

Blades and drive shaft are fixed, and unable to pitch to compensate loads

Distance from onshore facility a critical factor

Logistical

Concerns

Floating Foundations Have Promise, Significant Challenges


20/29

Floating Foundations Could Unlock Additional Growth

20

Regional Offshore Wind Market NeedsSource: MAKE Consulting

Chinese offshore wind concession

projects jumpstart growth

shallow/intertidal installations in

near term

Japan and

South Korea

both in need

of deepwater

solutions toscale offshore

wind industry

effectively

Maine leading U.S.

efforts to develop

floating offshore wind

solutions

Deepwater pilot

programs in process in

Portugal, Spain, France

and Italy

UK and German offshore wind

suffices with existing foundation

technology for foreseeable future

Traditional foundation technologies

Focus regions for deepwater solutions


21/29

Focus Markets For Floating Tech Attractiveness Varies

21

Country RE Support Deep Sea Wind Activity

Spain

Target Wind

Generation

FIT or market premium

pricing options

Premium reduced 35% in

2010 (20.13/MWh )

Target Offshore

Wind

2010 = 40,9782015 = 57,086

2020 = 78,524

2010 = 0%2015 = 1%

2020 = 10%

Azimut project for 15MW offshore wind plant ...

Foundation technology TBD

France

FIT of 82/MWh for

onshore applications

Offshore FIT =

130/MWh

2010 = 11,638

2015 = 30,634

2020 = 57,900

2010 = 0%

2015 = 27%

2020 = 31%

Vertiwind project with EDFN, Technip and Converteam

to develop large scale vertical axis floating wind turbine

system

WinFlo semi-submersible project

Italy

Green Certificates

(1 GC = 1MWh) Offshore = 1.1x

multiplier

2010 = 8,398

2015 = 13,6522020 = 20,000

2010 = 0%

2015 = 4%2020 = 12%

Blue H floating foundation prototype launched in 2007

Proposal out for 90MW farm using Blue H technology offcoast of Southern Italy

Portugal 2005 1.8GW tender

buildout through 2014

Wind FIT (73/MWh)

2010 = 10,214

2015 = 13,400

2020 = 14,596

2010 = 0%

2015 = 1%

2020 = 2%

Vestas and EDPR will launch prototype of Principle Power

semi-submersible floating wind turbine concept in 2011

U.S.

Maine State RPS of 10% RE

generation by 2017

2015 = 2GW

2020 = 3GW

2030 = 8GW

2015 = 0%

2020 = 10%

2030 = 63%

RFP out for 25MW offshore wind utilizing floating

foundations for deployment in 2016 timeframe

South

Korea

RPS Target = 5% in 2011,

11% in 2030

2X REC for offshore wind

power

2012 = 1GW

2025 = 13.5GW

(per KWEA)

2012=0.1GW

2016= 0.9GW

2019=2.5GW

Government moving forward on public/private

partnership to Invest USD 7.8 Billion in 2.5GW offshore

wind power plant

Pushing for floating foundation IEC std.

Japan National RPS of 16 TWh

(~1.5%) by 20142010 = 3GW None defined

Wide variety of university sponsored programs


22/29

Analysis of Floating Foundation Concepts

22

Indicates seaworthiness of the foundation technology through control of pitch and heave motions

Indicates the level of complexity associated

with the transport of turbine/ foundation

from port to site

Indicates likely cost benefits/detriments based on

foundation weight (steel usage)

Indicated complexity and robustness of

anchoring/mooring concept

Indicates ease of access to the turbine

systems onboard the foundation for

scheduled and unscheduled maintenance

3 2 1

Platform StabilityPitch and heave motions minimized with

validated passive mooring system

Pitch and heave motion compensation

requires use of advanced control systems

validated at lull scale or lab level

System stability unknown/untested

Turbine ServiceTurbines easily accessed by non-specialized

service vessels on-site

Turbines are accessible by helicopter or

specialized service vessels for service on-siteTurbines must be towed into port for service

