【FOWCoE】2024漂浮式海上风电共址共存的机遇与挑战研究报告75页_1mb

Summary of Floating Offshore Wind Co-Location and Co-Existence Risks and Opportunities Report

Core Content

This report, published by the Floating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellence (FOW CoE) on 25/01/2024, examines the potential risks and opportunities associated with the co-location and co-existence of Floating Offshore Wind (FOW) farms with other maritime industries. It aims to support the development of a collaborative and efficient consenting process for future commercial-scale FOW projects in the UK.

The report is structured around identifying and prioritising interactions between FOW and five key industries: aquaculture, carbon capture and storage (CCUS), defence, oil & gas (O&G), and subsea cables. It provides a framework for stakeholder engagement, outlines the nature of each interaction, and proposes a roadmap for addressing these interactions through targeted activities.

Main Viewpoints

• The UK offshore wind industry, particularly FOW, operates in shared marine space with other industries such as aquaculture, CCUS, defence, O&G, and subsea cables.
• Early commercialisation of FOW introduces uncertainty about its interactions with these industries, which could lead to delays or risks.
• Stakeholder engagement is critical to understanding and mitigating these risks and exploiting opportunities.
• A structured approach was used to identify, prioritise, and scope research and development activities to support co-location and co-existence.

Key Industries and Their Interactions

1. Aquaculture

• Potential Interactions:

  • A1: Policy & Regulation – Lack of design standards could delay FOW and aquaculture co-location.
  • A2: Environmental – Aquaculture attracts marine life, increasing interaction risk with FOW infrastructure.
  • A3: Physical & Technology – Shared anchors between aquaculture cages and FOW turbines could reduce CAPEX.
  • A4: Operations & Navigation – Vessel sharing opportunities for co-located facilities.
  • A5: Physical & Technology – Storm damage risk in deep water locations.
  • A6: Policy & Regulation – Regulatory gaps increase development risk.
  • A7: Environmental – Farmed fish may face parasitic pathogen risks from offshore aquaculture.
  • A8: Environmental – Offshore aquaculture could reduce environmental risks from effluent.
  • A9: Policy & Regulation – FOW developers may create internal divisions, reducing collaboration.
  • A10: Ports & Infrastructure – FOW development could support existing onshore aquaculture processing.
  • A11: Environmental – FOW operational noise and EMF emissions may impact farmed fish.

• Priority Scores:

  • High Priority: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6
  • Medium Priority: A7, A8, A9, A10, A11

2. Carbon Capture & Storage (CCUS)

• Potential Interactions:

  • CCS1: Policy & Regulation – Co-location may be perceived as high-risk, increasing financial cost.
  • CCS2: Policy & Regulation – Unclear regulatory process could reduce investor confidence.
  • CCS3: Physical & Technology – FOW could power CCUS facilities.
  • CCS4: Operations & Navigation – Shared vessel/helicopter operations for co-located projects.
  • CCS5: People & Skills – Skilled workforce competition between FOW and CCUS.
  • CCS6: Physical & Technology – FOW and CCUS infrastructure could damage each other.
  • CCS7: Physical & Technology – Spatial constraints due to FOW mooring footprints.
  • CCS8: Physical & Technology – FOW infrastructure could support CCUS seismic monitoring.

• Priority Scores:

  • High Priority: CCS1, CCS2, CCS3, CCS4, CCS6
  • Medium Priority: CCS7, CCS8

3. Defence

• Potential Interactions:

  • D1: Ports & Infrastructure – Competition for port space and infrastructure.
  • D2: Physical & Technology – FOW loss of station could create navigational hazards.
  • D3: Physical & Technology – FOW noise may affect sonar performance.
  • D4: Physical & Technology – UXO on seabed poses a risk to FOW infrastructure.
  • D5: Operations & Navigation – Tow to port/site activities could interfere with defence vessel operations.
  • D6: Policy & Regulation – PEXAs (Practice and Exercise Areas) create spatial planning constraints.
  • D7: Physical & Technology – FOW turbine motion could create radar dead zones.

• Priority Scores:

  • High Priority: D1, D2, D7
  • Medium Priority: D3, D4, D5, D6

4. Oil & Gas (O&G)

• Potential Interactions:

  • OG1: Physical & Technology – Increased interaction risk between FOW and O&G pipelines.
  • OG2: Policy & Regulation – Regulatory uncertainty may lead to developer and investor hesitation.
  • OG3: Environmental – Shared environmental monitoring opportunities.
  • OG4: Physical & Technology – Spatial constraints due to FOW mooring footprints.
  • OG5: Physical & Technology – EMF emissions may cause pipeline corrosion.
  • OG6: Physical & Technology – FOW anchor points may interfere with old/abandoned O&G infrastructure.

• Priority Scores:

  • High Priority: OG1, OG2
  • Medium Priority: OG3, OG4, OG5
  • Low Priority: OG6

5. Subsea Cables

• Potential Interactions:

  • SC1: Physical & Technology – New cable leases near FOW turbine arrays increase complexity and risk.
  • SC2: Operations & Navigation – Fishing activity may increase around subsea cables.
  • SC3: Physical & Technology – Cable proximity to FOW infrastructure may increase risks.
  • SC4: Physical & Technology – Cable maintenance and installation could be affected by FOW operations.
  • SC5: Physical & Technology – FOW infrastructure may interfere with cable operations.
  • SC6: Physical & Technology – Cable electromagnetic field emissions could impact FOW infrastructure.
  • SC7: Physical & Technology – Cable installation could be affected by FOW construction.
  • SC8: Physical & Technology – Cable maintenance may be impacted by FOW activities.

• Priority Scores:

  • High Priority: SC1, SC3, SC4, SC5, SC7, SC8
  • Medium Priority: SC2, SC6

Key Information

• The project was initiated by the FOW CoE to address co-location and co-existence risks and opportunities for FOW with other sea users.
• The report outlines a stakeholder engagement framework that includes structured 1-2-1 sessions, focusing on identifying, prioritising, and scoping interactions.
• Interactions were grouped into six categories: Physical & Technology, Operations & Navigation, Ports & Infrastructure, Policy & Regulation, Environmental, and People & Skills.
• Priority scores were assigned based on a combination of likelihood and impact, with high priority interactions requiring more immediate attention.
• The project excludes fishing, maritime navigation, and aviation industries due to prior engagement efforts and to avoid duplication.
• The findings are intended to serve as a reference for future collaboration and to support the development of a coordinated programme of activities over the next decade.

Roadmap and Recommendations

• A detailed roadmap of recommended activities is provided for each high and medium priority interaction, aimed at mitigating risks and exploiting opportunities.
• The roadmap includes specific actions for each industry, such as policy development, shared infrastructure, and joint research initiatives.
• The FOW CoE aims to use this report as a foundation for ongoing collaboration and to ensure the long-term success of FOW in the UK maritime space.

Conclusion

This report highlights the importance of proactive stakeholder engagement and strategic planning in the co-location and co-existence of Floating Offshore Wind with other maritime industries. It outlines a comprehensive set of interactions, their associated risks and opportunities, and provides a structured roadmap to address them. The findings are intended to support the development of a more integrated and sustainable offshore energy and maritime industry landscape in the UK.