System InstallationIn-port assembly of turbine and tow to site

with 1-2 non-specialized vessels

At sea turbine installation requiring non-

specialized vessel

At sea turbine installation requiring

specialized vessel

Anchoring SystemUtilizes simple catenary line mooring system

with simple sea anchor technology

Requires use of taut line mooring system with

more elaborate sea anchor

Requires use of specialized anchoring

system unique to wind industry

Foundation WeightSteel usage on par with jacket/tripod

foundation technology

Steel usage equivalent with jacket/tripod


Steel usage well in excess with jacket/tripod


Explanation of Analysis

Anchoring

System

Foundation

Weight

Platform Stability

Turbine

Service

System

Installation


23/29

Principle PowerAdvanced Semi-Submersible Concept

23

Principle Power Floating FoundationSource: Principle Power (images)

Portugal prototype deployment under construction

Turbine agnostic philosophy enables use of variety of

turbine technologies, thus expanding total available

market opportunity

Active ballasting control system technology and water

entrapment plates utilized for enhanced stability

o Semi-submersible design inherently has lower level of

dynamic coupling between wind and wave induced motion

o Control system cost, complexity and maintenance concerns

Port assembly and commissioning of turbine provides

advantages with respect to installation costso Typical tug dayrates stand at 2,500 EUR/day versus self-

propelled installation vessels at upwards of 135,00 EUR/day

Scale of the foundation and associated assembly operation

will likely require specialized port facilities for foundation

production and deployment

Name Principle Power PartnershipsStatoilHydro/

Siemens

Base Technology Semi-Submersible Design Depth (m) >50m

Anchor System Catenary Lines Weight (tonne) 2,500


Advanced controls and massive substructure provide stability, but drive

system cost concerns

Anchoring

System

Foundation

Weight

Platform Stability

Turbine

Service

System

Installation


24/29

HywindFirst Full Scale Floating Turbine System

24

Hywind Floating Foundation

Source: Hywind (images) Strong partnership with industry leaders

Holds the honor of the worlds first large scale floating

wind turbine deployment

Turbine agnostic philosophy enables use of variety of

turbine technologies

o Turbine control technology may need to be adapted to aid

motion compensation, enhance turbine reliability

Spar buoy concept employs simplistic design and

fabrication, but requires a tremendous amount of steel

o Ballast stability requires no specialized control equipment

o Deep draft limits usage to water depths in excess of 100m

Foundation upending operation requires multiple vessels,

and also requires specialized offshore turbine installation

vessel to complete turbine assembly at sea

Turbine service on-site may require need of specialized

personnel access systems (Amplemann system)

Name Hywind PartnershipsStatoilHydro/

Siemens

Base Technology Spar-Buoy Design Depth (m) >100m

Anchor System

Three ballasted

catenary mooring

lines

Weight (tonne)

HywindFirst Full Scale Floating Turbine System

Anchoring

System

Foundation

Weight

Platform Stability

Turbine

Service

System

Installation

Simplest design of the floating foundation types, but offers less

installation cost advantages


25/29

Sway - Innovative Hybrid Approach

25

Sway Floating Foundation

Source: Hywind (images)

Sway working with AREVA to modify M5000 platform fordownwind operation

o Sway is also planning on deploying its own unique 10MW

direct drive wind turbine

System employs a floating tower substructure similar to

the Hywind spar buoy, but uses a single tension rod

coupled to a suction anchor for station keeping

o Single tendon with dual U-joints allows foundation &

turbine to yaw with changing wind directions

o Subsea yaw mechanism requires a more elaborate tower

design to enable access to yaw system for maintenance

o Tension rod setup is a potential single point of failure

concern

Tower stiffening mechanism to cope with turbine loads

with lower material costs

o Spreader bars and tension lines employed in a similar

manner as a typical sailboat mast

Name Sway Partnerships

Statoil/

Statkraft/

Inocean/ Lyse

Base TechnologyHybrid spar

buoy/TLPDesign Depth (m) >100m

Anchor System Single tension leg Weight (tonne) 1,050


Hybrid approach aids in reducing weight issues of typical spar buoy, but

requires complicated system yaw device


26/29

Blue H - Pioneering Tension Leg Platform

26

Blue H Floating Foundation

Source: Blue H (images) First floating wind turbine to ever be deployed

o 80kW turbine utilized for initial test, with plans to move to

2.5MW system in Phase II

Original plans to deploy in-house two-bladed turbine

o Turbine efforts spun off into different subsidiary

Tension leg platform rebranded as Submerged Deepwater

Platform (SDP)

o Semi-submersible floating structure is tethered to a large

ballast structure that sits on the ocean floor

o Additional thrust of platform buoyancy keeps mooring lines

taut and minimizes pitch and roll

Dynamic loading of tension legs over time requires

expensive mooring lines and introduces fatigue failure

concerns

Port assembly and commissioning of turbine provides

advantages with respect to installation costs

Name Blue H PartnershipsProgeco,

Ansaldo

Base TechnologyTension Leg

PlatformDesign Depth (m) >100m

Anchor SystemSix taut tension

linesWeight (tonne) 650


Tension leg platform offers excellent stability with low foundation

weights, but expensive mooring systemAnchoring

System

Foundation

Weight

Platform Stability

Turbine

Service

System

Installation


27/29

WindSea - Turbine Island Concept

27

WindSea Floating Foundation

Source: WindSea (images)

Ambitious, highly integrated system designo Complex semi-submersible structure with two upwind

turbines with one downwind turbine

o Upwind turbines situated on inclined towers, while

downwind turbine elevated to minimize wake effect

o No active ballast control, but may use heave plates

Turbine Island pivots into prevailing wind with aid

of aerodynamically tailored tower on rear turbine

and detachable center turret swivel

Turbine wake issues minimized but still present (7%loss of production from three standalone turbines)

Installation and service strategy calls for entire

platform to be towed into & out of port

o Single turbine failure could take all turbines out of service

o Size of structure likely requires multiple tugs


Name WindSea Partnerships FORCE/NLI

Base Technology Semi-submersible Design Depth (m) >45m

Anchor System Six Catenary Lines Weight (tonne) 4,600

Tight control integration of three turbines for Turbine Island concept

poses significant concerns for plant wide availabilityAnchoring

System

Foundation

Weight

Platform Stability

Turbine

Service

System

Installation


28/29

28

Conclusions

Floating Foundation Technology Has Long Term Market Potential

o Steel jackets and tripod/tripile technology will capture a majority of mid to long termmarket demand

o Saturation of offshore of developable resources in waters


29/29

Copyright 2011 MAKE Consulting A/S. All rights reserved.Reproduction or distribution of this report in any form without prior written permission

is strictly forbidden. Violation of the above restrictions will be subject to legal action

under the Danish Arbitration Act. The information herein is taken from sources

considered reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not warranted, nor are the

opinions, analyses and forecasts on which they are based. MAKE Consulting A/S cannot

be held liable for any errors in this report, neither can MAKE Consulting A/S be liable for

any financial loss or damage caused by the use of the information presented in this

report.

MAKE Consulting

Aarhus, Denmark (Head Office)

Chicago, USA

Boston, USA

Tianjin, P. R. China

www.make-consulting.com

Reports and notes recently compiledby MAKE Consulting:

Q2 2011 Market Outlook Update(quarterly update, June 28, 2011)

Global Policy Horizon: 1H 2011 Global Policy Horizon(global policy horizon, June 24, 2011)

Wind could benefit from German nuclear phase out(flash note, June 14, 2011)

Supply Side 2011(market report, June 3, 2011)

Cash flow issues push Chinese OEMs to reducedependency on IPPs(flash note, May 30, 2011)

U.S. Project Pipeline 2011(research presentation, May 19, 2011)

U.S. Wind Power 2011(business study, May 19, 2011

Inner Mongolia takes first step to consolidate windcapacity in China

(flash note, May 17, 2011)

Assessment of the international expansion activitiesof Chinese wind turbine OEMs(research note, May 17, 2011)

GE/Converteam deal could be catalyst for new M&A(flash note, April 7, 2011)

Documents

2011-06-30-Innovation on the Horizon for Offshore Wind Logistics MAKE Consulting